[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 11, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S969-S1006]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
HOUSING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 6644, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 6644) to increase the supply of housing in
America, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Scott (SC)/Warren amendment No. 4308, in the nature of a
substitute.
Thune (for Scott (SC)/Warren) amendment No. 4307 (to
amendment No. 4308), to require the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit to Congress studies on workforce
housing, housing for persons who are elderly or disabled,
proximity of housing to Superfund sites, and residential
heirs property.
Thune amendment No. 4310 (to amendment No. 4307), to change
the enactment date.
Thune amendment No. 4311 (to the text proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 4308), to change the enactment
date.
Thune amendment No. 4312 (to amendment No. 4311), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
40th Anniversary of National TRIO Day
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to recognize the 40th anniversary
of a day we call National TRIO Day.
On February 24, 1986, a congressional resolution declared that
February 28 should be designated ``National TRIO Day.'' At the same
time, I come here to recognize the achievements of the TRIO programs.
Although there are now six distinct TRIO programs, the name TRIO
originates from the Higher Education Act of 1968. That Act consolidated
a ``trio'' of programs under one overall program. Today, these six
programs include Upward Bound, Student Support Services, Talent Search,
Educational Opportunity Centers, the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate
Achievement Program, and sixth, the Staff Development Training Program.
I am a longtime supporter of TRIO programs, and I am a member of the
TRIO caucus in the U.S. Senate. As a caucus member, I understand these
programs provide critical support to low-income, first-generation
college students and prospective students. In 2025, 54 TRIO programs in
Iowa served over 18,000 Iowans from sixth grade to graduate programs.
As we mark 40 years of National TRIO Day, I commend the educators; I
commend the counselors; and I commend the staff--all who have dedicated
their careers to students' success. At the same time, I celebrate the
generations of students whose lives have been transformed through TRIO.
I remain committed to supporting these vital programs so they may
continue expanding opportunities and building stronger futures for Iowa
and for the Nation.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S970]]
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The majority leader is recognized.
Government Funding
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we are almost now a month into the
Democrat's DHS, Department of Homeland Security, shutdown. Democrats
have essentially walked away from trying to solve it. That is right.
After almost a month of forcing DHS employees to work without pay,
Democrats have shown their true colors. They don't care about funding
Homeland Security. They don't actually care about reforming immigration
enforcement; that has also become very obvious. They are only
interested in keeping this issue alive for an election that is 8 months
away.
This is the type of political game that the American people are sick
of. I am sick of it.
I want to read for you something that was reported here by Bloomberg.
This is a Member of the Democrat leadership. The quote is this:
We are very serene with what is going on.
We are very serene with what is going on.
We have a job to do. Part of that job is funding the Federal
Government. That hadn't always been treated like a priority around
here, but this year we made some real bipartisan progress in government
funding. We made progress despite the fact that Democrats delayed
things with a record-long 43-day government shutdown last fall. And we
were on track, this year, to complete all 12 appropriations bills by
the end of January, finishing the work for fiscal year 2026 and laying
the groundwork to continue our progress in fiscal year 2027.
Among those bills was a bipartisan agreement for a full-year
Department of Homeland Security funding bill, with reforms requested by
the Democrats. It had money for more body cameras, deescalation
training, and additional oversight of immigration enforcement
activities.
But then Democrats reneged on that agreement. So we went back to the
negotiating table--or, I should say, when I say ``we,'' I mean we the
Republicans, at least, went back to the negotiating table.
Since Democrats reneged on the DHS agreement, the White House has
made two very serious offers for legislating additional reforms. The
same cannot be said of the Democrats. And with their refusal to respond
to the White House's second--and, again, serious and substantial
offer--Democrats have now essentially walked away from negotiations
entirely.
We have made repeated overtures to them to get them back to the
negotiating table, but they are not interested in talking.
It might be understandable to walk away from a negotiation when there
doesn't seem to be a prospect of coming to a resolution, but that isn't
the case here. As I said, the Republicans and the White House have
demonstrated their willingness to negotiate and compromise. It is
Democrats who are refusing to talk.
So why would Democrats walk away from what could otherwise be a very
productive negotiation? Not long ago, Democrats were telling us how
urgent the need for reform was. Now they are apparently fine without
reforms.
Now, why would that be?
Well, it could be that Democrats believe the actions the Trump
administration has already taken on its own are enough to resolve the
issues, or it could be that Democrats were never really interested in
implementing reforms in the first place.
Actually, if Democrats cared about reforms, they would be coming to
the table to get a bill. Instead, they are playing politics.
There was a time when Democrats--I remember very well--would lecture
about the importance of funding the government and the dangers of
government shutdowns. Well, those days are apparently long gone.
Democrats now see government shutdowns as a handy tool to use any time
they don't get everything that they want.
They don't care if they force people to work without pay
indefinitely. They don't care if they put our national security and
public safety in jeopardy. They only care about what is in it for them.
As I said, the American people are tired of the games. Lines get
longer at the airports because TSA isn't funded. The American people
want us to do our jobs.
Republicans are at the table. We are ready to work toward a solution.
Democrats have walked away, and they will need to explain to the
American people why they refuse to do their job and why they regard
doing nothing as better than doing something.
And maybe, again, it is because, in the words of one of the Democrat
leaders, ``We are very serene with what is going on.''
We are very serene with what is going on.
That captured it.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Iran
Mr. SCHUMER. Well, while Americans are still in the dark for why we
are at war, each passing day gives us a cleaner picture of the cost of
war.
Yesterday, we learned about 140 American servicemembers have been
wounded since hostilities--8 of them seriously injured. Eight
servicemembers have been killed in the line of duty, and my prayers are
with all of those who have died and have been harmed and who are still,
of course, in harm's way.
Thousands of people in the Middle East have been killed, including
170 in an all-girls elementary school that initial reports suggested
may have been the result of U.S. operations. We need a full,
transparent, and independent investigation to get to the bottom of what
happened at this elementary school and why so many civilians were
killed.
The economic costs are also mounting. This morning, we learned that
even before the war, inflation had stayed elevated, which means that
Americans are continuing to pay more for groceries and rent and
electricity.
People want costs to go down, not to stay where they are, and that is
what we Democrats are fighting for--to lower their costs. And the
numbers came out before Donald Trump started a war in the Middle East,
which will drive prices even higher. It is almost certain that the
inflation number will go up next month, and that is just what Americans
don't want.
A gallon of gas today is $3.58, on average--60 cents more than it was
a month ago--60 cents--more than halfway to a dollar. And it is going
to get worse.
Iran's greatest leverage right now is the Strait of Hormuz, and the
new extremist Supreme Leader is not going to give up that leverage very
easily. At least three ships were attacked over the last day in the
Strait of Hormuz, bringing the total to 13.
This conflict continues to expand, not shrink, and the danger of a
shortage of oil and prices going up further is getting greater, not
lesser. Through all this change, all this chaos--higher gas prices,
rising casualties, increased hostilities--Americans are asking a very
simple question: Why? Why is America at war? Americans certainly don't
want war. Americans didn't ask for this. The answer is: There is no
good reason America is at war.
Donald Trump and his administration keep changing the story and the
rationale every day. First, it was regime change; then it was about
Iran's nuclear program; then it was to get rid of Iran's Navy; then it
was regime change again; then they say it is defensive. Depending on
whom you ask, we are either near the end of the war or we are just
getting started. And if you ask Donald Trump if we are at the end of
the war or the beginning, he says it is both.
This insanity must stop. The Senate must have public hearings with
Cabinet officials. The American public has to hear these Cabinet
officials questioned by Members of the Senate--Democrat and
Republican--as to what the heck is going on.
[[Page S971]]
Secretary Rubio, Secretary Hegseth, and other senior officials must
come to the Senate for public hearings and testify under oath as to why
our troops are fighting and dying in the Middle East. The American
people deserve answers. Senate Republicans must listen to the outrage
of the public and hold public hearings with Cabinet officials at once.
Americans don't want war--not Republican voters, not Independent
voters, not even many of Donald Trump's MAGA base. They feel betrayed
by what has happened in the Middle East, and they feel betrayed by the
Senators in this Chamber who refuse to stand up for the Constitution
and refuse to put a check on Donald Trump's belligerence--belligerence
that doesn't seem to have much of a rhyme or reason from day to day.
Department of Homeland Security
On DHS, Republicans, for weeks, have refused to address some of the
most egregious abuses from ICE that we have seen and that have plagued
cities like Minneapolis and so many other cities around the country.
Democrats have offered multiple rounds of proposals, and we are
serious--very serious--about getting something done. But Republicans
need to show that they are serious also, and we have a lot of work left
to do.
Democrats want to be reasonable. Later today, Senator Murray will
come to the floor and offer legislation to fund everything at DHS
except for ICE and Border Patrol. We can take care of TSA. We can take
care of the Coast Guard, CISA, and FEMA today. We are ready to make
sure these workers are paid. All the Republicans have to do is go along
with our unanimous consent request, not block it.
This is the second time Senator Murray will bring this bill to the
floor because last week she tried to do this and who objected?
Republicans. Republicans say they want to stand up for TSA; then they
block TSA funding. They said they are worried about FEMA and the Coast
Guard; then they blocked funding for FEMA and the Coast Guard. How
worried can they be?
If Republicans are going to play political games and block funding
for the Agencies they claim to care about, they should spare everyone
the crocodile tears. Even better, when Senator Murray brings her bill
to the floor to fund TSA, the Coast Guard, FEMA, CISA, and all the
other programs, Republicans should not get in the way.
SAVE America Act
On the SAVE Act, Donald Trump has given Republicans in Congress a
ridiculous ultimatum: Help him thoroughly undermine our democracy or he
will bring all legislation to a screeching halt. What kind of President
is this? It sounds like a pouting second grader.
Even though it is clear that the SAVE Act has little chance of
becoming law, Donald Trump is still hell-bent on getting Republicans to
ram this bill through the Chamber because he thinks undermining the
vote is the only prayer Republicans have in the midterms. Isn't that
pathetic? Republicans think they are doing so bad that they must
undermine democracy and prevent tens of millions of Americans from
voting.
Donald Trump has said it himself. He said, if Republicans can pass
the SAVE Act, ``it'll guarantee the midterms.''
Let me read that again. Donald Trump says, if Republicans pass the
SAVE Act, ``it'll guarantee the midterms.''
This is outrageous. Undermine democracy, prevent people from voting
in a democracy, and that is the only way you can win? That is not
democracy, Donald Trump; that is autocracy. Letting you or DOGE or Musk
pick who is taken off the rolls and not even notifying them when they
show up to vote--they say: You are no longer on the rolls, you are
purged--that is not democracy. But Donald Trump doesn't believe in
democracy. He sees he is losing the election because he is not dealing
with the issues Democrats are pounding away on: costs, corruption,
chaos. So he says: Let's undermine democracy. Let's kick millions off
the voter rolls, millions that we choose. It is outrageous.
The SAVE Act is nothing more than Jim Crow. It could disenfranchise
millions of American citizens--American citizens. We are not talking
about immigrants; we are talking about American citizens that are going
to be kicked off the rolls--lots of them. It will make it far harder
for people to register to vote, it will take away vote-by-mail, it will
eliminate online registration--all of these tried and true and safe
ways to participate in democracy, but Trump wants to take them away. We
know what is going on.
Donald Trump knows that November is starting to look disastrous for
him, and Republicans are seeing the same thing. So the only shot of
winning in Trump's mind is to cheat. The only shot of winning this
election for Donald Trump is to cheat, is to undermine democracy. This
is ghastly. It is one of the worst things we have seen in America in a
very long time. But Donald Trump has made it clear. He is telling
Republican Senators, he is telling Republican House Members: Either
help me undermine democracy or I will take Congress and all legislation
hostage.
Nomination of Jeremy Carl
Mr. President, finally, on Jeremy Carl, yesterday, Jeremy Carl--
Donald Trump's nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for
International Organizations--thank God, withdrew his nomination. All I
have to say is good riddance to White supremacists and rightwing
bigots. Jeremy Carl has a long history of saying violent, anti-Semitic,
and openly racist, and I am glad that his comments were exposed and
rejected.
It is troubling that we keep seeing a pattern where Donald Trump is
very much at ease nominating people with openly White supremacist and
anti-Semitic views. Jeremy Carl, Paul Ingrassia, and Darren Beattie are
three of the clearest examples of Trump being perfectly at ease
appointing individuals with White supremacy and anti-Semitism. Both
sides--both sides, Democrats and Republicans--must reject people like
these and call out anti-Semitism no matter from where it arises.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The minority whip.
Asian Carp
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 23 years ago--that is quite a few years--I
heard about a threat to the future of the Great Lakes. The threat
turned out to be a fish. Yes, a fish. This fish was imported from
somewhere in Asia--we believe China--by some people in the United
States who believed that it could be raised in confinement ponds and
sold for a profit. Whether that was ever a possibility, I don't know,
but the problem is that the area where they chose to have the
confinement ponds was flooded. And when it was flooded, this new
invasive species, this new fish, found its way into the Mississippi
River and started propagating.
It was a voracious fish. It didn't leave much room or food for other
fish in the area. It made its way into the Mississippi River and,
heading north, hit the Illinois River and headed for Lake Michigan, the
Great Lakes. It was then that they sounded an alarm and said if this
fish ever becomes commonplace in the Great Lakes, it will destroy it as
a fishery and change it forever.
So I decided 23 years ago to call on the experts and ask them: What
can we do to stop it? They weren't sure. They hadn't faced a challenge
like this in the past. But they made some suggestions. As a layman and
a person who is not a professional in the area in any way whatsoever, I
was dedicated to doing what I could to save the Great Lakes, but I
wasn't sure what that would be. They suggested we try a number of
things.
Over the years, we invested millions of dollars into the Illinois
River to stop it as a conduit for this fish into Lake Michigan and the
Great Lakes. Some of the suggestions were almost comic: the suggestion
of an electric barrier to shock the fish and hold them back, a bubble
machine that sounded like some disco program to me. All of the
suggestions went on and on. The good news is we tried a lot of things--
a lot of things--over the years, and we have been successful so far in
keeping the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. There are people who
were skeptical from the beginning that we could achieve that, but we
did.
Well, yesterday, there was a development in this plight of trying to
restrain this fish from making it into the Great Lakes. It could be a
positive one. You see, the President of the United States met with
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer yesterday, and President
[[Page S972]]
Trump posted on Truth Social that he was now joining forces with us to
stop this invasive species.
In the post, the President noted that the carp were already in the
Great Lakes.
We don't believe that is true, but they are a threat to the Great
Lakes every day, every week, every year.
But there is a problem. The measures that we are taking--the
significant measures--to protect the Great Lakes depend on an
infrastructure investment known as Brandon Road. Brandon Road is a
stretch of the Des Plaines River in Illinois, in the northern part of
Illinois, which needs to have an accommodation made to make sure that
the ships that are moving back and forth between the river and the
Great Lakes aren't allowing fish into the Great Lakes area.
It is a massive investment. The problem we have is the Army Corps of
Engineers is responsible for building this facility in the Great Lakes,
and, at the end of last year, the Trump administration delayed the
Brandon Road Interbasin Project for so-called further review.
The funding that was in place and ready to be spent to protect the
Great Lakes has been on hold. On January 15 of this year, I wrote a
letter with Senator Duckworth, my colleague from Illinois, and the
Michigan Senators asking the Trump administration to lift this review
and pause so that we can get going forward with this project.
We still have not received a response to that letter.
I called the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Adam Telle, who
reiterated the administration's support and the importance of the
Brandon Road project. However, he didn't give any indication of when
the current pause will end.
So here is the state of play: We have a new means--an effective
means--to stop these fish from invading the Great Lakes. We need the
approval of President Trump for that to happen. Yesterday, he promised
that he would be part of the solution.
Today, I am asking him to really step forward: Make the call today,
not tomorrow. Make a call today to the Army Corps of Engineers to tell
them you are lifting this Trump administration pause on the development
of Brandon Road.
I believe this is a serious threat to the future of the Great Lakes.
I am happy to have the President on board, but we need him to do so
immediately to help us move forward.
Affordability
Mr. President, on a separate topic, last week, I met with leaders
from Bloomington-Normal, IL, to discuss infrastructure. One part of
that conversation I won't forget. They showed me bottles of liquid. It
looked like tomato juice or lemonade. It was a strange looking
concoction.
It turns out it was well water found in the pipes of more than 80
homes in a community called Colonial Meadows, an unincorporated area of
McLean County, IL. It is often referred to as a county island.
I thought instantly of Flint, MI. You remember that story; we all do.
Decisions were made by local governments which exposed a lot of people
to unsafe drinking water, primarily minority populations. Years after
that happened, there were still health consequences.
We wouldn't want anyone to drink water that was coming from Flint,
MI, until it was cleaned up, and we certainly don't want that to happen
when it comes to Colonial Meadows. For nearly 180 people living in my
State, when they turn on their faucets, they see Flint, Michigan-type
water.
As I heard about these families--many of them low income or senior
citizens--I thought to myself: How can this happen after Flint, MI, and
in this year? How can we be at a point where we can't provide clean
water to Americans in the year 2026?
The answer, of course, is money. It is costly to extend water lines
to new areas, and because it costs more than these families can afford,
they have to worry about their children bathing, brushing their teeth,
or cooking with this type of water.
That is what we are talking about when we say the word
``affordability''--that all Americans should be able to access the
basic goods they need: food, water, power, housing, and healthcare.
That should be part of the American dream that is a reality.
Our job as elected officials is to give Americans a helping hand to
afford these necessities. Sadly, the administration has not learned
that lesson.
On President Trump's watch, prices are up, and Americans are feeling
the pain of his misguided policies. More than half of all Americans say
President Trump has made the economy worse in the second term.
In February, the economy lost 92,000 jobs, and Americans are losing
faith that the President cares enough to change that.
Through chaotic tariffs, mass firings of Federal employees, and cuts
to Federal energy grants, the President has left the economy in a
weaker state than when he first came to office.
On Monday, the price of oil rose to its highest point in years
because of President Trump's invasion of Iran. Americans are already
feeling the impact.
It was October 11, 2002, in this Senate Chamber, near the hour of
midnight, that a vote was cast to determine whether or not American
forces would invade Iraq. I remember it well. I voted no. It was 23
Senators out of 100 who voted no--1 Republican, 22 Democrats.
In fairness to President George W. Bush, he understood the meaning of
the Constitution when it says Congress should declare war. We had a
fulsome debate about whether or not we should invade Iraq.
The administration, through Secretary Powell and Vice President
Cheney, presented their side of the case. It was pretty clear they
believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that threatened
the region, our allies and friends, and even the United States itself.
They believed that Saddam Hussein was not trustworthy and invaded
Kuwait, and they believed that we needed to do something about it.
They made their case, we debated it at length, and a vote was taken.
Approval was given to President Bush to move forward on the invasion of
Iraq.
As I said earlier, I voted no. I had questions in my own mind as to
whether or not we could prove there were actually weapons of mass
destruction.
What happened next? American forces rolled over Saddam Hussein and
then returned Kuwait to its independent status. But in the process,
they started searching for those weapons of mass destruction.
There were no weapons of mass destruction. Our vast intelligence
agencies and network were just plain wrong. As a consequence, we found
ourselves in a place in the Middle East with an American force of
troops on the ground and all the intended complimentary forces in a
mission that was hard to explain to anyone.
It took us years before we could finally extricate ourselves from
Iraq and Afghanistan nearby. In the process, 4,500 American lives were
lost, brave men and women in our military who served our country as
required and did it with honor. It was an expensive lesson for America
and one I hope we have learned today.
Our invasion of Iran is quite different. It was done by this
President without consultation from Congress. There was a last-minute
notification that it was going to happen in a matter of hours. That was
it.
The American people didn't get to hear the debate as to why it was
necessary to invade Iran. The war just launched itself, I guess, with
the President's approval.
The net result of that, of course, is we have so many different
explanations from the Trump administration as to why we have invaded
Iran. By my count, there are at least six or seven different
explanations in a matter of few days that we have been in that country.
The average American can't possibly understand which is the one real
reason. It is hard for me to understand with the classified briefings
we have been given.
The fact of the matter is that war is underway. We feel it, and we
see it at the gas pumps of America.
Yesterday, the average price at a gasoline pump in America was $3.50
a gallon, 60 cents higher than when the President gave the State of the
Union Address, a few weeks ago.
It is even worse for diesel. We saw prices skyrocket by more than $1
a gallon this month. That means higher costs for farmers who grow feed
and higher costs for shipping.
[[Page S973]]
In less than 2 weeks, the President's war wiped out a year of stable
fuel prices, without any clear or coherent endgame. In fact, just
yesterday, the President lifted--lifted--sanctions on Russian oil in an
ill-conceived attempt to lower gas prices.
His sanctions relief will fund Putin's war in Ukraine while, at the
same time, Russia reportedly shares intelligence with Iran on the
placement of U.S. forces.
This dizzying mess in the Middle East comes on the heels of one of
the largest increases in utility rates American families have ever
lived through. Last year in America, electric and gas utility companies
requested to raise their rates by nearly $31 billion--$31 billion. That
is more than double the increase in 2024.
Utility bills are going up. Next are your groceries. American people
complain they are the toughest bills to pay each month.
What caused this large increase? The policies of the Trump
administration. The Trump administration cut $8 billion in low-cost
clean energy and grid enhancement grants.
Think about that. We had appropriated the money. We had it ready for
distribution to lower the costs of energy into the grid in America and
to reduce the utility bills, and the President stopped it. Why? Because
one of his closest friends and supporters, a man named Harold Hamm,
announced that he would give the President $1 billion for his campaign
if the President would stop the regulation of oil and gas.
The President agreed to do that. As a consequence, American families
are paying higher utility bills than ever because of Mr. Hamm.
If you ask the President his response, ``Drill, baby, drill.'' That
is his response to everything. It may sound bold and courageous, but it
is feckless and counterproductive when it comes to the American
families' annual budgets.
These grants that were eliminated by the Trump administration would
provide more affordable energy on the grid for families and lower
utility rates. The President stopped it. Without them, utility
companies will make consumers pay for grid upgrades in the form of
higher energy bills.
While this administration is making it harder to generate
electricity, they are also allowing AI data centers to proliferate with
no consideration of their impact on energy demand.
It is interesting. Public sentiment questions these data centers,
under the current circumstance, until you add one factor: If you
require them to have clean energy sources which they have developed for
the electricity they need, public approval of the data center moves
forward.
By the year 2030, the electricity for data centers is expected to
increase by 350 percent--350 percent. One estimate predicts we will
need 100 gigawatts of new power generation to accommodate this growth.
That is enough electricity to power one-fourth of American homes--75
million homes--electricity for data centers.
If there is a clean source, let's talk about it. But if it is going
on the utility bills of American families, it is a legitimate question
as to whether or not this is a wise investment.
The President is weakening our electricity supply when demand is
spiking. The recipe would make American families pay more for their
energy.
Americans will not find any relief at the supermarket either. The
prices of groceries are at record highs. The cost of a pound of ground
beef is up more than 20 percent from last year. Orange juice is up 28
percent. Coffee is up 33 percent. I have seen that in the grocery store
myself. Prices on baby food items have increased by an average of 24
percent.
It is the No. 1 complaint from American families when it comes to
affordability.
The President promised Republicans would be the party of working
families, but instead American parents have seen the cost of raising a
family increase under this administration.
These higher costs are explained by President Trump's tariffs, which
made it harder for businesses in America to import food we cannot grow
at home. And despite the Supreme Court striking down Trump's tariffs as
illegal, this administration is doubling down on this tariff trade tax.
So the next time you shop at a grocery store and see prices even
higher than what you saw last week, remember President Trump said,
``Affordability is a hoax''--the President of the United States.
This administration is becoming increasingly detached from the
reality that American families face every day. Illinois families are
telling me they are afraid--afraid they may not be able to pay for
their groceries, their power bills, their rent. For residents like
those in unincorporated McClean County, IL, some cannot even afford
clean water.
We must give them relief, and that requires ending the President's
disastrous economic policies. The American people will have the last
word when the election is held.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Department of Homeland Security
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, for 26 days now, Democrats have left our
country undefended. Democrats in this Chamber have voted three times to
keep the Department of Homeland Security shut down.
Once again, Democrats are putting illegal immigrant criminals ahead
of the safety and security of the American people. Quoted in the press
this morning was Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat from Hawaii, who says
he has the votes wrapped up to be the next whip for the Democrat Party.
But this is what he said about what the Democrats are doing now--
keeping the Department of Homeland Security shut down. He said:
We are very serene with what is going on.
``[V]ery serene.''
Well, let me tell you what that means for our country, what the
Democrats are very serene about. Right now, at this very moment, Iran
is targeting our homeland. They have announced it. They are in the
process of--let me quote a headline that appeared yesterday in the Los
Angeles Times newspaper.
It says ``Iran's threats on U.S. soil.'' Threats to the American
people right here at home. It says ``sleeper cells, lone wolves,
cyberattacks.''
Our government's own threat assessment calls Iran a ``major threat''
to our cyber network and our data. It is the Department of Homeland
Security that is responsible for defending us from these attacks--the
very Department that Democrats in this body, that side of the hall,
refuse to fund.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is a vital part
and plays a critical role in the Department of Homeland Security. It is
the Agency that protects our critical infrastructure nationwide,
including our Nation's energy infrastructure.
Mr. President, 2,400 people provide this vital service to protect our
country each and every day, but because of the Democrat shutdown, only
1 out of every 3 of them are on the job today, and those who are, are
working without pay. All of the others have been furloughed because of
the Democrat shutdown. These are people who are critical to our
intelligence analysis. These are people who are cyber security
specialists. They are all off the job.
The Democrats say: Stay home. We don't care. We prefer illegal
immigrants than the safety and security of our Nation. Stay home. We
don't care.
And they say: We are very serene about it.
Can you imagine that? The security assessments, the vulnerability
scans, the protective guidance for our networks--they have been
canceled or delayed because of the Democrats' actions. Our energy
grids, our hospitals, our State and local governments--they are all
left exposed. Democrats are serene about that this morning. That is
what they say.
This is all happening because the Democrats are driven by the far-
left ideology of their most radical supporters, and that is why they
have shut down the Department of Homeland Security.
At major airports across the country, TSA security lines are taking
hours for people to get through. Fifty thousand TSA agents are missing
their paychecks, and many of them live paycheck to paycheck. For the
third time in just 6 months, Democrats are forcing TSA agents to work
without pay.
[[Page S974]]
CBS News reported last night on what that means. It means unscheduled
absences have doubled in the shutdown. Hundreds of qualified,
experienced agents have quit.
This is what happens when Democrats force people to work without pay.
Some go and get other jobs, take part-time jobs, don't show up for
work. Well, how do the American people respond? Well, services clubs
are holding food drives for the unpaid agents. Our Rotary Club in
Casper, WY, has done the exact same thing to help these agents because
the Democrats want to keep the Department of Homeland Security shut
down.
Think about that--a food drive for Federal workers who are going to
work every single day who can't get paid. And what do the Democrats
have to say about it? ``We are very serene with what is going on.''
That is how the Democrats look at it today, sitting back in their
serenity, watching as people suffer, people work without getting paid,
and our Nation's security at risk today. Democrats don't seem to care.
Once again, they are much more interested in protecting illegal
immigrant criminals than they are in protecting the well-being and the
safety and security of the American people.
As Democrats keep the Department of Homeland Security shut down, the
threats continue to grow, and our vulnerability continues to be
exposed.
This past weekend, in Senator Schumer's--the minority leader--
hometown of New York City, two radical Islamic terrorists threw
homemade bombs into a crowd--New York City--in front of the mayor's
residence. The attempted bombing was carried out by two individuals who
identify closely with the terrorist group ISIS.
Recall that ``ISIS'' stands for the ``Islamic State.''
The New York City Police Department reported that the explosive
devices could have caused serious injury, could have caused death, and
we are fortunate that no one died.
A week earlier, as the world knows, in Austin, TX, another radical
Islamist terrorist opened fire into a crowded restaurant. Three people
were murdered, and a dozen more were wounded. The shooter wore a T-
shirt. What did it say? It had an Iranian flag on it. It was underneath
a sweatshirt that said ``Property of Allah.''
These are the threats we face right here on American soil today. It
is reckless for the Democrats to shut down the Department designed to
stop terrorists, and it is insulting to the American people to say that
they are serene about it.
Defunding American security is disruptive, it is dangerous, and it is
deadly.
Let me tell you about one more person. Her name is Stephanie Minter.
She was a mother, 41 years old, from Fredericksburg, VA. Two weeks ago,
Stephanie was waiting at a bus stop not an hour away from where we
stand right here in the U.S. Capitol. She was stabbed to death by an
illegal immigrant criminal--stabbed to death.
Do you know when her killer entered the country illegally? In 2012.
Barack Obama was President at the time. Do you know how many times that
killer has been arrested here in the United States in those 14 years he
has been here illegally? Thirty times. Arrested thirty times and
arrested for violent crimes--multiple stabbings, assaults, for rape. Do
you know how many times he was convicted? Zero. Why? Because pro-crime
Democrats--Democrats who prefer illegal immigrant criminals over
American law-abiding citizens--pro-crime Democrats kept dropping
charges time after time after time because the pro-crime Democrats were
worried about something--in their words, they were worried about
``immigration consequences.''
``[I]mmigration consequences''? What about the effect on the victims
of these crimes? And now this death in Northern Virginia, right across
the river. It is happening right across the river in Fairfax County,
VA. Who supports this? Well, apparently the Democrats do, sanctuary
State Democrats. Democrats like their newly-elected Governor of
Virginia because on her very first day in office--and, of course, she
ran as a moderate--on her very first day in office, she announced that
Virginia would no longer cooperate with Federal immigration
enforcement.
You know they used to say: There is a new sheriff in town. This isn't
a sheriff; this is somebody that wants to undermine the law of our
Nation, undermine the security of the American people.
Get this: She said that enforcing Federal immigration law ``is
certainly not contributing to any strengthening of our community--let
alone making our communities safer.''
This is blood on their hands. This is blood on the hands of the
Democrats.
Governor Spanberger is wrong. Enforcing Federal immigration laws
saves American lives. Failing to enforce them endangers every American.
The police force--the police are beside themselves. The county police
from Fairfax County repeatedly warned the liberal prosecutors to lock
up this killer who killed Stephanie. But what happened? The local
police commander wrote: ``It is not a question of if'' this man will
hurt someone ``but rather when.'' And now it happened with a murder.
Three months after that message was sent, Stephanie Minter was murdered
by an illegal immigrant in cold blood.
We owe every American citizen a government that keeps them safe and
secure.
The Democrats have a whole different view of America today. It is not
a view of laws, citizenship; it is a view of open borders and illegal
immigrant criminals.
Republicans want a nation where mothers can go to work, where college
kids can go out on runs, where women can ride on the train without fear
of losing their lives to illegal immigrant criminals being protected by
the Democrats.
Democrats are fighting for something so different than what
Republicans believe the American Nation stands for and our history
stands for. They want open borders. They want to release illegal
immigrant criminals into our communities. They want to turn America
into a sanctuary country. That is why they defunded the Department of
Homeland Security.
Make no mistake, if Democrats continue to obstruct funding for the
Department of Homeland Security, more blood will be on their hands.
The next terrorist plot that goes undetected, Democrats, blood will
be on your hands.
The next lone wolf attack, Democrats, blood will be on your hands.
The next criminal who crosses our border illegally and kills an
innocent American, Democrats, blood will be on your hands.
The American people deserve safety and security. It is time to reopen
the Department of Homeland Security. It is time to pay the people who
protect our country. Let them get back to work protecting us. It is
time to put the American people first, not illegal immigrant criminals,
as the Democrats continue to want to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Energy
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss a
pivotal time for American energy security in light of the Iranian
regime's continued actions to undermine the stability of global energy
markets.
Over the past two decades, our Nation has transformed itself from a
position of energy dependence to one of energy dominance.
In the early 2000s, our country produced roughly 5 million barrels of
oil per day. Last October, U.S. producers delivered a record 13.86
million barrels daily, so almost 14 million barrels a day. We have gone
from 5 million to almost 14 million barrels a day in domestic oil
production. This tremendous increase was driven by the shale
revolution, which reshaped global energy markets and strengthened our
national security.
Americans consume about 13.8 million barrels of transportation fuels
per day--so roughly 14 million barrels per day--which includes 9
million barrels of gasoline, illustrating how critical domestic
production is to meeting the demand and how far we have come.
Innovation and American entrepreneurship in places like my home State
of North Dakota and the Bakken formation have made that possible.
Through advancements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing,
American producers cracked the code and unlocked oil reserves once
thought
[[Page S975]]
to be out of reach. As a result, we are able to better leverage our
Nation's abundant oil and gas reserves--a vitally strategic asset in
the face of instability in the Middle East and other parts of the
globe.
To maintain our energy leadership, we must not only focus on
sustaining production but also growing it and continuing to grow
domestic energy production here at home. This means continuing to
innovate and improve the amount of oil we can recover from the wells
that we have already drilled. It is just common sense. Today, we only
recover about 10 percent of the oil from unconventional shale
formations like the Bakken in my home State--only 10 percent of the oil
that is there and available.
That is why we are embarking on the next phase of the shale
revolution, which we are calling Crack the Code 2.0. We are bringing
together energy leaders and State and Federal partners, including the
Department of Energy, to develop and employ enhanced oil recovery
techniques using CO2 on a commercially viable basis. We are
focusing on linking oil producers with our baseload coal-fired
powerplants that provide a reliable source of CO2 for
enhanced oil recovery--EOR, enhanced oil recovery. Doing so presents
the opportunity to unlock 5 billion--5 billion--additional barrels of
oil just out of the Bakken, just out of North Dakota, and billions more
from other shale formations from Texas to Pennsylvania.
Sustaining and growing U.S. production means strengthening our
ability to supply energy both domestically and abroad. As long as oil
remains a globally traded commodity, stability matters, especially in
times of geopolitical uncertainty. Iran is taking deliberate action to
disrupt global energy flows by attacking energy infrastructure in the
region and threatening oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Thankfully, the United States is in a much stronger position today
because we have more than doubled our domestic production. As I said,
we have gone from 5 to 14 million barrels a day. Our energy producers
have become a stabilizing force in the global marketplace, limiting the
ability of hostile regimes to weaponize access to energy, but we still
need to produce more here at home, both now and for the long run.
The first phase of the shale revolution unlocked tremendous energy
resources in our Nation. The next phase must focus on maximizing the
responsible recovery of our vast energy reserves and extending the life
of these oilfields to sustain and grow production. That is exactly what
Crack the Code 2.0 is all about.
It is no surprise that we have seen oil prices rise and fall rapidly
during the conflict with Iran. The Strait of Hormuz carries more than
20 percent of the world's liquid petroleum products, and 90 percent of
the world's reserve surge production capacity is up-channel from the
Strait. Despite Iranian threats, there are things that can be done to
secure the Strait of Hormuz and reduce energy price volatility.
First, as the President has said repeatedly, Operation Epic Fury will
be limited to weeks, not months, so we should expect oil price spikes
to be short-lived.
Second, we continue to strike Iran's ability to project power,
including Iran's ability to threaten ship traffic in the Strait of
Hormuz.
Third, while operations continue, the administration is moving to
increase insurance coverage for vessels that travel through the Strait
of Hormuz.
Fourth, our Navy is capable of escorting vessels through the Strait
if the President decides such escorts are necessary, reinforced by
airborne overwatch of the Strait. Of course, we always have the option
of utilizing our Strategic Petroleum Reserve as well.
So we have options to minimize disruptions to energy prices. But make
no mistake, conducting this kind of campaign against Iran 20 or 30
years ago would have been a much bigger energy problem. When we were
only producing 5 million barrels a day versus the 14 million today,
which covers essentially what we use, it would have been a different
equation. Iran deterred us from attacking due to its stranglehold on
oil resources. The combination of robust American energy production and
the power of the American military means the best Iran can do now is
cause a temporary disruption. We will overcome that, and we will be
better off for it in the long run.
Remember, energy security is all about domestic security. Energy
security here at home is national security, and that is the path we are
on. That is the long-term path we are on, which means greater security
and safety, lower prices, and stability for all Americans in the
future. It is about solving the problem. Are there temporary
disruptions and difficulties to navigate? Of course, there are, but the
long-run goal is energy security, which is national security for this
Nation.
I want to conclude by thanking our incredible men and women in
uniform. Our gratitude and prayers remain with those brave
servicemembers who are carrying out these operations. They are doing an
incredible job.
May God bless them.
Department of Homeland Security
On another note, Mr. President, we also extend our gratitude to the
men and women of the Department of Homeland Security who have been
working now without pay. We need to fund the Department of Homeland
Security. It is that simple. We need to fund the Department of Homeland
Security, which is more important now than ever.
We have offered to make reforms to ICE. We have offered to the
Democrats ``body cameras'' and ``more training.'' The President has
made changes at the DHS. He sent Tom Homan to Minneapolis to defuse
the situation there, and he recently nominated our colleague Markwayne
Mullin to lead the Department. We have offered a clean continuing
resolution, passing funding levels--get this. We have offered a clean
continuing resolution, passing the funding levels agreed to under
President Biden.
Did you hear that, Democrats? They were agreed to under President
Biden. You are opposing what you supported under President Biden so
that TSA workers don't get paid.
How can that make sense to anybody?
I hope the American public understands that because, at some point,
they had better call their Democratic Representatives and ask: Hey, how
does that make any sense whatsoever?
We have offered to pass legislation Democrats negotiated with us to
fund DHS. We had an agreement. We negotiated the bill, and they agreed
to it. It passed in the House. We negotiated it, and they agreed to
pass the bill, but now they won't do that. So not only will they not
pass that bill, but they won't pass the CR that they passed under the
Biden administration.
Explain that to me, please. How could Republicans be holding it up
when they won't pass their own legislation to fund the TSA? I hope
people across the country understand that.
The bottom line is this: The Democrats need to join with us to get
the DHS funded so we can pay hard-working Americans from the TSA to our
Coast Guard to CISA--cyber security. How important is that? Cyber
security--the folks who work to keep our Nation safe.
Look, if Democrats want to continue to debate ICE and ICE reforms,
fine. We can do that. But, at the very least, join with us in passing a
continuing resolution so that the TSA gets paid while we do it. Come
on.
Again, I think the public has to say to our Democratic colleagues:
OK. Fine. If you want to keep negotiating about ICE, fine. At least put
a CR in place so that the TSA gets paid so, when people go to the
airport, they aren't standing around for hours.
We are willing to do it right now--right now. Let's fund the DHS and
move on from this unnecessary shutdown. We owe it to the hard-working
Americans at the Department of Homeland Security.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
H.R. 6644
Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the millions of
Americans who are looking to achieve the dream of owning a home. For
the first time in almost 20 years, the Senate is advancing a major
housing package, and it is long overdue.
Housing is one of the greatest ways to grow wealth in this country.
Yet it is out of reach for so many Americans. Last year, the average
age of a first-time home buyer hit an alltime high of
[[Page S976]]
40 years of age--40 years old to buy a home. That is not fair or
sustainable, which is why, today, I am proud to support the 21st
Century ROAD to Housing Act. This bipartisan bill will take meaningful
steps to lower the first-time home buyer age significantly by allowing
for the construction of substantially more homes at more affordable
prices.
To be very clear, this bill is focused on expanding our housing
supply and lowering costs, and Congress owes it to all of the Americans
we serve to tackle this problem that is plaguing so many Americans
around our country.
My home State of New Jersey knows all too well of the problems posed
by a lack of housing supply. Jersey is the most densely populated State
in the country. Yet, despite this, Jersey has been one of the slowest
States in the country to approve new housing construction. In fact, New
Jersey is one of the slowest States in the Nation to approve new
housing construction. In some cases, it takes 5 to 7 years just to
approve new housing and start construction. This is unacceptable in New
Jersey or anywhere in this country. We must do better.
To spur the construction of more housing, I championed permitting
reform with Senator Rounds. These reforms provide a balance between
strong environmental protections and getting rid of inefficient
redtape, which will help build more houses for New Jersey families and
families around this country. This is a commonsense solution that will
get more houses built and more New Jersey families in the door.
At the same time, we have to be focused on increasing financing
opportunities for new housing construction. As I travel around my
State, I hear constantly from mayors who are looking to find ways to
finance new housing. So I led a bill, included in this package, to
allow municipalities, for the first time, to use community development
block grant--CDBG--funding for the construction of new housing. This
provision will give mayors the flexibility they need to build more and
help more people lay roots in their communities and grow their cities.
So much of this work also depends on strong private-public
partnerships. New Jersey is in the center of the country's financial
system, and for too long, banks have faced a statutory cap on how much
they can invest into communities. I am proud to have led legislation
that will increase this cap, which will unlock billions in capital for
new housing.
In addition to these policies that I truly believe will spur housing
construction and help more Americans achieve home ownership, the
package also reauthorizes critical programs that help my State,
including the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery
Program and the HOME Investment Partnership Program. In the aftermath
of Superstorm Sandy, New Jersey received over $4 billion from the CDBG-
DR Program to build that.
Even more, as we continue dealing with climate events, we must take
steps to ensure the most vulnerable communities are protected,
including South Jersey, where I am from. Reauthorizing the CDBG-DR in
this package protects my constituents and shows that the government is
a force for good.
This is a robust set of bills. This package takes the first
meaningful steps to address the housing crisis in our country.
The package is also the product of strong bipartisan work in a tough
partisan political climate. In all of the policies I listed above, I
worked with my colleagues across the aisle. So I want to especially
thank Senators Rounds, McCormick, Scott, Moreno, and Blunt Rochester
for working with me to take smart, sensible steps to lower costs and
build more housing. I also want to express my gratitude to Chair Scott
and Ranking Member Warren for leading this effort.
At a time when more Americans are losing faith in the American dream,
at a time when more Americans are losing faith in the political system
and their politicians, this package sends the message that we can still
work together to solve hard problems facing Americans. This is a moment
for us to come together and get something done for Americans. There is
still more work to be done. There are still things that we need to fix.
There are still efforts we need to do to be able to build the kind of
effort across this country that the American people deserve.
This is not the end. I want to work with all of my colleagues to
figure out how we can make this stronger, how we can continue to keep
pushing forward and address the needs, until we can finally look our
constituents in the eyes and tell them that we have taken the steps and
that we have worked with a sense of urgency that every single one of
them deserves to be able to improve their lives and help them be able
to build the families that they want to. So let's build more. Let's
lower costs. Let's pass the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Pete Hegseth
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, in my 13 years serving in the U.S. Senate
and before that as Lieutenant Governor in Hawaii, I have met military
officers at every level. And no matter age or rank, regardless of what
they do or where they serve, they are every bit as disciplined,
principled, committed, and brave as you could possibly imagine. They
are patriots in every sense of the word, and you can't help but be
impressed and inspired by them.
But the same can't be said about the man who commands them, the
Secretary of Defense. Particularly in recent days since the war on Iran
began, Secretary Hegseth has demonstrated a shocking lack of emotional
maturity and a basic understanding of the gravity of the situation. And
instead of characterizing what he said, I want to read verbatim a few
recent statements:
[D]eath and destruction from the sky all day long. This was
never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight.
We are punching them while they're down, which is exactly how
it should be.
They are toast and they know it, or at least soon enough
they will know it.
America is winning decisively, devastatingly and without
mercy.
What happened to ``walk softly and carry a big stick''?
Here is another quote:
Israel has clear missions as well for which we are
grateful, capable partners, as we've said since the
beginning, capable partners are good partners, unlike so many
of our traditional allies who wring their hands and clutch
their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force.
America, regardless of what so-called international
institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise
air power campaign in history. B-2s, fighters, drones,
missiles, and of course classified effects. All on our terms
with maximum authorities. No stupid rules of engagement . . .
no politically correct wars.
And this one might be the most bizarre:
We're going to go on offense, not just on defense. Maximum
lethality, not tepid legality . . .
This is from the Secretary of Defense:
Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not
politically correct. We're going to raise up warriors, not
just defenders.
This is the man overseeing the most powerful military force in the
history of the world spelling out his unique and unlawful theory of
action. He finds the Geneva Conventions and our rules of engagement,
not just logistically inconvenient, but--to use his own word
``stupid''--``stupid.''
And as we are seeing in real time, there are moral and strategic
consequences for the callousness and the sloppiness atop the chain of
command. It is very likely a school being blown up, leaving 168
children dead. It is the botched evacuation of American diplomats and
servicemembers in the region who are stranded while Iranian missiles
fly into American facilities.
But even if you somehow accept the administration's unusually high
tolerance for casualties and bad outcomes, this carelessness resulted
in them killing the very people they were hoping would take over.
This is not: War is hell and bad things happen. War is hell. We all
know that, and that is why most people--but especially our
servicemembers--oppose it unless absolutely necessary.
It was Dwight Eisenhower only months after he had helped lead the
allies to victory in World War II who declared:
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as
one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.
[[Page S977]]
War presents impossible choices, and wanting precision planning and
professionalism does not make you weak. It means that you grasp the
gravity of the war. It means that you are not casual about using
kinetic force--not because you are afraid, but because you understand
exactly what comes next, that for all our military might and
capability, war is not something to revel in. Violence is not to be
glorified. Death, whether of an Army Reserve officer from Des Moines or
an Iranian schoolgirl, cannot be shrugged off.
Immaturity and incompetence are a lethal combination on a
battlefield. And if Secretary Hegseth's alarming behavior continues, it
will not end well for us.
H.R. 6644
Mr. President, there is a problem with the ROAD to Housing bill, and
I will stipulate--I won't clear my throat for 10 minutes about this. I
will stipulate that there are a lot of good things in this bill that
are kind of on the pro-housing supply side, but what we are about to do
is essentially ban a specific kind of housing.
There are about 47,000 units a year that are in what they call the
build-to-rent category for single-family homes and duplexes. What does
that mean? It means that a developer comes in and builds the homes and
then rents them out.
It is small. It is not the main part of the housing market, but
47,000 units is about 150,000 people per year who occupy these units.
Now, there was an original idea to go after hedge fund ownership of
housing. What they are doing in certain metro areas is they are using
algorithms and buying up individual single-family homes and getting a
market penetration that is causing alarm. So there is a provision in
this bill that deals with hedge fund ownership of single-family homes.
There is also a section that does a very bizarre thing, which is not
only for hedge funds, but anybody who owns and rents out more than 350
units--single family or duplexes--must sell. The Federal Government is
forcing a sale at the end of a 7-year period.
There is literally no reason for this, and the problem is that it was
written in such a way that it was trying to capture the hedge fund
problem, but they wrote it wrong. They wrote it wrong. And so the
definition of institutional investor says essentially anyone who owns
and operates more than 350 units to rent.
That is bananas. We are now targeting LLCs, limited partnerships,
real estate investment trusts, individual owners, family companies,
pension funds. Anyone who wants to build housing and then provide it
for rent is going to be forced to sell after 7 years.
Why does that matter? Because a lot of these folks are not actually
in a position to sell after 7 years. They will not have made their
money back.
First of all, if there is a forced Federal Government sale, most
people are just going to say: I am out of this particular line of
business. I am not doing this.
But let's suppose you go through with it, and then you are at year 5
or 6 or 7, and you go: Gosh, the Treasury Department is going to force
me to sell, say, the 500 units that I built.
How do you sell 500 units? First of all, you have to take your
master-planned development where you own the whole thing, and then you
have to ``condiminiumize'' and separate out each of the 500 units into
fee simple lots for sale. OK? And then you have to kick out the
tenants.
This idea that it is virtuous to try to get people into single-family
homes with a mortgage, but somehow, there is something nefarious about
providing rental housing to people who are not in possession of a
downpayment--they are just not.
Of course, everybody strives toward home ownership. Of course, we
have the mortgage interest deduction, which is one of the principle
means for people to enter the middle class. But if you don't have a
downpayment, you don't have a downpayment. And we have decided for no
particular reason, other than what I think is a drafting error, to
demonize people who want to build rental housing for folks.
By the way, if you are a low-income housing tax credit developer, you
are a LIHTC developer, the condition of receiving the LIHTC benefit is
that you keep it in rental housing for 30 years.
So what does that mean? It means all these LIHTC projects are going
to die.
There is literally no reason to do it this way, and it would take
like a two-line fix. But what we were told last week is: I am sorry,
the bill is closed.
I am sorry? We have been working on this for quite a long time. This
is the first time we have done anything major on housing. Let's get it
right. Let's get it right.
And I don't think people are kind of clocking how bad this is going
to be on the supply side. And that is why 100 organizations that have
all been very engaged in the developing of the individual provisions of
this bill, including the National Low Income Housing folks, the
Multifamily folks, all of the Yes in My Back Yard folks, they are all
saying: We like this bill--because they want to be polite because they
don't like to insult people in power, but they are urging us to fix
this particular section because it is going to screw up not just LIHTC,
but anything that is built for rent that is in the single-family
category or the duplex category.
And to just illustrate the absurdity, by the way, if you do a
triplex, you are fine. If you do a duplex, you must sell after 7 years.
This is positively Soviet. Like it is arbitrary.
We have decided owning is good, renting is bad. We have decided
triplexes are fine, duplexes are not. We have decided hedge funds can
have their way, by the way, with apartment complexes, but not on the
single-family home side.
There is a total illogic to the way that this thing is constructed,
and I want to make this final point a second time, actually.
A lot of the proponents of this provision, when I say all of these
things, will say: Well, aren't hedge funds a danger to the housing
supply, and aren't they jacking up the prices? And my answer to that is
yes. And that is why we have a whole different section of this bill
that deals with that.
What this section does is says nobody can be in possession of 351
units of housing for rent, and I have no earthly idea how that helps
with our national housing shortage.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Dreamers
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, every day, Americans across this
country are watching as Federal immigration enforcement commits
egregious abuses of power. They are watching as this administration
encourages the brutalization of our communities.
Now, while the focus has been on certain cities like Chicago,
Minneapolis, and Los Angeles--rightfully so because of what we are
seeing on our screens every day--The reality is that President Trump's
out-of-control immigration enforcement is happening everywhere--
everywhere.
I have heard stories in my home State of Nevada where immigration
enforcement, the enforcers, the individuals, are following people home
after they go to church and where our local police officers are being
threatened by them to turn over their undocumented family members who
are not violent criminals. It is outrageous. And the truth is what we
are seeing on TV and social media is only the tip of the iceberg.
Now, I want to highlight a group of people we haven't been hearing
enough about recently who are being immediately affected by this
administration, and that is the Dreamers. Dreamers are men and women
who came to this country as children. They have only ever known the
United States as their home.
The Dreamers that I know in Nevada, they go to college. They become a
part of our workforce. They pay billions of dollars in taxes, and they
are woven in the fabric of every community in Nevada. And many of them
are protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or
the DACA Program, as many know in this country.
DACA protects immigrants who came to the United States as children
from deportation, and it authorizes them to work legally. Let me just
say that again. DACA is a program that was set up here in the United
States, and it protects these children from deportation, and it
authorizes them to work legally in this country, pay taxes, be a part
of the economy.
DACA isn't obtained at random. These individuals--these Dreamers--
[[Page S978]]
these are applicants that undergo intense scrutiny, and every two
years, when recipients apply to renew their status, they go through a
new background check.
In my State, we have over 10,000 Dreamers who are DACA recipients.
Now, across the country there are over 500,000 DACA recipients. Let me
tell you who they are. They are nurses. They are small business owners.
They are neighbors. They are friends. They are teachers. They love this
country, and they feel as American as U.S. citizens do.
And let me just also say this. In the middle of COVID, who do you
think was on the frontline of the healthcare industry to protect
Americans and ensure that they were safe? It was Dreamers.
But despite the fact that DACA recipients are supposed to be
protected from deportation, this administration has chipped away at
these protections. They have encouraged DACA recipients to self-
deport--think about this--to self-deport to a country they have never
been to and they have never lived in.
Former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, who was just fired
for incompetence, admitted last month that they deported more than 80
DACA recipients. We don't have the answers to why this happened because
we can't get a response from Homeland Security.
But let me tell you what it does to Dreamers in my State and across
the country. Dreamers have always had to live with uncertain futures,
but now that uncertainty is worse than ever. And, unfortunately, DACA
is currently under attack in the courts because Republican attorneys
general across the country want to tear down the program.
And for Dreamers who are too young to apply for DACA, well,
unfortunately, they are on their own. And I will tell you what: Because
of that, immigration enforcement is exploiting them.
The administration's immigration enforcement is out of control. You
just have to turn on the TV, and you see it. It is overexcessive.
Dreamers are fearing for their safety and for their lives that they
have worked so hard to create here in this country. We are seeing
countless examples of this across the country, and I want to share some
of these stories.
Several of them are anonymous because, as we know--and we have seen
far too often--this administration will engage in retribution against
immigrant families who dare to speak out publicly. But I think it is
important to understand that the implications here in Washington and
the decisions that we are making are having a real impact in our
communities amongst our neighbors. So I am going to share a couple of
the stories with you.
In Denver, CO, a college sophomore studying business and her younger
sister, who was about to graduate from high school, were held in an
immigration detention center for 4 months. Now, their stepfather is a
veteran of the U.S. military, and neither sister has any criminal
history, but they were detained all the same. They were detained why
and how? Because they went to their scheduled check-in appointment that
they were required to do. They were following the law, and ICE detained
them and held them for 4 months.
Caroline is a 20-year old nursing student who has lived in Utah since
the age of seven. She was arrested without explanation and spent 15
traumatic days in a Colorado ICE detention center, despite having a
clean record, a valid work permit, and a driver's license.
An aspiring engineer in college in the Chicago area was deported
after passing through airport security on his way to visit his family
for Thanksgiving. He came to the United States from El Salvador at age
10 to escape life-threatening violence, and now he has been torn away
from his family and his future.
There is Ximena, who has lived in Georgia since she was 4 years old
and is currently studying business in college. During a routine traffic
stop, she was handed over to ICE and detained for more than 2 weeks
before the charges against her were dismissed.
Now, some will say: Oh, well, the charges were dismissed.
Think about this: You are going through your life, you are going to
college, you are studying business, you get stopped at a routine
traffic stop, and then you get arrested and put in jail for 2 weeks.
A 19-year-old studying business administration in Alabama has been in
immigration detention since January. She helps her family run their
small business. She volunteers with her church. She is an essential
part of her community. But all that is now at risk as she awaits
possible deportation.
And then there is Any, who has a full scholarship to study business
at Babson College. But while at the airport to surprise her family--
again, for Thanksgiving--Federal authorities detained and then deported
her to Honduras, directly defying a Federal judge's emergency stay that
was issued the night before. Even after this administration admitted
this was a mistake on their part, Any still remains in Honduras, trying
to get back to her family.
Then we have a music major at school, in New York, and his family.
They were detained as they were leaving church services. He was moved
across the country during his 2-month detainment, and despite facing
and fighting deportation, he is determined to finish his degree and
become a music teacher.
Marcelo, a high school student originally from Brazil, was detained
by ICE while driving to volleyball practice. Over the course of 6 days,
he reported being held with about 40 men, sleeping on concrete floors
with thin blankets, and experiencing poor conditions, including limited
showering.
Then we have a student in New York studying education who needed just
one more class to graduate. She was swept up during an immigration
enforcement action on a public street and was detained for 1 month--1
month--even though she had a pending application for special immigrant
juvenile status. Now her education is on hold as she works to recover
from her ordeal.
And then there is Emerson, who fled gang violence in Honduras with
his mother, 12 years ago. Honor student, star soccer player--that was
until he was detained at a routine ICE check--a routine ICE check--and
deported to Honduras alone without explanation.
There is a theme. Besides the overabusive, excessive, illegal actions
of this administration, if you notice, these DACA recipients are not
violent criminals--just the opposite--because they have a certain
status, because they are following the law. They are going to their
check-ins. They are trying to follow the law. They have been already
vetted by this country. They don't want to do anything wrong. More so
than anyone I know, DACA recipients don't commit crimes. They don't
even want to commit a street violation because they want the
opportunity to stay here, be U.S. citizens, and live and work like
everyone else.
I just gave you 10 stories, but I am telling you, there are so many
more like this across the country. These young men and women are not
the worst of the worst that President Trump promised to go after. They
are just the opposite. They are inspirational people who rose up
despite the adversity they faced, and they love this country. And in
return for their loyalty, for their hard work, for their commitment to
this country, this administration is punishing them. Trump and his
henchmen are choosing to go after these Dreamers. This is a choice by
this administration.
What the administration is doing to DACA recipients--to Dreamers--to
their families, and even to U.S. citizens goes against everything our
Nation was founded on. And I will tell you what: Now is our moment,
more than ever, to say ``no more,'' to stand up. I don't care what
party you are from. I don't care what State you are from. I don't care
about your background or who you are. If you are an American and you
care about who we are as a country and our ideals and how we treat our
neighbors and friends, it is time to take action.
And I will tell you the first thing that we can do here in this body
in a bipartisan way: We can pass the bipartisan Dream Act to give these
young people a path to citizenship that would put them out of harm's
way and give them the full rights and responsibilities that they
deserve in this country.
[[Page S979]]
And I will tell you what: This is the very reason why I and many of
my colleagues on the Democratic side will not give another dollar to
ICE and CBP until we have some commonsense guardrails in place so that
this indiscriminate enforcement against our communities stops.
And I will be the first to tell you: Firing Kristi Noem doesn't cut
it. That is not enough. Americans want and demand transparency. They
want accountability, and they are entitled to it. They want a
government that works for the people.
So now, more than ever, when people ask, ``What are you doing?''--not
just me, not just as a Democrat but as an American, as a citizen of
this country, as the daughter of immigrants, the granddaughter of
immigrants--I will tell you this: I will continue to fight not only for
Americans in this country but for Dreamers and their families and those
people that you have just heard about.
The stories are real. I shared them with you today because I am
hopeful that instead of just sitting in this room, talking about
numbers and policy and partisan bickering, we understand the real
implications of the decisions that we make here on the people back
home--people back home who believe in the American dream, like my
family.
I say this time and time again: My grandfather was from Chihuahua,
Mexico. When he came to this country, he served in the military and
became a U.S. citizen.
Do you think there was a reason why he did it? Hell, yes. He would
never imagine, but he would hope that one day his granddaughter would
be standing on the floor of the U.S. Senate, fighting for the same
people, for the same rights as every person who comes to this country.
That is what this is about, and I will never stop fighting for it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts). The Senator from Texas.
Working Families Tax Cut Act
Mr. CORNYN. I have been taking the time in recent days to walk
through some of the lesser known provisions of the Working Families Tax
Cut Act that, all of which combined, will make life more affordable for
the American people and the people I represent back home in Texas.
Affordability, of course, is not a new issue. Kitchen-table issues,
as I like to call them, have always been one of the most important
things in every poll that you have seen. But many people are not yet
fully aware of how the working families tax cuts are already helping to
alleviate some of these rising costs.
And, today, I want to talk about something that is not receiving the
attention it deserves from the mainstream media, and that is what
reforms we have made in the healthcare area.
Certainly, healthcare expenses are one of the most frequently cited
affordability concerns in the country, and we all understand that. But
very few people are aware of what Republicans did in the Working
Families Tax Cut Act to improve the healthcare landscape under
President Trump.
And, again, we have had to do all this because we got no support
whatsoever from the Democratic side of the aisle. Just think of what we
might be able to do if Democrats would actually get over their Trump
derangement syndrome and actually work with us in the best interest of
our constituents. There is no telling what we might be able to do.
But in the Working Families Tax Cut Act, we expanded access to
something called health savings accounts for those enrolled in bronze,
or catastrophic, exchange plans. Those, of course, referred to--the
bronze plan, of course, was part of the Affordable Care Act exchanges,
and now these are available to people who are in those exchanges as
well as catastrophic insurance plans.
What I mean by that is many people may figure out, well, the most
efficient and effective way for me to deal with my healthcare costs is
to buy a plan, a hospitalization plan, but to couple that together with
a savings account, which you can create--known as a health savings
account--to help manage your day-to-day or week-to-week or your
regular--let me just call it your regular sort of healthcare expenses,
doctor visits and the like.
HSAs are a popular tool that allows Americans to set aside pretax
dollars--pretax dollars--in a special account where their savings can
grow tax-free and use these savings to cover out-of-pocket medical
expenses. These accounts are particularly handy when unforeseen medical
expenses arise, when many Americans would otherwise have to turn to
their credit cards.
Approximately 41 percent of adults in America have medical debt in
one form or another--whether it is unpaid bills, loans, or credit card
debt--associated with healthcare expenses. Nearly half of this 41
percent owes more than $2,000--certainly a substantial amount of money
for most people. One of every eight of these individuals reported that
they owe $10,000 or more.
If more Americans had access to health savings accounts, they would
be far better prepared to face these unforeseen out-of-pocket expenses.
Again, this is pretax dollars, so basically you are having your tax
rate subsidize your healthcare expenses.
Americans who are generally healthy and don't require frequent
medical treatments will often choose to enroll in a lower tier health
plan or one of these catastrophic hospitalization plans in order to
save on their monthly premium. But when an emergency hits--a car
accident, a sports injury, or a sudden unwelcome diagnosis--an HSA, a
health savings account, can provide a cushion to soften the financial
blow and allow people to avoid incurring medical debt to pay these
unexpected bills.
In addition to expanding health savings account access, the Working
Families Tax Cut expanded access to telehealth services. This was one
of the good things that came out of the pandemic, was expanded access
to telehealth. Thanks to the fact that most people are now online and
broadband has been expanded pretty dramatically, to know that you can
access healthcare online without having to schedule a personal visit is
a real boon to many people, particularly to the elderly and folks who
are homebound. We modified the rules for insurance plans so that HSA
high-deductible plans can now offer zero-premium telehealth services on
a permanent basis.
As I said, the COVID-19 pandemic really opened all of our eyes to the
possibilities of what healthcare services can be provided efficiently
and effectively without requiring an in-person meeting or examination.
Of course, it can't do everything, but it can do a lot to help fill the
gap. Telehealth visits were one of the very positive things to come out
of what was otherwise a catastrophic global disruption known as the
pandemic.
These have been particularly helpful to those in rural communities
where access to healthcare is a particular concern. People now don't
have to drive a long way to see their healthcare provider. Many schools
and universities in Texas--like Texas Tech University, for example, in
Lubbock, comes to mind. They have been pioneering telehealth for a long
time because much of what Texas Tech draws from in terms of their
student population and alumni happen to be in rural areas around
Lubbock, where Texas Tech is located. Folks with compromised immunity
benefit as well; they don't have to be exposed to other people.
Thanks to the Working Families Tax Cut, telehealth visits and HSAs
are more accessible to the American people. So those are two of the
things on a very positive level that we did in the Working Families Tax
Cut.
The other thing that we did, which was really important, is to make
sure that States couldn't game the Medicaid system--which is the
healthcare system that is basically the safety net for lower income
individuals--by providing benefits to illegal aliens and thus
jeopardizing the limited resources that should be available to only
those people who are legally present here in the United States.
We also invested in long-term care for those who rely on services
like nursing homes and home- and community-based services. The Working
Families Tax Cut prevented implementation of Biden-era regulations on
nursing homes that would threaten their very existence as well as that
of other long-term care providers. For many of the elderly population
who require full-time care, a long-term care facility can
[[Page S980]]
be the best option, but because the Biden administration's burdensome
regulatory regime threatened to run these essential-care services out
of business, that access to care was in serious jeopardy. So we fixed
that with the Working Families Tax Cut.
We also expanded access to home- and community-based services to
individuals with disabilities and mental health or substance use
disorders. These are some of the most vulnerable and at-risk
individuals in the country. I am proud of what Senate Republicans did--
unfortunately without any support from our Democratic colleagues--to
improve access to care in these areas.
Texas is a big place, with going on 32 million people, and while our
urban populations are well known--cities like Houston, Dallas, Austin,
and San Antonio--many people live in rural areas of the State of Texas.
In fact, that is true around the country. There is a large rural
population for whom access to healthcare is particularly challenging.
So we made the single largest investment in rural healthcare since 2003
in the Working Families Tax Cut.
Rural healthcare providers have always struggled to stay afloat,
particularly in recent years due to these higher regulations, low
patient volumes, and the like. Since 2005, close to 112 rural hospitals
have closed outright. That is 112 fewer hospitals in rural America,
where people now have to travel long distances just to be admitted into
a hospital.
Through the Working Families Tax Cut, we established something called
the Rural Health Transformation Program, which provided $50 billion to
stabilize and strengthen rural hospitals and providers. Half of these
funds were allotted equally among all the approved States, but I am
delighted to say that the other half were awarded on a merit basis.
Texas received $281 million for a single year. That will then extend
over a 5-year period, so well in excess of $1 billion will come to the
State for improved access to rural healthcare.
These funds, this plus-up over the per capita funds that were
distributed, were based on a need-based formula developed by the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services--otherwise known as CMS--based
on factors like population, the proportion of healthcare facilities in
rural areas, and the potential of application initiatives for long-term
improvement in rural communities.
Because of the unique vulnerabilities faced by our rural hospitals
and providers, the Rural Health Transformation Program is giving States
like Texas critical resources to work directly with rural health
providers to address these vulnerabilities and best determine the use
of these Federal funds.
As I mentioned, the Trump administration has awarded the largest
allocation of all to the State of Texas--more than $200 million--and
that is for just 1 year. I look forward to seeing the benefits that
this program has for our rural Texas communities and my constituents.
This program marks the most significant investment in healthcare for
rural communities in decades, and I am proud that Republicans--
unfortunately, once again, without any Democratic support--have made
our rural communities a priority under President Trump.
Now, I suspect these provisions may be news to many American people,
with no small thanks to the neglect of the media in informing them of
what we have been up to during this last year, which is something
really significant and important. The Working Families Tax Cut made
significant progress toward making healthcare more accessible and more
affordable for the American people, and I am proud that, working
together with President Trump, Republicans are taking America back in
the right direction when it comes to access to healthcare in our rural
communities.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, in just a few moments, Senator Murray is
going to get up and offer an opportunity for us to open up key
components of the Department of Homeland Security--components that need
to be opened up, components that should not be held hostage by my
Republican colleagues while they push back on our efforts to bring in
just commonsense guardrails when Federal officers are operating on our
streets. The bill which she will put forward has unanimous consent.
Every Democrat has already consented to this bill. We want to get this
done.
The question now before us is whether the Republicans will object. If
they object, it will send a very clear signal that they are not
interested in opening up the TSA at our airports, FEMA for natural
disasters, or CISA to protect us from cyber threats.
I would hope my Republicans would join us to open up the government
as to these key components of Homeland Security. We are concerned about
lines at our airports. We are concerned about our TSA agents being able
to pay their bills for their families. If Republicans do not object to
Senator Murray's bill, they will move forward. They will get paid.
Those resources will be released. If Republicans don't, it is on them.
It is on my Republican colleagues to keep the TSA closed.
Let's be very clear: This is very simple. On FEMA, as we are moving
into a time when natural disasters will be hitting us--we had a natural
disaster in Michigan just this week with tornadoes--we need FEMA
operating. We need FEMA employees being paid and being able to do their
jobs. Senator Murray is going to fix that unless--unless--we get
Republicans who oppose it, and then Republicans will own it.
We are also at war right now with Iran. In speaking as the ranking
member of Homeland Security, probably one of the most significant
threats to the homeland from Iran are cyber attacks. They are good at
it. We know they are. We know we have to have persistent defenses
against those cyber attacks against the homeland.
I will just say, even prior to this debate about appropriations,
let's also be clear that the Trump administration has basically fired
one-third of all of our cyber experts who would be on the frontline
protecting the homeland from a cyber attack. They fired them. They got
rid of them. The Agency doesn't have the tools necessary to protect the
homeland at a time when we are at war. It is unacceptable. But now we
have got to make sure that those folks who are remaining will continue
to get paid and have the resources to protect us. That will happen
unless Republicans object to the bill that Senator Murray is going to
put forward.
I will just say, if they object today--if my colleagues on the
Republican side object--and we are hit with a cyber attack and aren't
fully prepared, they will own that, not the Democrats. The Democrats,
right now, are saying to move this bill. We all agree that it has to be
done.
I know we might hear some arguments about the CBP and ICE. We know
that they are already funded. Let's be clear: The big bill that passed
last year basically provides five times the amount of money that is
actually in the appropriations bill that we are currently debating; so
they are getting their resources. The only thing that is happening, if
Republicans object to this bill, is that TSA is closed and isn't
getting support, as well as FEMA and CISA, and let's not forget the
U.S. Coast Guard and all the amazing work they do protecting us each
and every day. We want to fund the Coast Guard, TSA, FEMA, CISA. That
will happen today out of the Senate as long as my Republican colleagues
do not object.
But I want the American people to be clear: Don't listen to all the
rhetoric from the other side. Republicans will own this if they object.
So I would encourage all of my colleagues to let this move forward,
and when Senator Murray puts forward this proposal, please do not
object. Let's do this for the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in a few moments, Patty Murray will ask
UC to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP. Today, we have a block of
floor speakers to preview this UC request.
[[Page S981]]
This morning, the Senate resumed consideration of the housing
amendment, and we have been working hard on the ROAD Act, but I don't
know if we will get consent. We have objections to speeding up the time
for votes; so we might have votes when the time has expired. But that
is where we are at on the floor just to let Members know.
So the bottom line here is that what Ranking Member Murray is doing
is very simple. If you want to fund TSA and if you want to fund all of
the Agencies in Homeland Security except ICE and CBP, this is the way
to do it. Don't object, and it will all happen.
I don't want to hear any complaints from Republicans about TSA not
being funded if they block this today. I don't want to hear any
complaints from Republicans about the Coast Guard not being funded if
they block this today. I don't want to hear any complaints from
Republicans about Cybersecurity--CISA--if they block this today.
The bottom line is very simple. There is a simple way to get this all
done. Of course, if Republicans agree to very simple, simple things to
do with ICE and with Border Patrol--things that every police department
does: show identity, use warrants before you bust in on somebody's
house--we could get this done and get everything funded. But the bottom
line is, they have refused, probably because the rightwing doesn't like
it. So then, let's fund everything else but ICE and Border Patrol.
The bottom line is simple. We should not hold other Agencies hostage.
The Republicans should not hold other Agencies hostage--millions of
Americans hostage--because of their extreme positions on ICE, because
they are backing up the kind of brutality that we have seen. We don't
need hostages. We don't need any of that.
The bottom line is very simple: ICE won't change with a new DHS
Secretary. That is not going to be an excuse we can accept. You can't
fix a rotting house with a fresh coat of paint. So we demand
legislation, but until we get that legislation, we can fund everything
else. Democrats are ready to pay TSA agents today. Democrats are ready
to support the Coast Guard today. Democrats are ready to fund FEMA
today, and only the Republicans blocking it stops it.
If they think the American people won't understand this, they are
sadly mistaken. They know the administration is in charge of TSA, of
the Coast Guard, of FEMA. They know, if there is no funding, it is
because the administration is not funding them, but we can overcome the
administration with this legislation.
So, if Republicans claim they are worried about the Coast Guard, if
Republicans claim they are worried about TSA and FEMA--they can't be
too worried because they are blocking it right now--I urge my
colleagues on the Republican side to let this sensible, moderate,
thoughtful legislation go through. Let's fund TSA, let's fund the Coast
Guard, let's fund FEMA, let's fund CISA and not hold them hostage until
an agreement on ICE and the Border Patrol is reached.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in following the leader's remarks, I want
to make an additional point.
This is not the first time we have made this offer to the
Republicans. On the floor of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, they
keep notes of everything that is said. This young lady is a
stenographer, and she keeps these notes together and creates a record--
literally known as the Congressional Record--that is passed out every
single day to Members to read as to what happened the day before.
I took a look at this Congressional Record for March 5--that was last
Thursday on page S870--and it contains a debate between Senator Patty
Murray, the Democratic ranking member in the Appropriations Committee,
and the junior Republican Senator from the State of Alabama.
An offer was made on that page by Senator Murray to do exactly what
the leader just said. This was last week. Last week, Senator Murray
said: Let's narrow this down to the items of debate and contention, the
future of ICE and the future of the Border Patrol. But let's fund
everything else in that Agency so there is no question that the men and
women who work with TSA at the airports are going to be paid on time;
the Coast Guard will be paid on time; and the other Agencies--others
separate and apart--will also be paid on time.
She made this offer on page S870, and there was an objection.
Now, the rules of the Senate, it just takes one Senator to object.
But the junior Senator from Alabama, speaking on behalf of the
Republican side, objected to funding all of the rest of this
Department, save two specific Agencies. She objected to it, so she had
her chance last Thursday.
We are going to give the Republicans another chance. We have been
told that TSA is about to miss a paycheck. Think of the thousands and
thousands of men and women who work in the airports to keep us safe and
whether they should receive a paycheck. We think they should. That is
why Senator Murray is going to make that offer today. I hope the
Republicans will cooperate this day in a way they didn't last week.
It has been nearly a month since the shutdown started. Already, it is
the third shutdown of President Trump's second term, the third time.
Why? Because the White House and my Republican colleagues refuse to
consider reforms of ICE.
Did you see the videos of what happened in Minneapolis? With your own
eyes? You don't need my interpretation. You saw what happened to people
there, protesting the activities of ICE who ended up being shot and
killed on the streets of Minneapolis. Is that something that we signed
up for when we started this deportation effort?
Remember what the President said over and over again? We are going
after the worst of the worst; terrorists, murderers, rapists, the
criminally insane who snuck in across our border in the past several
years. We are going to go and arrest them.
Well, I will tell you this: Sign me up for that mission. We want to
make sure our streets are safe. And if someone is here illegally,
commits a serious crime, they go to jail or they get out of the
country--two choices. That is a bipartisan feeling.
But they have gone further. Take a look at the actual record of ICE
and Border Patrol and this mission they have of mass deportation that
has been ordered by Stephen Miller, the President's Deputy Chief of
Staff.
Six out of seven--six out of seven--of the people who have been
arrested and detained and moved to different locations by ICE and CBP
were people who had no criminal record, none, not one--six out of
seven.
What kind of law enforcement operation is that that gets six innocent
people for every person who is guilty? Something is wrong here. We have
got to change it.
And some basic questions: Would you want the door of your house to be
crashed down? Of course not. And if you did, you would think, It better
be for good reason if the government is going to do that to my home and
my family. And that requires the court to give approval for it to
happen.
It is called a judicial warrant--except the ICE agents believe they
are not bound by that law and they can crash down a door if they wish,
and they have done it over and over and over again. Do you think that
is right? I don't. It is one of the issues we want to debate with them.
When it comes to the masks they are wearing, I talked to law
enforcement back in my home State of Illinois. How many of our State
troopers wear a mask to work every day? None. How many of the Chicago
policemen wear a mask every day? None.
What it comes down to is, we are pushing for good police practices
that are applied in communities all across America. Somehow or another
the ICE agents think they are exceptional; they don't have to identify
themselves; and they can wear a mask. I think that is wrong.
And when it comes to their jurisdiction, it is an esoteric legal
question, but it is an important one. How far can the Border Patrol go
beyond the border to enforce the law? They believe, under this
administration, they can go anywhere in the United States. Previous
administrations believed that the statutes had restraint on where they
can go.
These are fundamental questions that relate to the Constitution, to
the
[[Page S982]]
Bill of Rights, and to the laws of this land. We want to make sure that
they are followed, and that is why we are negotiating the future of ICE
and Border Patrol.
But today, Senator Murray is going to give notice again. We are
prepared to fund every other aspect of the Department of Homeland
Security. That is something that I think is fair and should go forward.
The Republicans opposed it last week. I hope that they will support
us this week. The men and women of TSA should not be held hostage to
our negotiation. Let's get serious on getting all the negotiations
done. But in the meantime, let's fund the Agencies that are critical in
this Department.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, right now, TSA agents are going without
pay because Republicans and the White House have decided they would
rather shut down all of DHS than pass some very basic reforms to rein
in ICE and Border Patrol.
For weeks on end, Democrats have been very crystal clear about what
measures need to be put in place before a full DHS bill can pass. These
are steps that the American people are demanding and that local police
departments across the country already follow.
And we have also been clear that when it comes to reining in these
out-of-control Agencies and preventing more Americans from being shot
and killed by masked Federal agents, half steps are not going to cut
it.
But Republicans are acting like they have no idea what the problem is
or what Democrats and what the American people are demanding here.
And now Republicans are not only dragging their feet on the basic
reforms, they are refusing to fund TSA and FEMA and other important DHS
functions while these negotiations continue.
Now, in my view, that is just plain wrong. If Republicans are going
to drag their feet on commonsense reforms to protect their own
constituents from having their door broken in by masked Federal agents
without so much as a warrant, then they should, at a minimum, work with
us to make sure that TSA is funded. At a minimum, we should make sure
that disaster relief is not put at risk and that our cyber defense
agency is fully operational.
I offered a bill to get this done--to fund all of DHS except ICE,
Border Patrol, and former Secretary Noem's office--but last week, after
spending the entire week talking about how important these parts of DHS
are, Senate Republicans blocked that bill.
But I am here today to give Republicans another opportunity to do the
right thing and ask my Republican colleagues to put politics aside for
a moment, work with us to get TSA and FEMA funded now, and press ahead
to rein in ICE and Border Patrol.
My colleagues know me. They know I will talk to anyone who is serious
about getting results. But the problem right now, the reason we are
here at an impasse, is not because Democrats don't want a deal. That is
ridiculous. It is not because we aren't willing to talk; I have been
talking to my colleagues across the aisle all week. The problem is that
Republicans are still refusing to agree to basic measures that we need
to protect American's basic rights and their safety, the same measures
we have been demanding for weeks as part of these negotiations.
Look, this just isn't complicated. Democrats' position here is
simple: We want reforms to rein in ICE and Border Patrol. We also want
TSA and FEMA funded. But we are not going to be blackmailed into
cutting a blank check for ICE to get it done.
So I hope Republicans stop listening to Stephen Miller and start
getting serious about reform or, at the very least, stop blocking the
funding for TSA and FEMA and the Coast Guard and more while these
negotiations on ICE and Border Patrol continue.
So, Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill,
which is at the desk; that the bill be considered read three times and
passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The majority leader.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just heard
the Senator from Washington suggest that they are willing to sit down
and talk with anybody at any time. But my understanding is, there have
been repeated overtures to the Senator from Washington and other Senate
Democrats from Republicans and the White House that have been rebuffed.
Would the Senator like to clarify her position on that?
That is my understanding, and I think that point--that offer has been
made repeatedly.
Mrs. MURRAY. To the majority leader, thank you for asking that
question because I think it is really clear what has happened here.
As the Senator knows, during the negotiations over the Christmas
break, when everybody else was out doing what they do, we did negotiate
the Senate DHS bill with our House counterparts, repeatedly asked for
some things and were rebuffed every single time, overridden by the
White House.
So I am here today to remind everybody that you, Mr. Leader, that the
leader spoke to all of us when we came to a disagreement on DHS and ICE
funding; that the leader himself said that this negotiation was between
the Democratic leaders--that would be Senator Schumer and
Representative Jeffries--and the White House.
So I appreciate talking to my colleagues. I have talked to a number
of them about what they might or might not be willing to do.
But having my experience here--and, I would guess, the experience of
a number of my colleagues--until we know that the White House is
actually really and not just, you know, a representative, but is really
at the table, which is what I believe the majority leader asked for,
those are not real negotiations.
I am willing to talk to people, but I am not willing to sit in a
room, have coffee, give away a few things, and have Stephen Miller
override whatever we all agree to in a room until I have that
commitment.
I am certain that I speak for our majority leader as well and for
Leader Jeffries, that we need to know the White House is serious.
And what I have told my Republican colleagues every step of the way
is, when we have that and we have the White House who seriously says to
us: ``We believe there is a problem; we understand that; we do want to
sit down at the highest levels,'' we will all be there for that.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reclaiming my time.
The situation which I think the Senator from Washington is referring
to is how we landed at the agreement on the DHS bill that we have been
trying to vote on. Subsequently, Democrats walked away from that
agreement.
It was the White House, it was House Democrats, it was Senate
Democrats, it was House Republicans, and it was Senate Republicans who
all negotiated the original deal.
The Democrats have more recently said: That is not adequate.
And so subsequent to that acknowledgment by the Democrats, there have
been several, now, occasions where Republicans have offered to sit down
and talk with Democrats, and there have been offers from the White
House.
And just to be clear, the latest offer between Senate Democrats and
the White House--which is where the Senator from Washington is
suggesting this should reside--has come from the White House. I think
it was somewhere on the order of about 12 or 13 days ago now.
Mrs. BRITT. Thirteen.
Mr. THUNE. Thirteen days ago.
And there has been no response from the Democrats to the latest
offer.
And subsequent to that, my colleague the Senator from Alabama and
others have tried by approaching the Senator from Washington and other
Members of the Democrat caucus and leadership to actually sit down and
have a conversation about a path forward.
And usually around here, in order to get a deal, there has to be a
negotiation where the two sides sit down together, and my understanding
is that has been completely rebuffed by the Senator from Washington.
And so we are here today, and we are trying to close a deal that
would enable us to fund all the Agencies that
[[Page S983]]
the Democrats say they want funded, with reforms--with reforms to ICE.
And I have seen the offer sheet from the White House. And they have
gone a lot further--a lot further--than any Democrat would think was
even possible.
And so we have a situation here where one side is trying to get a
deal to open up the government, to get people back to work, to fund the
programs and functions that are important to the national security of
our country, and we have one side that is saying: We are not going to
sit down and talk.
I don't know how you defend that, honestly. I mean, this is a one-
sided negotiation in which the White House has put forward a proposal.
Senate Republicans have said repeatedly: We are prepared to sit down
and talk with Senate Democrats, and Senate Democrats--and my
understanding is the Senator from Washington--has said: Sorry. We are
not ready to talk.
We have a lot of people who are unemployed, a lot of programs that
aren't being funded, a lot of functions that aren't being performed,
and they are important to our country's national security.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President.
Mr. THUNE. Now, one other thing.
Mr. President, reclaiming my time.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this was actually my time.
Mr. THUNE. Reclaiming my time. No, it is reserving the right to
object.
The other thing that has been offered repeatedly is a continuing
resolution--
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for regular order.
Mr. THUNE.--that would allow a sufficient amount of time to debate
this--
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for regular order.
Mr. THUNE.--until we actually get a deal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is a unanimous consent
request.
Is there objection?
The Senator from Alabama.
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, I think you have seen the leader lay out
exactly what is happening here. We have political games being played by
our Democratic colleagues, instead of putting the people of this Nation
first.
What we have just seen put forth by the Senator from Washington would
effectively defund our law enforcement officers that are charged with
keeping Americans safe. Look, we are not going back to the era of
``defund the police.'' We are not doing it.
It would also defund our Border Patrol and our customs protection.
Look, catching and interdicting fentanyl has to be a top priority.
Under the Biden administration, that was the leading cause of death of
people between the ages of 18 to 44.
Under President Trump's leadership, fentanyl overdose deaths are down
over 24 percent. We are not going to go backward. We are going to
secure our border, we are going to enforce our laws, and we are going
to stand with the people of this country.
Interestingly, what the Senator from Washington has put forth
actually undermines the people of her very State. Back in 2023, when
the DHS bill passed out of committee, she had this to say:
The Washington State economy depends on our ability to
ensure goods and people can move through our ports and
borders in an orderly and timely way. Our national security
depends on the ability to do this while stopping threats like
drug trafficking and fentanyl.
This bill provides critical funding to stop the flow of fentanyl at
its source--at our borders--and to protect communities in Washington
State and across our country. But, today, she stands ready to defund
the very people who make this happen.
And take a look at what that would do, even in her home State. The
land ports of entry are many. This is defunding the mission and often
the paycheck of the agriculture specialists at the Danville Port of
Entry, working to stop the spread of disease and pests impacting our
food supply. What she is standing here to do today is going to defund
the mission of the officers at the Nighthawk Port of Entry, inspecting
vehicles and cargo. What she stands here to do today is going to defund
the in-port specialists at the Pacific Highway Port of Entry.
She says: Let's move forward without these people getting paychecks
and their mission funded.
And today we say: No way.
Mrs. MURRAY. Regular order.
Mr. LANKFORD. You have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order is the unanimous consent
request.
Mrs. BRITT. With that, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, with all due respect to the Republican
leader--and I respect his sincerity in representing his side. I respect
his sincerity in wanting to find a resolution here. But I need to
correct him on one really critical thing. He talked about an agreement
that was there and then went away.
Do you know what happened, Senator? Two murders--two murders of
American citizens.
My side was not going to stand down and say: Oh, well, nothing
happened.
We were going to say: Something happened.
And what we see is an out-of-control ICE Agency, and we are coming
now, at this critical time, because this critical moment happened, to
ask for some reforms and accountability. That is exactly what happened.
And we are here today to say: We are willing to work on this section
of the Department of Homeland Security--on which we obviously have a
disagreement. And by the way, which I note, none of my Republican
colleagues have ever come out here and acknowledged what has happened
to American citizens. And I can sit out here for 45 minutes and outline
that. None of them have acknowledged that. So you can see our
frustration in saying: Let's fund the rest of Homeland. Our caucus is
united on that--TSA, FEMA, CISA, and so much more.
But we obviously have a disagreement and, clearly, an acknowledgment
from the White House and the Republicans that reforms and
accountability have to be part of funding for ICE.
I remind everyone, as Senator Peters said a few moments ago, there
are considerable funds in the Big Beautiful Bill to continue to take
care of what ICE is. I think it is so incredibly important that the
Republican leader, whom I respect--and I understand he represents his
side. But I would respectfully tell him that having a few Members talk
is not going to resolve a situation where we need an understanding--and
a clear understanding--from the White House.
He mentioned the offers that have gone back and forth. There are
continuing conversations at that level, and I respect that, and I hope
that our leaders continue to do that. That is critical. But we have to
have that understanding, and that is where we are. This lies with the
White House to make it very clear that someone is willing to negotiate
with this that understands what has happened in cities across our
country--and, in particular, in Minneapolis, where two people were
murdered. If we can hear those words, then I think we are on the way to
coming to an understanding.
But, in the meantime, let's fund these Agencies. That is what we are
asking the Republicans to do with us today, and it is disconcerting to
me that they continue to not hear what we are asking for.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. THUNE. So what I just heard was that they are willing to sit
down, and yet we have tried repeatedly to sit down with the Senator
from Washington and other Democrat leaders to negotiate a solution
here. And we have even gone so far as to say that, until we get that
sort of a negotiation--and hopefully a solution--that we would fund the
government under a continuing resolution, which is done fairly
routinely around here, to make sure that these important Agencies get
funded, these employees get paid, and these functions of our government
that deal with national security and homeland security actually get
performed.
And so I guess I am at a loss as to why we continue to have an
attempt--a one-sided attempt, it is--to actually sit down and solve
this deal, and why we can't then at least fund these Agencies with a
continuing resolution until such time as we can.
[[Page S984]]
Now, again, I would point out that the latest offer on the table is
from the White House. It is 13 days old. The Democrats have not
responded to that, nor have they indicated any willingness whatsoever
to sit down with our side and actually talk about how to resolve this.
So you have two things here. You have a White House offer and a
willingness by the White House to sit down and talk--an offer on paper
with significant changes in the direction that the Senator from
Washington and others are asking for. And yet we are just being
rebuffed at every turn, even to have a discussion and conversation.
Honestly, I don't know how you get a deal without a negotiation; and
to have a negotiation, you have to have two sides at the table. We have
one side at the table. Republicans are at the table, willing and ready,
able to make a deal--with the White House, I might add.
The Senator from Washington talked about having the White House
there, and, obviously, that is an important component of this because
we have to get a bill signed into law.
But there is an offer, 13 days old, which hasn't been responded to by
Senate Democrats, and repeated attempts by Senate Republicans to sit
down and actually have a discussion about this--and complete, utter
block resistance. That is--
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President.
Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President.
Mr. THUNE. That is--
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
Mr. THUNE. And I would yield to a question by the Senator from
Missouri.
Mr. SCHMITT. May I inquire?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. SCHMITT. I just want to point out that we heard from the
Appropriations chairman that nobody has come out here and acknowledged
anything that happened. Let me point out something that the Democrats
have failed to acknowledge in all this. This toxic empathy that they
have--that really what it means is they don't want our immigration laws
enforced.
And let me be clear: We are going to do nothing--nothing--that
kneecaps ICE's ability to enforce our immigration laws, because there
were no Democrats out here that wept or pointed out that Jocelyn
Nungaray, the 12-year-old girl, was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by
two illegal aliens in 2024. There were no Democrats that expressed any
compassion out here on the floor about Rachel Morin, an American mother
who was ambushed, raped, and murdered by an illegal alien while she was
on a hiking trial in Maryland. There was nobody out here talking about
Laken Riley.
Now, what we have heard from the new Democrat Governor in Virginia is
that they are going to be a sanctuary jurisdiction, and they are not
going to work with ICE. They are not going to--actually, on the guy who
stabbed a woman to death at a bus stop, they are not going to let ICE
know when that person is released from prison or jail.
That is what this debate is about. So let me just sort of pull the
veil back about what this really is. Joe Biden let 15 million people in
here illegally. This question about deporting illegal immigrants was on
the ballot. President Trump was not bashful about it. It was on the
ballot, and the American people supported the idea that we were going
to deport people--we were going to use our Federal law enforcement to
deport people.
They don't like that, and so the way that they get at mass amnesty
now is not passing a law, because they can't do that. It is by not
enforcing our immigration laws.
So their proposals are not about reform. Their proposals are making
it impossible for ICE to do their jobs, and we are not doing that. So
let me just dispel you of any notion that our side is going to allow
you to continue the chaos that has happened inside our country because
you all let 15 million people in here illegally. It is not going to
happen.
So the question I have for you, as we have this inquiry, is: It is
unprecedented, the idea that we are having policy debates--policy
debates--in appropriations bills.
You have done an incredible job, Leader, of saying: We are going to
get back to regular order. We have done 11 out of 12 appropriations
bills.
And now because the Democrats found their ``controversy of the
week,'' they have moved on to other things. So I am a little surprised
they are still on this. But now they want to start pulling things out
of appropriation bills--pulling things out. And it is just untenable.
It is untenable because--let me promise that you would never do this.
If you were in charge right now, you would never allow us to isolate
anything.
You didn't even have appropriations bills on the floor. Chuck Schumer
never let a single appropriations bill on the floor my first 2 years
here.
So now, we are actually working through the process.
So the proposals that we have heard from the Democrats, whether it is
on judicial warrants or the other issues--they know exactly what that
means. It means they want to limit ICE's ability to do their jobs. We
are not doing that.
So you can cry about it. You can whine about it. You lost an election
over it. The White House has dealt with you in good faith. You want to
prolong this until you get another incident, while your activists are
on the streets confronting ICE agents in sanctuary jurisdictions,
hoping they get some viral moment.
We are done with that, OK? We are done with it. Your NGO networks, I
know they are still active. They are still doing their thing. But the
truth is, all of the incidents that you can really count on, that you
can point to that any confrontation happened with ICE agents are in
sanctuary jurisdictions where they don't respond to 911 calls for ICE
agents, and they don't cooperate with ICE agents.
It is very easy for an ICE agent to show up at a penitentiary or a
jail or prison and get somebody and deport them. What is harder to do
is when they show up in a community and they have to go get somebody
out of a house with more people, and they know that is exactly the
dynamic.
So I guess the question is, Have you ever seen anything like this--
the lack of good faith? This is really about--and I just want to be
clear. This isn't about some reform. This is their final stand in
opposition to the will of the American people who voted for
deportations.
So I just think that this is ridiculous--and, by the way, especially
ridiculous coming from the Appropriations chairwoman, when we finally
have regular order on this floor, and we finally are doing actual
appropriations bills, and they want to hold it up.
So just beware that when the shoe is on the other foot, we know the
tactics. We know the tactics.
Mr. THUNE. I appreciate the Senator from Missouri making that point.
The response to his question is, I do believe that we have people who
are tasked with an important job, and defunding them is not an option,
and I think we all agree with that over here. I would hope that some of
our colleagues on the Democrat side would agree with that as well. Are
there reforms that can be made? Yes. Some were included in the base
bill, which this side agreed to and then walked away from. And I
understand why; don't get me wrong. But we are trying to sit down now,
and the White House--I think in good faith--has put forward what, to
me, are fairly significant reforms. But we don't have, I said, a
willing partner. And we obviously are not going to defund law
enforcement in this country. That is not something we are going to do,
which is why it is important that in the context of this conversation
here, as we fund these other Agencies under the Department of Homeland
Security, that we also come to an agreement about how to fund Border
Patrol, which does secure our southern border, and ICE, which enforces
the law in this country.
My understanding is the Senator from Hawaii wants to enter into this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the leader and Senator Lankford
for the deference.
In trying to turn this into a little bit more of a debate, I want to
ask unanimous consent that we turn this into a colloquy between myself
and the leader for 5 to 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I think Senator Schmitt said it perfectly.
We
[[Page S985]]
are actually not very close as it relates to the question of ICE
funding, and he made that crystal clear. I won't repeat his words. They
were forceful. They were not conciliatory. And he said, essentially: We
will be damned if we adopt those Democrats' demands.
So what has been happening is the White House and Democrats in
Congress have been trading paper, submitting offers back and forth, and
it was relatively professional. But, on substance, we are actually as
far apart as Senator Schmitt is describing. We are not that close.
So if everybody agrees on that, that we are not that close, that it
is not like negotiations have shut down, but they are a little
stalled--these things sometimes stall. Sometimes they pick up again,
and sometimes they stall. Sometimes you are trading offers every 6 to
12 hours, and sometimes you are trading offers every 6 to 12 days. It
doesn't mean a negotiation is not happening; it means it is happening
as we transmit legislative text from one party to the other.
The idea that the only way we can convey that we are negotiating is
with a meeting in person is like literally not the way this place
works. There are a million ways to negotiate. Sometimes you negotiate
live fire drill, Senate floor. Sometimes it is in the cloakroom.
Sometimes it is in the leader's office. Sometimes it is in committee.
Sometimes it is by email. We are in a negotiation; however, we are not
close.
So if you stipulate to that, then the question is, What the hell do
we do about the Coast Guard in the meantime? Do you think we are going
to cut a deal tonight to reopen those portions of DHS? There is nobody
in Congress--staff, journalist, citizen, Member--who thinks we can cut
a deal in time to fund the Coast Guard, the TSA, CISA, and FEMA.
So we can continue this negotiation about ICE, and we should. If
someone is going to complain about what manner we use, what modality we
use to have that negotiation, fine, but that is actually a separate
question from, in the meantime, TSA is going to miss paychecks; in the
meantime, our cyber security function at the Department of Homeland
Security has a lapse in appropriations; in the meantime, the Coast
Guard has a lapse in appropriations; in the meantime, FEMA has a lapse
in appropriations.
So all we are asking is to say we continue to disagree about this one
relatively narrow thing. We have already funded 96 percent of the
government. Let's fund another increment of the government to keep
everybody safe. Let's just do that while we continue these
negotiations.
Then the real answer on the Republican side to why they don't want to
do that is they think that once we fund those other Agencies, the
Democrats will walk away from this negotiation about ICE. My view is
that we really shouldn't keep the Coast Guard or TSA or FEMA or cyber
security hostage while we continue to disagree about this.
The question of whether or not we fund these Agencies is very, very
time sensitive, and so that is why we are pushing for this. This is not
an unreasonable--and one of the things that is weird to me is, in
another world, in this same context, you could actually see a bunch of
Republicans coming to the floor and saying: Why don't we fund this? Why
don't we fund that?
These UCs to fund different portions of the government are a tool
that both parties have used. But we are in a very unique situation
where there is some danger.
So I would just like to understand the leader's thought process--and
the Senator from Alabama and the chairman of the Ethics Committee. Why
in the world wouldn't we just fund the stuff that we all want to get
funded and then keep arguing about the thing we are arguing about?
Mr. THUNE. Which is precisely what the Senator from Alabama was going
to do here momentarily. And what she is going to suggest is that we
fund the government under a continuing resolution to allow additional
time to negotiate, and that has now been objected to on multiple
occasions by our friends on the other side of the aisle. But that, to
me, is something that we have done routinely around here, repeatedly
around here: to allow additional time to negotiate until we can finally
land what I hope would be a deal that could fund all of DHS and not
individual components or pieces of it.
So I don't know why anybody would object to that--if you are sincere
in trying to get a deal, why you would object to funding the government
for some foreseeable time in the future. We did do it for 2 weeks,
which you guys all knew wouldn't be enough time. But if we funded it
for whatever that is--4 weeks, 6 weeks--to allow this negotiation to
continue, at least these Agencies are functioning. We have tried
repeatedly to do that, and you have consistently--the Democrats, I
should say, have consistently objected to that.
So I think what you are asking, I would say to the Senator from
Hawaii, is precisely what the Senator from Alabama is going to propound
in the form of a unanimous consent request, and that is to fund those
Agencies to allow this negotiation to continue.
Again, I don't know how you can be more good faith--at least for the
particulars that I have seen. The latest proposal that was put forward
by the White House had a number of issues addressed in there that I
think were important to the Democrats. It would seem to me, at least,
that if there is not an interest in agreeing to that latest offer, that
there be some counteroffer made or we sit down and talk about that
offer. I think that has been offered up by Senate Republicans as well
as by the White House.
So I hear what the Senator from Hawaii is saying, and I think it is
exactly what we are saying right now and what we are trying to do.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, just 1 minute, through the Chair, with
your permission.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I can understand what the leader is
saying. I understand what the Senator from Alabama is proposing. But I
think what the vice chair of Appropriations said should not be glossed
over as some sort of talking point.
If you are trying to understand why in this particular situation we
don't have the votes to provide for a 1-week CR, for a 3-week CR, for
any funding for ICE, it actually is that Americans have been killed by
an Agency that now has more funding than most militaries around the
world, more funding than the U.S. Marine Corps.
You may think this is some issue that we think we are going to turn
to our political advantage, but I promise you, when we saw Renee Good
and Alex Pretti killed, this became an issue that was beyond politics.
There are a lot of us who are not going to provide resources to this
Agency that is acting in such a way that makes citizens of the United
States so unsafe.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I appreciate the colloquy and the
dialogue here on this issue because this is an important issue. We have
to break through this logjam. We have people across the country that
are TSA, that are Coast Guard, that are cyber security professionals,
that are FEMA professionals, that are, yes, ICE professionals, that are
Homeland Security customs professionals that are doing a job they need
to get paid for. Right now, they are not getting paid because my
Democratic colleagues are blocking their pay. They have been very clear
on this.
If I can reiterate what my colleague just said--just said: My
Democratic colleagues do not want to fund ICE.
The concern from so many Republicans is that Democrats want to be
able to pass a bill right now that funds Homeland Security except for
ICE, except for CBP. That means they want to cut off funding and
basically drain it out and have folks go to their workplace every day
but not get paid, week after week, so eventually they quit and no
longer can ICE function and no longer can Border Patrol function.
That is the concern here, is that--you are right, as has been stated
on this floor just 2 minutes ago--they don't want to fund those
entities at all. So what it seems like my Democratic colleagues are
pursuing is a way to be able to fund everything else and to be able to
starve out what they don't want. They don't want border protection.
They don't want ICE removal.
[[Page S986]]
But can I remind my colleagues and anyone else who wants to hear it:
What they are blocking funding for currently right now is more than
just deportations. Even what they are proposing right now--to say ``We
will fund everything else but ICE, but CBP''--they are blocking out
Homeland Security investigators; that is, Federal law enforcement that
goes after drug cartels, weapons smuggling, money laundering,
soliciting. HSI are the folks that are actually going after child
exploitation. These are the Federal agents that go after human
trafficking networks. These are the individuals that actually enforce
the counterproliferation in sanctions enforcement. These are the folks
that investigate the cyber crimes.
So they are saying: We are defunding ICE. They are also defunding the
investigations for human trafficking, for drug smuggling, for cyber
crimes, workforce investigations. They are also blocking out the
customs professionals that are actually at our ports of entry handling
our produce, keeping different diseases from coming into our country
based on soil samples and agricultural pieces that are coming in. That
is what they are also defunding.
They are saying to Republicans: Just give up. Just don't fund our
customs professionals. Just don't fund the ICE professionals. Just
don't fund them. We don't plan on ever paying them so they will quit.
I think that is a terrible idea because--help me understand the
moment when we get back together and then my Democratic colleagues
suddenly say: We have changed our mind; now we want to fund ICE.
It is not going to happen. I saw it during the Biden administration
up close and personal. They do not want to fund border protection. I
saw it.
The American people do want to have sane border policy. We do want to
have sane enforcement.
Now, just a little history here. Thirteen days ago, the White House
sent over a proposal. And it wasn't just a secret; the President of the
United States posted on social media and made very clear that these are
the things he is willing to be able to make the change on that
Democrats have asked for. Now 2 weeks later, they are still saying: We
are thinking about it. Why? Because it is good politics to say: We are
still thinking about it.
What are the things they actually asked for that the President came
out and made a public social media post saying: These are the things we
will do.
He came out immediately and said: We will do a full investigation of
the two American citizens that died--a full public investigation of
that. He made that very clear.
Pulled out of a surge that had happened in Minnesota. The President
said: In good faith, we are going to pull out entirely from that.
The President then said: We are going to do body-worn cameras and
make sure they are all required. That is what Democrats were asking
for. The President has already agreed to that. He has already sent over
a dollar amount with the requirement on that.
The President already came out and publicly made a statement where--
Democrats said: We want identification on every Federal agent. The
President came out and said: I will agree to putting identification on
every single agent.
That has all been agreed to.
There was also a statement made by Democrats that ICE agents would
not go into what they call sensitive sites to do an arrest. The
President already came out and said: We are not going to go into
sensitive sites except for one.
One of the demands that were made was ICE could not go into a polling
place. Of all things, help me understand why someone illegally present
should be in a polling place. But Democrats demanded that ICE agents
not go into polling places, which, by the way, is why we want to bring
the SAVE America Act up next week. The President said: No, I won't
agree on a polling place because someone not legally present shouldn't
be there in the first place.
The President came out and said: I will agree to deescalation
training.
All those things have already been agreed to 13 days ago--13 days
ago--and now, because of good politics, the White House just has to sit
and wait, I guess.
And TSA agents get paid when they feel like it, and, in the meantime,
the strategy to just try to just not pay ICE agents, indefinitely,
until they quit, continues to linger.
So, no, let's fund DHS. There are lots of agreements that the White
House has already announced publicly that they want to do on this. They
have been sending paperwork over. They have been sending legislative
language over. And so far, it has been radio silence.
So let's actually solve this problem. This is a room full of
grownups. Let's have the grownup conversation, whether it is on this
floor or off this floor, but the last thing we should do is leave this
place and not have this thing resolved.
Last Thursday, I was on this same floor, at this same desk, saying:
Why are we leaving town without this being resolved? All of our DHS
professionals are not getting paid, and everybody is just going home
like the situation is the same. It is not the same.
Let's stay here until we actually get it worked out. But instead, we
just walked away as if nothing was happening.
So let's stay here until we work it out. That would be the right
thing to do for all of those families, regardless of what they are,
regardless of what their task is, even the Federal agents that are
actually right now not being paid or on furlough that are working on
child trafficking, even those folks, which in the current proposal from
my Democratic colleagues, they are saying: We will fund everything but
them.
I think we should be paying the folks that are actually going after
child trafficking. I think we should be paying the people that are
going after drug smuggling. I think we should be paying all the folks
in HSI. I think we should. So let's do it.
I yield the floor, and let's solve the problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The Senator from Alabama.
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, we would like that opportunity to continue
funding the Department of Homeland Security in its entirety while we
have a conversation about the best pathway to move forward.
So I have two asks of my Democratic colleagues. We said this last
week. You agreed. Let's try it again. Let's sit down and figure out
what is that pathway forward. We can't move the needle on anything
without having a conversation. So let's do it, and let's fund this
important Agency whose job it is to keep Americans safe.
Look, they do really important work in every one of our States,
whether it is Coast Guard, TSA, Secret Service, CBP, ICE, FEMA, and
more. It is incumbent upon each and every one of us to figure out a
pathway forward.
We have heard more from our Democratic colleagues today, on the
floor, than we have heard in the last 48 days. The last offer went back
over to Democrats 13 days ago--13 days ago. In that interim time
period, we have asked to get together with Democrats, Republicans, and
the White House to talk about what is a pathway forward.
Not only have we not received anything back, we also have not had
that opportunity.
Look, the people who sent us here expect more. They expect us to have
tough conversations. They expect us to figure out a pathway forward,
and that is exactly what we are trying to do today. We want to fund the
Department of Homeland Security. Republicans are offering a 2-week
continuing resolution to do just that.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill,
which is at the desk; that the bill be considered read three times and
passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Can the Senator state the bill number?
Mrs. BRITT. Yes.
Mr. President, while we wait on that bill number, I want to say this:
Guys, don't change the rules of the game. I mean, the Senate is
supposed to function in a meaningful way to do the work for the people
that we serve.
Coming out here and wanting to carve this or that without ever
sitting down with your colleagues on the other side to talk about a
pathway forward or even talk about this plan is disingenuous, and it is
starting a new norm.
[[Page S987]]
I can already see, when you all are back in charge, the number of
things that this side doesn't want to fund or talk about; and if this
was the approach that we took, you would say we were breaking the
Senate.
So I ask you today to allow us to continue all of these people
getting a paycheck--everyone in the Department. Everyone has to meet
their bills. They have to make their payments. They have mortgages.
They have childcare. They have wife's cancer treatment--all of these
people do.
So we are saying in good faith, let's pay all the members of the
Department of Homeland Security while we find a pathway forward.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule
XXII, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No.
156, H.R. 4553. I further ask that the Britt substitute amendment No.
4353 be considered and agreed to; 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 Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I have
made clear to all of my colleagues on both sides, Democrats are happy
to pass funding for DHS Agencies--TSA, FEMA, CISA, and more--while we
work on accountability for ICE and Border Patrol. I just tried to pass
that bill.
What we are not willing to do is pass a bill with more funding for
ICE and Border Patrol and no reforms--to pass a bill for ICE and Border
Patrol with zero reforms.
This is pretty simple. We cannot have masked thugs kidnapping
American citizens--no badge or identification, no warrant, nothing. We
cannot have peaceful protestors and legal observers getting tackled and
tear-gassed and even shot and killed by Federal agents.
We cannot just ignore the Trump administration slandering American
citizens as terrorists and lying shamelessly to cover up its abuses.
We have got to have accountability. We have got to. Americans' rights
are at stake, and, as we have seen, their lives are at stake. This bill
from Republicans, which is essentially unchanged from the last time we
rejected it, doesn't do enough to meet this moment--not by a long shot.
But look, if the Senator wants to work with me on a short-term CR to
fund TSA and FEMA and other important Agencies without providing more
money at this time for ICE and Border Patrol, I am ready. I am willing
to get that done today.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, look, we stand ready. And I am
disappointed that we were objected to being able to fund the Department
of Homeland Security, which we just saw my colleague from Washington
object to.
The proposal that they are offering does this--our proposal today
that we just put on the floor was $100 million for drug interdictions.
The proposal they put on the floor today was zero. When you are looking
at the proposal that they just objected to here on this floor, we have
$2.5 million for the Center for Countering Human Trafficking at HSI.
Their proposal that they put on the floor today, zero--zero.
The proposal that we put on the floor that they just objected to has
$2.1 million for increased inspections for ICE detention centers, and
they just objected to it.
The proposal that they put on the floor, zero--zero.
The proposal that the Democrats just objected to, moving forward to
fund--we just asked to fund TSA. We just asked to fund the Coast Guard.
We just asked to fund Secret Service. We just asked to fund FEMA. We
just asked to fund CBP, ICE, and our proposal had $7 million for
investigations of child exploitations and forced labor at HSI.
Mr. President, do you know how much was in the Democratic proposal
that they put on the floor today? Zero.
We are not going to turn our back on law enforcement. We are not
going to turn our back on border security. We will not go backward,
back to ``defund the police.'' We will not go backward to the failed
border policies of the Biden administration. We are not doing it.
Fentanyl and drug overdoses are down over 24 percent, year over year.
We will not back away from that. What we will do--and we hope happens--
is that you will sit down with us to have a conversation on a pathway
forward.
But, in that interim, you cannot hold these people hostage. There are
good people who are working hard at ports of entry and at HSI and all
throughout the Department of Homeland Security that deserve a paycheck.
Why are you playing politics with people's lives?
Let's talk about a pathway forward. Let's talk about what we do. But
grandstanding and political posturing are not the answer.
I am disappointed that my Democratic colleagues just blocked funding
for TSA. They just blocked funding for FEMA. Why? I do not know, but I
am hopeful that they will come to the table so that we can find a
pathway forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. KIM. Mr. President, we did put forward a proposal to fund TSA, to
fund FEMA, to fund CISA, to move forward on so much of what the
American people know needs to move forward.
We are not negotiating in a vacuum here. We are in a different world
than we were when these negotiations began a few weeks ago because we
are now finding our country in a war with Iran. We are seeing American
servicemembers in harm's way.
We see this President recklessly pushing on and not caring at all how
many billions of dollars he is spending each and every day in
prosecuting this war, without the kind of thinking of what is needed to
be able to protect our servicemembers, Americans in harm's way, and our
diplomatic folks.
So we are trying to come up with solutions here, understanding the
challenges that we are facing. These are not normal times. This is not
the same world. What we tried to do is come forward here, focused on a
pragmatic, realistic approach on what it is that we can agree upon. It
is what every family has to deal with in terms of understanding how to
be able to come up with solutions that move forward, especially in
these dangerous times. We know that Americans have these concerns.
When I think about CISA, when I think about the cyber security
world--I used to work in national security in Afghanistan, in Iraq,
with so many other challenges in counterterrorism. We need that now
more than ever.
I will be honest with you. The fact that this President moved forward
with this war without us being able to have a fully functioning CISA,
not just because of the budget but because they cut so much of the
staff over this last year--these are reckless actions.
That is why we need to be able to have this type of debate, but we
are doing this in a context of war. So we move forward. We try to have
the funding to be able to move forward in that way on what we can agree
on, while we are still continuing, because, as there has been
recognition on both sides today, we are still far off when it comes to
ICE, when it comes to the lawlessness that we see. We seek the
accountability on behalf of the American people.
I hear this each and every day. Just yesterday, I was in a meeting
with ICE officials because they are trying to impose upon the town of
Roxbury this warehouse detention facility.
This, by the way, is a town that voted for Trump. It is Republican
leadership, but they stand unified with me and many others saying that
ICE never even talked to them, never even consulted them, whether or
not this was even logistically possible, let alone something that the
community wants.
When I asked the ICE officials, yesterday, are they aware that there
are residential buildings right around this, that maybe people don't
want their backyard to be a huge, massive detention site, ICE didn't
care. They didn't even bother to ask the local community. That is what
we are seeing not just in Roxbury but all over this country--the lack
of accountability. They just could not care less what the people in
Roxbury believed.
[[Page S988]]
That is what we are trying to stand up for. And I promised that
community--again, a community that voted for Trump, with Republican
leadership--that I will do everything that I can to be able to restore
that sense of accountability and restore that sense of movement
forward.
They do not want a single dollar to go to this warehouse, and I don't
want a single dollar to go to ICE as we continue to see the lack of
reforms push forward.
And I understand the concerns and the challenges that are out there.
I worked as a career public servant, an officer at the State
Department. I worked under multiple shutdowns. I worked under multiple
Presidents of both parties. I don't want to see this go on 1 day longer
than it needs to, but I also know that our servicemen and women, they
are dedicated public servants; and we need to show them that we are
being pragmatic and realistic, that we are moving the needle forward
trying to address it.
And that is what the proposal put forward by Senator Murray today was
about, an effort to be able to move forward, try to focus in on where
we have disagreement while not holding back on where we have agreement
to be able to protect the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I just want to pick up where my
colleague from New Jersey left off, which is the proposal that was put
forward by the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, which is to
have a vote today to make sure that we fully fund TSA, that we fully
fund FEMA, and that we fully fund the Coast Guard.
I have heard a couple times just on this floor from our Republican
colleagues that Democrats are blocking funding for TSA and FEMA and the
Coast Guard. That simply isn't true. In fact, I am looking at a post. I
heard a couple mentions of politics as part of this conversation. Just
a few days ago, a Senate Republican post said, ``Democrats are forcing
100,000+ Federal employees to work without pay.''
Well, this wasn't true then because just last week, Senator Murray
also proposed that we fully fund TSA and FEMA and the Coast Guard.
It wasn't true when they posted it, and it is not true today. In
fact, what we are doing today is giving our Republican colleagues
another chance to actually pay these Federal employees.
Now, I don't think anybody is confused about what is happening here,
and that is that the American people understand that Trump's ICE
operation is out of control. It is violating the constitutional due
process of people throughout the country. It is violating the First
Amendment rights of people throughout the country, including the right
to peacefully protest.
We all recall, like it was yesterday, the fact that DHS agents shot
and killed two American citizens in Minneapolis: Renee Good and Alex
Pretti. And then the Secretary of Homeland Security--the former
Secretary of Homeland Security turned around and called them domestic
terrorists, called the victims of those shootings domestic terrorists.
And from the very start, the Trump administration has lied to the
American people about the purpose of the ICE operation, and I heard it
again on the floor of the Senate here today. They said they were going
to go after ``the worst of the worst,'' people who were here illegally
and posed a threat to public safety in our communities.
That would have been acceptable, but that is not what they are doing
in the overwhelming number of these cases. In Maryland, they swept up a
pastor from the Eastern Shore. They arrested and imprisoned and then
deported a small business woman from Hagerstown. She had been here 20
years, Vietnamese-American woman, beloved in her community, had a nail
business. And the list goes on and on and on.
And, in fact, Republicans are beginning to recognize that this is
completely unpopular with the American people. Yesterday, here are two
headlines, one is in the Washington Post, ``White House tells GOP to
avoid mass deportation talks ahead of the midterms.''
Axios, ``White House tells House Republicans to stop talking about
mass deportations.''
Well, they want Republicans to stop talking about mass deportations,
but they are not actually doing anything to stop mass deportations. And
what Democrats have said is: We want meaningful changes at ICE before
we provide any additional funding.
I have been clear: I won't support 1 more penny for Trump's lawless
ICE operation, and yet we are not getting any meaningful response from
the White House with respect to the necessary reforms.
And so that is why we have said: Let's not hold hostage TSA. Let's
not hold hostage FEMA. Let's not hold hostage the Coast Guard. Let's
make sure they can continue to operate. Let's make sure that those
Federal employees can get paid for the work that they are doing.
I mean, I am looking again at this post, the social media post that
Republican Senators put out--Senate Republicans.
It has got all these headlines from around the country, ``Partial
government shutdown, spring break travel leads to hours-long TSA lines
at Hobby Airport.'' And they go on and on. We are saying we can end
this. We can end it today. But Republicans are blocking it.
I just want to close with this point, and it has been made by the
Senator from Washington Senator Murray and others, when Republicans
passed what they call their Big Beautiful Bill, which was beautiful if
you are a billionaire because you got big tax cuts, they cut Medicaid,
they cut other health programs, they cut food programs; but as part of
that bill, they increased the ICE budget by over seven times its annual
amount.
And they increased the Customs and Border Patrol budget by about
double its annual amount. So that is why, as we speak, ICE agents are
being paid. As we speak, Customs and Border Patrol agents are being
paid out of those accounts. You know who is not being paid? TSA. You
know who is not being paid? FEMA. You know who is not being paid? Coast
Guard.
Do you know what the Democratic proposal would do that is offered by
Senator Murray? Pay all those people so they can do the work that they
need to do on behalf of the American people and get paid for the good
work that they do. That is what our proposal does.
It does what Senate Republicans claim on their social media posts
that they want to do, that they want to pay these 100,000 Federal
employees; but today, through their votes and their actions, they are
actually saying the opposite. They are saying they want to continue to
deny funding for those particular Agencies because we won't give ICE
and its lawless operations a blank check, and we are not going to give
ICE a blank check.
The American people don't want us to give a blank check to ICE. But
for goodness' sake, let's not penalize folks at TSA and FEMA and the
Coast Guard, and let's not penalize the American people by hampering
those Agencies and preventing them from fully doing their good work on
behalf of the country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, these times are not normal. In normal
times in the history of the United States of America, government agents
bashing down doors, trashing living rooms, terrorizing children,
detaining and arresting people without a judicial warrant would be
condemned by the administration and they would say: We need reform.
In normal times, masked agents in unmarked cars without
identification on their bodies would be forbidden by the Government of
the United States of America. In normal times, mass sweeps in the
streets or shootings of U.S. citizens for no reason, citizens without
any criminal record, and killing two of them, would prompt sweeping
reforms by that administration.
And in normal times, the Government of the United States would say:
When we are responsible for harms that violate people's rights and
injure them, they should have recourse. They should have redress.
In normal times, that is what would happen. These times are not
normal because this administration has no respect for the law. It is
not only
[[Page S989]]
condoning, it is encouraging an out-of-control, lawless, and reckless
Agency--ICE--and also the Customs and Border Patrol, which is operating
unlawfully as a matter of clear statute outside where it should be just
geographically.
And in normal times, we would value public servants at TSA, in the
Coast Guard, in FEMA, rather than having a Department of Government
Efficiency--DOGE--causing cuts, massive firings, cancellations of
contracts that devalue and demean and degrade those public servants.
The failure to pay them now reflects that demeaning and degrading
attitude toward public servants because this administration has the
money to provide those payments, and it has done in the past, moving
funds from one account to another in ways that are perfectly possible
now, but the measures that we have before us would compel them to pay
those public servants.
These times are not normal, and that is why we stand here today to
insist that the Constitution of the United States be respected.
Mr. President, 250 years ago, Colonies revolted because British
soldiers bashed down doors and took stuff from the Colonial settlers,
and America revolted. It took years, long years, winter fighting,
George Washington rallying the troops, continuing to recruit and keep
them going, along with others, a fraction of the population at that
point, enduring suffering and pain far more painful than standing in
line at an airport.
But the values and the laws that we are here to defend are what
should be normal in America. They are what is normal in our
Constitution and our respect for individual rights and liberties. And
we are in the minority in this body, as well as in the other House. We
are in the minority in the Congress. We have no one in the White House.
The Supreme Court is controlled by the majority party.
The power of the purse is one of the levers that we do have, and we
are using that power to say no to DHS funding as long as these kinds of
violations of laws are occurring and reoccurring, not only in
Minneapolis, but all across the country.
And the hearing that I held in the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, a spotlight hearing with people, U.S. citizens who have
been dragged out of their cars and assaulted, forced to the pavement,
injured, denied medical care, access to phones or lawyers or their
families, the hearings that we had with a whistleblower who told us
that that kind of misconduct was no accident, it was the result of
instructions and training specifically given to those agents, to
violate the Fourth Amendment.
And, of course, the brothers of Renee Good, who was killed, telling
us how it happened. America is demanding these reforms. It isn't we who
are imagining or hypothesizing the need for them; America is demanding
them after America has seen what ICE and CBP are doing.
And we can enable payment of TSA and FEMA and the Coast Guard and
those brave and dedicated public servants in those Agencies by simply
approving today the measure that the Senator from Washington has so
ably brought to us.
Commonsense reforms are not incompatible with the payment of these
individuals. Let us pay them now, adopt this measure, and then make
sure that we keep faith with America, that we adhere to the rule of
law, that we apply the same standards of conduct to Federal agents as
are applied to local police in your community.
If your police chief took the position that this administration has
done, they would be fired. If they defended local police who bashed
down doors without judicial warrant at homes, without consent, and if
they defended masked members of their local police force--doing sweeps
with masks, without identification, and in unmarked cars--they would be
fired. If they opposed the idea that people who are harmed in violation
of the law by local police should have no recourse, they would be
fired.
So I hope my Republican colleagues will get serious about what should
be normal and will decide to do what is best for their constituents and
for America.
We are ready. We have been ready. We are simply asking that ICE and
the CBP follow the rule of law and adhere to the same standards as
local and State police forces and that our Republican colleagues get
serious about paying the dedicated men and women of these Agencies, who
are working hard every day and deserve our respect.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I have been hearing my colleagues discuss
this matter. You know, I think I want to just try to separate out the
political rhetoric and maybe also puncture some of the Senate speak we
use to talk about the kinds of bills we are considering and just talk
about an elemental rule of negotiation that, I think, most of us
learned pretty early, which is, when you can find agreement, go for
it--do it--and on the areas where you disagree, keep talking. Go for it
when you agree, and on the areas of disagreement, keep talking.
If you have listened to this debate today, what you have heard is
there are huge areas of agreement on this floor and there is a sharp
area of disagreement. We can act on the agreement, and we should.
Everyone on this floor, I believe--certainly those who have been
talking today and, I think, the overwhelming majority--we have agreed
that TSA should be funded. We have agreed that the Coast Guard should
be funded. We have agreed that FEMA should be funded. We have agreed
that the CISA, Cybersecurity Agency, should be funded.
I think I am right about this. To my colleague from Washington, we
have not only agreed that they should be funded, but we have written
the bills--exactly the line items--in bipartisan agreement in both
Houses. We have put reforms into those bills that both sides agree
with--and those bills are ready to be acted on--to give the employees
of those Agencies and the citizens who rely on them the certainty that
they will be funded through the end of the year. So why wouldn't we do
that? That is what Senator Murray's proposal is. We have reached an
agreement. Let's do it.
Senator Britt offered a different proposal in those areas of
agreement: Let's just fund them for 2 weeks and not with the agreed-
upon structure and the reforms and the line item amounts.
When somebody says they want to do a ``continuing resolution''--for
those who aren't familiar with that Senate term, what it means is,
instead of the negotiation we did about how to fund these Agencies, we
will just do for the next 2 weeks what we were doing for the last 2
weeks. I call that driving by looking in the rearview mirror rather
than driving by looking through the windshield. We should want to drive
by looking through the windshield and not the rearview mirror. We have
the bills all done.
Imagine you are at the TSA. Are you going to feel better knowing that
the Senate decided to fund you for 2 weeks or that the Senate decided
to fund you for the entire rest of the year?
How about if you are a coastie and you are on a ship, doing
interdiction in the Caribbean? Will you feel better if it is a 2-week
deal or if we are going to fund you for the rest of the year?
If you are at FEMA, doing an emergency, we are going to fund you for
the rest of the year.
The proposal that Senator Murray has offered is far preferable for
all of the employees in these Agencies where we have reached agreement
than a deal that just says: Well, we will fund you for the next 2
weeks, and then who knows what will happen after that.
So, since we have found agreement--meaningful, substantive,
bipartisan, bicameral agreement--on every line item and every detail
and every reform affecting all of these really important Agencies, why
wouldn't we move forward on it?
I just don't understand why my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle would want to do 2 weeks of funding when we could do the full-
year funding for these Agencies. The area of disagreement is obvious.
It is the area of immigration reform as performed by ICE and the CBP.
Now, I heard one of my colleagues the Senator from Oklahoma say the
goal of ours is to defund it until everybody quits. That is a hyperbole
that is not true. I have been here for 13 years. I have voted for so
much funding for DHS and so much funding for the CBP and ICE, but now
the American public
[[Page S990]]
and we all--to one degree or another--just know there have to be
reforms. We are not going to give a blank check. We are demanding
reforms.
To my colleagues who are here with me, we had a budget hearing
yesterday, and the budget hearing was about immigration enforcement.
The Republicans had as a witness one of Virginia's sheriffs--the
sheriff of Loudoun County, Sheriff Chapman. He was there to talk about
immigration enforcement through the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office. I
pointed out that I have dealt with them a lot over the years. I go to
the Halloween parade and other things in Leesburg. If you are not doing
anything on Halloween, go to Leesburg, and go the Halloween parade. It
is fantastic. And when you see the Loudoun County sheriff's deputies,
they don't wear masks. They wear uniforms that identify that they work
for the Loudoun County sheriff. They wear name tags. They use body
cameras.
You know, if the Loudoun County sheriff's department can uphold basic
standards of law enforcement professionalism, why is it unreasonable
for the American public, and why is it unreasonable for Democrat
Senators to ask the same thing of Federal law enforcement agents who
work at ICE and the CBP?
These are commonsense reforms, but we haven't yet found Republicans
who are willing to agree on them. OK. That means we still have work to
do. Let's do that work, but let's give full-year funding to all of
these other Agencies where we have found agreement, not 2-week funding,
not just, you know, we will kick it down the road for 2 weeks and then
you have got to worry over the next 2 weeks whether you are going to
have a paycheck. It should be full-year funding for all the Agencies
except where we are having this most important debate.
The elementary rule of negotiation: When you can find agreement, go
for it; and on areas where you can't, keep talking. That is what the
Murray proposal is, and that is why I so strongly support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have to say it is extremely frustrating
to me that, despite all their talk about how important it is that we do
fund the TSA and FEMA and CISA and more, and despite the Republicans'
own acknowledgement that they have already funded ICE and the Border
Patrol with their big reconciliation--I call it the ``Big, Ugly
Bill''--from last summer, now Republicans are unwilling to work with us
to fund some of these programs that keep Americans safe while we keep
trying to get somewhere on ICE and Border Patrol accountability.
Worse than that, they are acting like they have no idea why Democrats
are not willing to accept the premise that, to fund TSA, we have to cut
some blank check for ICE. Republicans are acting like they didn't see
the same awful footage of Renee Good and Alex Pretti getting shot in
cold blood. Republicans are acting like they don't remember that little
boy in the bunny hat who was arrested like a violent criminal.
Republicans are acting like they don't remember the family that got
tear gassed on the way back from a basketball game or the American
citizen who was marched out of his house, in the freezing cold, in his
underwear.
As a reminder--because, apparently, Republicans need it--the Senate
has had at least two hearings on this since Alex Pretti was murdered by
CBP officers. With a couple of exceptions, we have not heard any
Republicans in those hearings suggest they want to work with us on
reforming the Agencies and reining in DHS. Yet, some Republicans are
acting like they have no idea now why we are demanding things like body
cameras, visible identification, adequate training standards, and basic
standards as the Senator just spoke about. It is the same as our local
police on things like the use of force and requiring warrants before
some agent smashes in your door and drags someone away.
Republicans know exactly what Democrats have been asking for because,
weeks ago, Democrats provided Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune a list
of 10 critical reforms that we needed to pass the Homeland Security
bill. Unfortunately, Republicans have been saying no on many of these
items as far as back as last year or, in some cases, first, they say:
Sure, we will work with you. Then Stephen Miller, in the White House,
would get involved, and Republicans would say: Never mind.
Now, last year, Democrats were already talking about many of these
reforms that we are now talking about today. In July, some of us
introduced a bill calling for no masks and for clear identification.
Then we saw Federal agents shoot citizens and lie about it, like in the
case of Marimar Martinez, and we heard horror stories of masked agents
dragging away American citizens for no reason. One American citizen was
dragged off and detained twice--not charged with any crime, not
arrested with a warrant. He was just picked off his worksite until ICE
realized he was a citizen. That happened twice to the same guy. That is
exactly why Democrats have been saying: Let's take off the masks. We
cannot have unaccountable agents. Republicans said no to that idea.
Then the world watched as Renee Good was shot and killed by an ICE
agent and was denied any medical care, something even the most basic
training--to say nothing of morals--should have told officers was
wrong. So Democrats pushed in our DHS funding negotiations. We said:
This is exactly the kind of thing we are gravely concerned about. We
need serious reforms and accountability. Still, Republicans said no.
Then an innocent man--an American citizen--was dragged out of his
home, in the freezing cold, in his underwear, and agents refused to
even look at his ID, which showed they had completely the wrong guy.
Yet, when Democrats pushed to require real judicial warrants,
Republicans said no.
A little boy in bunny ears was ripped away from his home for
absolutely no reason. Republicans said no.
A family on the way home from a basketball game was tear gassed.
Republicans said no.
A woman on the way to a doctor's appointment had her window smashed.
She was dragged out of her car. Republicans said no.
Then Alex Pretti was tackled to the ground and shot in the back
several times by Federal agents--another completely unjustified
killing, a murder of an American citizen--and the Trump administration
tried to slander him as a terrorist. For a moment, even some
Republicans said that was concerning, that it was unacceptable, that
that was wrong. But we all know what ultimately happened.
Republicans have, for weeks now, refused some pretty basic steps to
make these Agencies accountable. Once again, Republicans said no.
Well, the American people are not going to take ``no'' for an answer.
Stephen Miller is not above the Constitution, and Donald Trump is not a
King who can just sic an army of masked thugs on whatever city he wants
to punish next. Democrats are not going to write a blank check for
rogue Agencies that are trampling on the rights of Americans, nor are
we going to accept the premise that the only way to fund TSA or
disaster relief is by giving money to ICE. That is absurd.
Some on the other side are claiming the bill I just offered would
defund Customs or Homeland Security investigations. That is also
absurd. All the bill I just offered does is fund the rest of DHS while
talks continue on ICE and the Border Patrol. The simple fact is that
Republicans had already funded those Agencies when they gave them more
money--than most militaries, by the way--in their ``Big Ugly Bill.''
And the Republicans' latest tactic--trying to use a war as leverage
against accountability for Americans? That is just plain wrong. It is
cynical, and it is utterly transparent. We are not going to give Trump
a pass on citizens getting shot and killed here in America just because
he singlehandedly chose to start a war that has led to Americans being
killed across the globe as well.
Who in the world thought that argument would fly? Did Stephen Miller
tell Republicans two wrongs make it right here? Did you think that was
going to convince anybody?
Look, we are going to hold Trump accountable for his reckless war,
and we are going to hold him accountable for using ICE to terrorize
American citizens.
As for the rest of DHS that does that important work to keep
Americans
[[Page S991]]
feeling safe, like FEMA, Coast Guard, TSA--Democrats are here. We are
trying to fund those Agencies while ICE and Border Patrol negotiations
continue. But Republicans will neither agree to the reforms we need to
rein in ICE and protect Americans, nor fund the rest of DHS while those
talks continue.
Now, here is the simple truth: If the Republicans agree to simple
reform, all of DHS could be funded tomorrow. And if Republicans stop
blocking the bill that I just offered, TSA could be funded today. But
Republicans don't want to take serious action to prevent rogue
government Agencies from gunning down American citizens. We just heard
that on the floor from several Republican Senators who spoke. They
don't want to take any steps to make sure masked Federal agents don't
kidnap people off our streets. They don't want to pass legislation to
make sure Federal agents only target people who have a judicial warrant
instead of breaking down windows and dragging away completely innocent
people. That is the crux of the problem right now.
So let me state that again. The problem right now is not a lack of
communication between both the sides. That is absurd. The problem is a
lack of willingness on the part of Republicans to pass some pretty
basic reforms or to even fund the rest of DHS while those talks
continue.
Republicans don't want to protect Americans from rogue ICE agents. Do
you know how I know that? I listened to what they said and what they
didn't say right here on the floor. Are Republicans talking about the
fact that American citizens have been gunned down by ICE and Border
Patrol? Are Republicans talking about the fact that peaceful protesters
are being tear-gassed or pepper-sprayed or tackled to the ground? Not a
word on that right here.
If Republicans cannot talk about the obvious, cannot talk about the
blatant abuse we have all seen from ICE and Border Patrol, how do they
expect to work with us to address that? The answer is, they don't.
Instead, they are pretending this is about FEMA, which I have offered
to fund; or TSA, which I have offered to fund; or CISA, which I have
offered to fund. They are pretending this is about ICE funds running
low even after Republicans spent weeks acknowledging that the Agency
has plenty of funding left from their ``Big Ugly Bill.''
What this debate actually is about is accountability. It is long past
time Republicans get serious about that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of keeping
Wisconsin families safe. Keeping the people we work for safe is one of
the most basic and solemn duties we have. We are here to keep folks
safe from natural disasters, dangerous drugs, and dangerous people.
That is what I am here to do today, because we need to fund critical
Agencies like TSA and FEMA and the U.S. Coast Guard to stop potential
terror attacks and be sure that we are prepared for the next storm that
hits an American community. I am also here to protect Wisconsinites
from ICE terrorizing their communities like we saw in our neighboring
State in the city of Minneapolis. We can and must do both. The people I
work for are demanding it.
We need to fund these Agencies and put up commonsense guardrails on
ICE and Border Patrol. It is not an either/or situation, as my
Republican colleagues would have folks believe. We can ensure that TSA
agents are paid and stop masked Federal agents from causing chaos in
our residential neighborhoods. We can prevent cyber security attacks
from our adversaries and ensure ICE and Border Patrol don't gun down
more U.S. citizens in our streets. We can make sure communities reeling
from disaster get the Federal support they need and hold Federal agents
to the same basic standards that our local police officers operate
under on a day-to-day basis. Protecting Americans means doing both.
If Republicans are serious about funding the Department of Homeland
Security, the path forward is simple: Let's pass this bill today. Let's
keep these crucial Agencies open while we come together to negotiate
commonsense reforms so ICE stops killing Americans in our streets.
I have been clear that I will not support another blank check to ICE
without reasonable guardrails that stop the chaos, violence, and death
that we have seen in cities like Minneapolis.
My Republican colleagues are trying to use Donald Trump's illegal war
in Iran to get us to back down on these demands. Democrats know how
dangerous President Trump's war of choice in Iran is, and that is why I
am against it. There is no denying that Americans are less safe today
than they were before President Trump took us to war, and I am glad my
Republican colleagues are willing to admit it. But if they think
Americans will just forget watching the gut-wrenching videos of ICE
officers taking the lives of innocent American citizens, they have
another thing coming. The American people aren't buying it. They expect
our government to stop terror threats and respond to natural disasters,
not to intimidate and kill innocent people.
I am not giving up on my commitment to protecting Americans from
Donald Trump's out-of-control Agencies that have killed U.S. citizens,
terrorized communities, and caused chaos in our streets. I, for one, am
willing to compromise. I am ready to fund the Department of Homeland
Security without ICE. This straightforward plan funds key Agencies
while giving my Republican colleagues more time to come to the table on
commonsense reforms that Americans overwhelmingly support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, every day the Democrats refuse to fund
DHS, they choose politics over the safety and security of our great
Nation. They continue to be the party of open borders and ``defund the
police.''
This just in over the wires, Mr. President. Breaking: The FBI warned
police departments in California that Iran wants to retaliate for
American attacks by launching offensive drones against the west coast,
according to an alert. That is from ABC News.
We can expect these threats to ramp up every day. Meanwhile, my
colleagues across the aisle refuse to fund DHS. This is a political
reason.
You know, folks back home ask me: Why don't the Democrats come to the
table?
Well, that is just the issue--they won't even come to the table. The
White House gave them a new deal, but the Democrats refuse to sit down
with the White House and do any further negotiation.
There has been no negotiation any further for weeks now at the
subcommittee level, at the committee chair level, at the whip level, at
the leadership level with our leader and their leader. They refuse to
sit down with us.
That is what America needs to understand. The Democrats won't even
sit down to have this discussion. That is because it is a political
issue that they happen to like.
But we are a party of law and order. We are a party and we are a
nation that wants secure borders, and we want law and order.
Every day that they refuse to fund DHS, they are denying the urgent
need to secure our borders against millions of unvetted, illegal
immigrants and fentanyl floods killing Americans daily, proving they
are the party of open borders.
Every day that they deny funding for DHS, they are denying funding
for law enforcement heroes in DHS, embracing their ``defund the
police'' agenda that lets criminals roam free and terrorize
communities.
They are denying critical cyber security. People aren't getting this.
DHS oversees the cyber security protections for our power grids and
infrastructure, inviting attacks from enemies like Iran amid escalating
threats.
They are denying resources for combating human trafficking and child
exploitation through HSI, abandoning vulnerable victims to cartels they
empowered with lax policies.
How do they not negotiate with this on the line, with American safety
on the line?
They deny the economic hardship on union workers and Federal
employees furloughed in their shutdown stunt, betraying blue-collar
families they claim to champion.
They are denying the bipartisan legacy of DHS by blocking reforms and
[[Page S992]]
oversight, allowing Executive overreach that weakens congressional
checks and American sovereignty.
They are denying the blood on their hands from terror risk, migrant
crimes, and disaster response failures, prioritizing radical politics
over national security and lives.
Every day, it is the Democrats' fault that American lives are at
risk. I ask them: Quit your games. Quit the politics. Come to the table
and make America safe again.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I have been listening to my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle so I can try to understand their arguments.
On my side of the aisle, we have been told that the Democrats in the
Senate will not meet with the Republicans in the Senate about this
issue. Yet we have had Democrat after Democrat on this floor this
afternoon complain that they can't get meetings with Republican
Senators. They won't meet with Republican Senators. They say: We only
want to meet with the President.
Now we hear the President has submitted a proposal to them that is
extremely reasonable. That is what we hear on the Republican side of
the aisle. We haven't seen the President's proposal to the Democrats
because they won't show it to us. It makes me wonder whether the
President's proposal was so reasonable that they don't want to show it
to us, that they don't want to be put in the position of having to
agree with a President that they truly despise as an individual.
The whole Nation is being held up by this. So I want to apologize to
the American people--especially to the TSA agents, the FEMA workers,
and other Agencies within the Department of Homeland Security who are
not getting paid. I want to apologize to the American people who are
standing in lines at airports trying to get through TSA to get on
airplanes, and they are stuck in those lines for 3 and 4 hours. I want
to apologize to the people in my State--the day before yesterday--who
live in the city of Wright, WY, where there was an over-1,500-acre fire
heading in the direction of Wright, and no one from FEMA was available
to help advise with regard to those issues.
These things are happening around our country today. Yet we have
Democrats in this Senate saying ``The Republicans won't work with us,''
and we have Republicans in this Senate saying ``The Democrats won't
even speak to us.'' It sounds like two ships passing in the night in
the Senate.
Now, the odd thing is that when we are not in front of the cameras--
we are not on C-SPAN; we are not on this floor making speeches--we
actually do talk to each other; we actually do get along. Yet here we
are at an impasse that has us hurling disagreements at each other that
don't even reflect an assessment.
If I was watching this on C-SPAN and I was just a citizen, I would
say: I don't get this. They are acting as if they don't know what the
other side is doing or thinking.
Well, even being here in this body, I don't know what the other side
is thinking. I hear them say they are mad because ICE agents are
wearing masks and don't have warrants, and there are a couple of things
there that I would point out.
The reason ICE agents started wearing masks is because truly
belligerent protesters were identifying those ICE agents and then going
to their homes and their children's schools and threatening their
families. So they put on masks so, as they are doing their job, the
protesters cannot identify them and harass their families and them for
doing their job.
Then I hear that this is about the fact that some Americans--
protesters--were killed in Minneapolis. We all mourn those deaths. But
those were protesters who were not innocent bystanders. They were
protesting in a very provocative way, taking on ICE agents directly--
either using their cars or kicking the headlights out of cars and
yelling and throwing rocks at ICE agents. That is not innocence. It
doesn't mean they should have been shot, but it does mean they were not
behaving in an innocent manner.
But let's look at who was behaving in an innocent manner. Laken Riley
was out jogging in Georgia when an illegal alien came up and killed her
and she fought back and they smashed her until she was dead. That was
an innocent bystander.
The little girl who was raped and thrown to the side of the road in
Texas--that was an innocent bystander.
The mother who was jogging here back east, the mother of four kids
who was attacked and murdered while jogging--that was an innocent
bystander.
The problem I have with this whole discussion is we are showing
tremendous sympathy for American protesters who were encountering ICE
agents in a provocative way, and we have forgotten about the innocent
Americans who were killed by illegal criminals--some of whom had been
previously arrested in this country and turned loose.
When trying to eradicate this country of the illegal criminals who
are harassing people in this country, are killing people in this
country, are raping people in this country, are human trafficking in
this country, we are taking our eye off the reason that ICE exists in
the first place. We are taking our eye off the American people who just
want to feel safe when they go for a jog, when their kids are out
riding their bikes.
I do feel terrible about the Americans who were provoking ICE agents
and were killed in the process, but I feel more sorry for the parents,
the children, the husbands and wives who lost their family members
through no fault of the innocent victim.
So we are in a terrible conundrum here. We have the Democrats
refusing to pay TSA, Homeland Security Agencies like FEMA, if ICE
agents aren't required to strip those masks off their faces when they
are arresting people. But the Democrats aren't acknowledging that those
masks were worn simply for the ICE agents to protect themselves and
their own families.
What a conundrum we are in, and the innocent American people standing
in TSA lines are bearing the brunt of this, the employees of the
Federal Government who haven't received a paycheck are bearing the
brunt of this.
I wish the cameras weren't on. I wish we could have discussions on
things like this the way our Constitution was drafted. Those were not
open discussions. There were no cameras. The Founders weren't playing
to the cameras. In fact, they locked themselves in a hot, humid, stinky
room until they came up with the greatest document that has ever been
written in a secular manner by mankind, and here we are defending that
document today and debating it.
So I would ask my Democrat colleagues: Sit down with Katie Britt, sit
down with our Senate colleagues on our side of the aisle. Bring your
own colleagues who feel strongly about this, who are passionate about
this. Sit down and have a discussion among us. I know you too well. You
are reasonable when you want to be. We are reasonable when we want to
be. So let's turn off the stupid cameras and have a family conversation
for the good of the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Iran
Mr. REED. Mr. President, 23 years ago this month, President George W.
Bush launched the invasion of Iraq. The speed, power, and
sophistication of the American military campaign was astounding. Within
3 short weeks, the United States had crushed the Iraqi army and
collapsed Saddam Hussein's entire government. Our military victory was
swift and total, as expected.
A few months before the invasion, I delivered a speech here on the
Senate floor. I spoke about the evil of Saddam's regime, the dangerous
threat the Iraqi military posed, and the importance of confronting Iraq
through all practical means, but I also cautioned against the pitfalls
of the Bush administration's strategy, which I considered to be
terribly misguided.
As I observed at the time:
Our judgment cannot rest simply on [Saddam's] unalloyed
evil. We must consider our actions more broadly. Will we
enhance the stability and security of the region? Will we
strengthen our security not just for the moment, but for the
future as well? What kind of precedent will we establish? . .
. We will decisively defeat Iraqi military forces in any
conflict.
Yes.
The skill and courage of our forces, aided by superb
technology, will overwhelm Iraqi
[[Page S993]]
resistance. The military outcome is certain, but the cost and
the consequences are uncertain and could be quite grave.
I take no satisfaction in that warning. I wish Iraq had been the
brief, decisive victory the Bush administration promised it would be.
The reality turned out to be two decades of destruction, death, and
instability that has cost our Nation dearly.
I am standing here today because the Trump administration's war
against Iran raises the same concerns and more. The parallels between
March 2003 and March 2026 are striking and cannot be wished away no
matter how loudly the Trump administration shouts down those of us who
have noted as much. In both cases, the United States launched a massive
air campaign with thousands of strikes on air defenses, command
centers, leadership targets, and weapons infrastructure. In both cases,
the early military results were dramatic and impressive. And in both
cases, the administration stood before the cameras and promised the
American people that the hard part was done.
Indeed, in 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed:
It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt 6 months.
Similarly, just a few days ago, Secretary Hegseth said:
You can say four weeks, but it could be six, it could be
eight, it could be three.
There are many other parallels to these two conflicts, but in some
cases, the differences between 2003 and 2026 are more alarming as this
war begins.
In 2002, President Bush made a case for war. I disagreed with that
case profoundly. In fact, I voted against the authorization for the use
of military force in Iraq--1 of only 23 Senators to do so. But we had a
vote. The Bush administration came to Congress, presented
intelligence--however flawed--testified before committees, and sought
the buy-in of the American people.
President Bush went through the steps that any responsible Commander
in Chief must, and this body deliberated and decided. We had the
information needed to cast a vote; every Senator did.
Importantly, I would note that even with all that deliberation in
2002, President Bush still failed catastrophically. He tied our
military up in a disaster that took decades and hundreds of thousands
of lives to partially unravel.
Today, President Trump has bypassed or ignored this most necessary
process in a democracy. The American people woke up last Saturday to
find themselves at war with Iran. There was no vote, there was no
authorization for the use of military force, nor intelligence shared
with Congress--who are the representatives of 350 million Americans--
and no coalition of allies and partners were assembled or brought into
the plan. In fact, several of our closest friends in the Middle East
were, by all accounts, as surprised as anyone by the joint American and
Israeli attack.
Many of them--Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Oman,
Jordan, Iraq, and others--are suffering the consequences of Iranian
retaliation without having been involved in this decision that
triggered it. And the administration has left thousands of Americans
stranded in harm's way without, for many, a realistic means of getting
home.
As impressively as our military has performed, I must ask my
Republican colleagues this: Do you believe that the Trump White House
has devoted even a fraction of the strategic effort that the Bush
administration put into Iraq? Because the Bush administration at least
thought about it. They were wrong, but they undertook preparations for
more than a year. What is the evidence of that same seriousness with
today's military operation?
Now, we must understand Iran is not Iraq. I want to be clear about
this because it matters enormously to what comes next.
Saddam Hussein's government, for all its brutality, was a hollowed-
out institution propped up by fear and oil. The Iranian regime is
something altogether different. It is deeply entrenched by half a
century in power. It is woven into the economic, military, and
religious fabric of a nation of 93 million people.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps--the IRGC--is not a
conventional military that will dissolve because the Ayatollah has been
killed--just the opposite. It has shown its willingness to absorb pain
and endure. It is an ideological institution with deep roots,
considerable resources, and a demonstrated willingness to direct
violence across the entire region.
Iran's missile and drone arsenal dwarfs anything Iraq possessed, and
it has a vast network of proxy forces, from Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia
militias in Iraq and Syria, to the Houthis in Yemen. These forces,
although diminished and disrupted from the past several years of
fighting, represent a military capacity that has shown it can cause
real pain for our troops, our allies and partners, and the global
economy.
We have already experienced deadly Iranian retaliatory strikes
against American bases across the Middle East. Just because their
missile strikes have slowed down, we should not be given the false
confidence that they are finished. This regime is cunning.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's oil supply
flows, is now essentially closed. Energy prices are spiking, and the
stock markets are falling as a result. Further, cyber attacks on our
critical infrastructure here--our financial systems, our energy grids,
our military networks--are very possible.
We cannot overlook another fact. The administration has refused to
rule out deploying American forces into Iran. Let me say that again.
The administration will not rule out putting American boots on Iranian
soil. That kind of invasion would not just be a difficult campaign; it
would, in my view, be catastrophic. Indeed, it would make the Iraq
operation look rather straightforward by comparison.
Further, there has been speculation about not a major land operation
but the potential for a Special Forces operation to seize Iran's
enriched uranium. This would be exceedingly difficult and would require
deploying hundreds of our forces deep into Iran, at great peril. Even
if successful, such an operation would not change the Government of
Iran and, although dealing perhaps a serious setback, would likely
harden the fanatical approach of the IRGC and increase the degree and
duration of retaliation.
Like in 2003, I am disappointed by the lack of scrutiny from my
Republican colleagues. These are basic questions that remain
unanswered. What are President Trump's objectives? I have listened
carefully to this administration, and their rationale has shifted
constantly--from protecting Iranian protesters, to eliminating Iran's
nuclear program, to destroying its ballistic missile arsenal, to what
now appears to be regime change. President Trump declared last week
that he wants no less than unconditional surrender and he should have a
role in choosing Iran's next leader. These comments reveal a stunning
failure to understand Iran and its history.
I worry that the President and his advisers have convinced themselves
they are immune from the lessons of history. Destroying Iran without a
credible postwar plan is not likely to create a stable, democratic
state. Instead, it could create a chaotic power vacuum that drags in
the rest of the Middle East. Ironically, it could further entrench the
most radical elements of Iran's leadership to be even more organized
and ruthless and could send the message across the globe that acquiring
a nuclear weapon is the ultimate path to avoiding President Trump's
unpredictable wrath.
Beyond the lack of strategic planning, I am also troubled by the
military readiness and financial cost of this conflict. The Senate
Armed Services Committee has sent formal inquiries to the Department of
Defense requesting projected costs, which by some estimates could run
as high as $1 billion a day. Reports indicate that the administration
is already preparing a supplemental appropriation request to Congress
for emergency funding--potentially more than $50 billion--to backfill
the massive munitions loss and battle damage incurred in the opening
days of this war.
But let me be very clear: I will not support a blank check for this
war of choice.
In the same 2003 speech I discussed earlier, I asked several
questions that I believe history has since validated.
[[Page S994]]
We are debating Iraq today, but will we apply this
preemptive doctrine to Iran or North Korea tomorrow? How do
we prevent others from adopting this same strategy if we have
enshrined it as the centerpiece of our policy? For example,
how do we counsel the Indians to refrain from preemptively
attacking Pakistan or vice versa? From New Delhi or
Islamabad, the threat looks ``sufficient'' and striking first
is enticing.
That question is no longer hypothetical. Today, China is watching our
war against Iran with intense interest as it considers its posture
toward Taiwan. Russia is watching as it calculates what remains
possible beyond Ukraine. They are also very much enthused by the
extraordinary increase in the price of oil and restrictions taken
off by the United States on their sales in certain countries. What was
a floundering economy is now getting strengthened by our actions in the
Middle East, which will have, I think, severe consequences in Ukraine
and elsewhere.
When the United States launches preemptive wars--whether in Iran, in
Venezuela, or perhaps Cuba--without bothering to make any public case
or good-faith legal argument, we diminish American power; we give
permission for other nations to throw their own military weight against
their neighbors; we hand every ambitious autocrat in the world the same
justification we have just used ourselves. The precedent we set today
will outlast this Presidency by decades.
Make no mistake, the Iranian regime is a brutal, corrupt institution
that has denied its people basic rights for nearly 50 years. I do not
mourn Ayatollah Khamenei. I do not minimize the genuine threat that
Iran's nuclear program and missile arsenal represent to the United
States and our allies. The day the Iranian regime is replaced by a
government that genuinely serves the Iranian people will be a good day
for the world. But, recall, President Trump ripped up the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action--a real diplomatic framework that was
constraining Iran's nuclear ambitions. He refused to negotiate a
replacement.
Just 2 weeks ago, the Omani Foreign Minister, who served as a key
intermediary between Washington and Tehran, reported that there had
been significant progress in the ongoing negotiations just before these
strikes began. The President broke the diplomatic solution and is now
trying to bomb his way out of a crisis of his own making. He had other,
better, choices. He chose war, and now, he owes the American people a
full accounting.
I would ask my colleagues who support this war the same questions I
have been directing to the administration. What is the theory of
victory? What does success look like, and how will we know when we have
achieved it? What legal authority does the administration believe it is
operating under given that this Congress has not authorized this
conflict? What is the day-after plan for Iran--for its government, its
93 million citizens, its borders, its proxies? What is the plan if this
regime does not fall, if the Revolutionary Guard fights on for years?
Will the administration commit that American ground forces will not be
sent into Iran?
To my Republican colleagues, I urge you to ask these same questions
and to demand answers from the administration. History is watching, and
in 20 years, you, too, may wish you held this President to greater
account.
So far, seven American servicemembers have been killed. Hundreds more
have been wounded. To their families, this Chamber--on both sides--owes
our deepest condolences and our solemn commitment to ensure their
sacrifice is honored. America's sons and daughters have gone into
harm's way carrying the full weight of this Nation's trust. They
deserve leadership and a strategy worthy of their service.
I had the great privilege to serve in the U.S. Army. I believe in
American power, and I believe we should be willing to use it. I believe
in American leadership on the global stage. But power without wisdom or
restraint is just recklessness, and leadership without accountability
or conscience is just theater, a performance to serve the President's
ego, not America.
Mr. President, I will close by recalling the same words with which I
concluded my remarks on this floor 23 years ago:
Great events will turn on our deliberations. But, at this
moment, my thoughts are not on historic forces. Rather, I
think about the young Americans who will carry out our
policies. They are prepared to sacrifice everything. We owe
them more than we can ever repay. One thing that we certainly
owe them is our best judgment. I have tried to give them
mine.
Mr. President, those words are no less true today. The young men and
women the President has sent into this conflict are prepared to give
everything. We owe them our unsparing questions. The President owes
them a plan. We owe them the honest and rigorous judgment of the
Commander in Chief and the leaders he has entrusted with the gravest
decisions a democracy can make.
I have tried, again, to give my best judgment, and I urge my
colleagues to give theirs.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Department of Homeland Security
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today as our country is in the
middle of a war to urge my Republican colleagues to support Senator
Murray's proposal that would immediately fund the Department of
Homeland Security's critical national security functions--cyber
defense, airport safety, the Coast Guard--while negotiations continue
on critical reforms on ICE and Border Patrol.
We must restore accountability. No one knows that better than the
people of Minnesota with these Agencies, but there is absolutely no
reason that we can't do two things at once, and that is fund the bulk
of this Department while we are working on the reforms to these two
Agencies, both of which have ample funding.
We all saw what happened in Minnesota where the surge of ICE agents--
as local law enforcement in our State made it repeatedly clear--it
sadly made our State less safe.
Two of my constituents were killed, Renee Good and Alex Pretti. In
fact, in the month of January, two out of three of shooting
fatalities--two out of three--in the city of Minneapolis were committed
by Federal agents in the entire month.
ICE wrongly arrested a Hmong elder, dragged him out in his underwear
as he is trying to show his ID and they didn't see it, drove him around
in a car for an hour only to discover they had the wrong guy. The guy
they were looking for had been in prison for years.
They targeted kids. We saw 5-year-old Liam in his blue rabbit hat
with floppy ears and his Spider-Man backpack.
They stopped a number of off-duty police officers. One of our
suburban police chiefs told the story of a police officer where the ICE
agents literally took out their guns--every one of those police
officers were people of color--and they repeatedly violated the
Constitution and defied court orders.
So many people trying to show their IDs shoved into cars, dropped off
four blocks later, maybe for the bounties, or taken to the Whipple
center and released.
Beyond the human cost, Operation Metro Surge cost taxpayers in
Minnesota $18 million a week and Minnesota's economy $80 million a
week, and we are still recovering.
But our State stood up together, bringing food, protesting, making
sure that people got their kids to school, people bringing strangers'
kids to school, and we got an announcement finally of a drawdown to the
original footprint.
I just talked to Director Homan about this last week, and he promised
to me that they would keep to that plan of the original footprint. They
announced some reforms for how those remaining ICE agents and Border
Patrol would do their jobs.
But, of course, we want to make that permanent.
And then last week at the oversight hearing, I pressed Secretary
Noem, and what we got through not just my questioning but my
colleagues', including my Republican colleagues, was a refusal to admit
her mistakes or take responsibility for her actions.
[[Page S995]]
So her overdue removal from the Department of Homeland Security is
also a good step toward accountability.
This is a start. And the reason that we want to get these reforms put
into law is obvious. We are talking about basic police conduct that you
see in red and blue States across our country. That is what we are
asking for, those standards of conduct.
But as those negotiations continue, what makes the most sense,
especially right now, is to make sure that we fund those other
Agencies. It is not written in law that you can't negotiate on part of
an Agency--and in this case, ICE, and the activities of these Border
Patrol agents--that you can't negotiate on that while you are funding
the rest of the Agency.
I would hope that our Republican colleagues would actually welcome
that because that is a way to make sure that we are getting funding and
paychecks are getting delivered, while at the same time, we are doing
these negotiations.
And while I did not agree in any way with that major funding increase
to ICE--that money could have been used to local police or to pay down
the debt, $75 million--but that is what that money went toward, and so
they have that money now.
So why don't we focus on getting the rest of the Agency funded?
That is why we put this forward, and that way, we could fund disaster
relief, cyber security defense, airport security, and the Coast Guard.
So when people vote against that to fund those important functions,
they are blocking pay for TSA agents who keep us safe, and that is,
unfortunately, by not taking this agreement, what we are seeing; funds
for FEMA; Coast Guard protects our ports and our shorelines; funding
for Cybersecurity, which among many things secures our elections,
protects our information technology.
So I ask our colleagues: Why--instead of just doing this compromise--
I think they could have proposed the same thing, and we would have
definitely supported it.
Why would they want so badly to keep ICE with no reforms that they
won't fund the rest of this Agency? It doesn't make any sense,
especially since we are proposing commonsense reforms, especially when
we are acknowledging, OK, you are not going to agree to it today, but
we think it is important to fund the rest of this Agency today so we
can keep negotiating with you to fund ICE in the future, but only with
these reforms.
I ask my Senate Republican colleagues to join us in this pragmatic
proposal. I urge them to listen to the American people who do want to
see reforms to ICE and Border Patrol. I think they know that, but the
American people also want to fund the important work of FEMA and the
Coast Guard and TSA and Cybersecurity.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
National Parks
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, let me start off by pointing out that
New Mexico is home to one of the most important living cultural
landscapes in the United States. You may have heard of it. It is known
as Chaco Canyon. It is a world heritage site and a national historical
park. It is truly breathtaking if you have ever been there, and when
you are there, with the immense sky above, you feel like time is
converging centuries and centuries of history--the bustling lives of
farmers and architects, builders, astronomers, and religious leaders
from centuries ago, converging with the scurry of nearby wildlife and
the hushed murmurs of respectful, odd visitors. These are all layered
onto each other in what for many remains a living, sacred place.
It is designated a national historical park to tell the stories of
the people who lived on this land long before America was even a nation
and of those who continue to use these lands to connect to a story
bigger than any one person.
Every year, millions of Americans and international visitors alike
learn parts of our Nation's story through the places preserved and
stewarded by the National Park System--places like Chaco Canyon. These
places tell the story of us--how we became America and how we have
grown and changed as a nation. It is a story of triumph, of hardship,
of resilience, and sometimes of cruelty.
Not every chapter in this story is uplifting, but to understand who
we are as Americans and our journey to become what Ronald Reagan
rightly called a ``shining city upon a hill,'' we have to learn from
all of it. We can't erase or turn away from the hard parts because
those parts and, more importantly, how we learned and grew from them
are our shared history, our shared story, and they should never be
erased or twisted for politics. But that is just what the Trump
administration is trying to do--to censor our history.
One year ago, President Trump signed an Executive order directing
Federal Agencies to review how national park sites portray American
history. The Executive order required officials to make sure that the
Park Service sites did not display content that ``inappropriately
disparage(s) Americans past or living.'' As a result of this order,
they have already removed some content, and much of it is in the most
popular national parks in the American West.
In a spreadsheet summarizing the Interior Department's first review
last year, Mother Jones found that from 33 sites in the Park Service
region that includes my State, 81 submissions had been flagged for
review. Of those 81, the Department decided that 46 should be altered
or removed entirely--over half.
But this isn't only happening in the West. Signs related to ecology
and the Wabanaki cultural history were completely removed at Acadia
National Park. At Stonewall National Monument in New York, mentions of
Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera--pioneering activists central to
the 1969 Stonewall uprising--were scrubbed completely, and this photo
showing what enslaved people experienced at the hands of their
enslavers.
Let that photo sit with you for just a moment. This photo, which
shows how painful our history can be, was ordered to be removed because
it is ``disparaging of Americans.'' This is not disparaging. This is
truth. This is reality. We cannot be a better nation or a stronger one
if we ignore or hide from our own past. We are a great nation because
we have learned from our past, especially from our mistakes, but we
can't do that when we take photos down like this one.
Unfortunately, this was just one of the Trump administration's
attempts to hollow out our American story. Another came earlier this
year when the Department of the Interior asked National Park staff to
spend hundreds of hours reviewing their own exhibits to report signage
that might be in violation of the Executive order.
At Glacier National Park in Montana, mentions of climate change--of
course, which is literally melting the very glaciers the park was named
after--were erased.
At Yellowstone, which was established on land from which the U.S.
military forcibly removed Tribes, any mention of Native Tribes was
ordered to be removed.
They are even asking visitors to report any material they find
offensive. I find that offensive. Last June, the Trump administration
instructed Park Service staff to post QR codes that visitors could scan
to report signs they disagreed with.
So far, there has been little clarity on the process and, of course,
zero public input. But some brave public servants anonymously uploaded
the list of reported violations to a public site. Examples from across
the country include the entirety of the Emmett Till exhibit in Alabama;
reviewing covers of books on the topic of slavery, including
autobiographies; and reviewing content in Junior Ranger books about
emancipation, the cause of the Civil War, and freedmen's colonies
because they all might be ``disparaging of Americans.''
So far, the Department has reviewed more than 2,000 pieces of media
and has ordered the removal or alteration of hundreds of signs and
exhibits, and we know they aren't done.
So what more could be at risk in the coming days? Well, in New
Mexico, we have Park Service signs that share Tewa translations. That
is a language that has been spoken in our part of the United States
since long before the Colonies were founded. Because this language is a
language other than English, these signs are at risk of removal. Other
Park Service signs in
[[Page S996]]
New Mexico include Spanish translations, and that should surprise
absolutely no one given our history under Spain and Mexico before being
ceded to the United States in 1848. In fact, New Mexico's State
Constitution recognizes Spanish as a protected language. But because
these signs have a language that is not English, under the Trump
administration, they risk removal.
Other exhibits at risk are not about language. The Trump
administration claims it is removing signs because they ``cast a
negative light'' on American history. But this is our history. Someone
just doesn't want our history to be told. That is putting the telling
of our history at risk. It is, in fact, already under attack, and that
is straight out of the authoritarian playbook. It should anger every
single American listening today. When we erase information about who we
are, when we silence people's stories, we promote a narrative that
ignores and manipulates what truly happened. So let me tell you what
they are trying to erase.
It is true that some of our forefathers founded this country on the
enslavement of other human beings. It is true that those human beings
built much of this country, including the building we are standing in
here today. And we fought a civil war and amended our Constitution and
guaranteed rights to millions of Americans as the result of all of that
because we demanded better of our country and of ourselves.
It is true that some of our forefathers forced Tribal people from
their homes, making them walk hundreds of miles on death marches to
resettle in small tracts of land far from the land they knew. And
today? Today, the daily work of the Senate's Energy and Natural
Resources and Indian Affairs Committees is to protect the rights and
advance the well-being of some of those same Tribes because we demand
better of our Nation and of ourselves.
It is true that this country did not apply the American values of
democracy and justice equally in the beginning and that women, Black
people, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, LGBTQ, and persons with
disabilities--just to name a few--all had to struggle to gain the same
rights as other groups of people because they demanded better of our
Nation and for all of us.
Like the stories of families that traveled over oceans, like mine
did, and traveled over mountains to be a part of the American dream,
the stories of those fights are the stories of how America became the
country that it is and how we will continue to lead. The hardships, the
pain, the suffering--they aren't false, and they aren't fictions. They
made us stronger, and they don't negate the progress we have made or
the pride we take in our country as we continue to strive for a more
perfect Union.
Because every good story is rooted in place, I often say that public
lands are the anvil on which our collective American identity was
forged because these lands preserve where much of that history
happened. From our historical parks and our historic trails to our
national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas, these lands hold the
echoes of our ancestors. They hold the good and the bad. And knowing
the truth makes us better. It makes us stronger. That is what makes us
demand more for our country and more for ourselves. New Mexico tells us
this.
Take the story of the Manhattan Project in my home State. You know,
we now have a national historic park to tell that story, but you can't
tell the story of the dawn of the atomic age without telling the whole
story, without recognizing the people from our New Mexico communities
whose health was sacrificed to build those powerful devices. You can't
hold up the amazing scientific advances made under J. Robert
Oppenheimer's supervision without also telling the story of his
political persecution and the removal of his clearance.
You know, George Orwell predicted a lot of things, and he once wrote:
The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and
obliterate their own understanding of their history.
Right now, President Trump is dumbing down our history. He is
cheapening our national parks. But he will not take our history from
us. We will tell these stories again and again and again as long as it
takes and long after he is relegated to the history books.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, our Nation was founded on extraordinary
ideals.
Our Declaration of Independence said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Our Constitution starts out with that vision:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
Lofty ideals--the equality of individuals, a nation formed to create
tranquility and prosperity, promote the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of liberty. That is an incredible vision.
And our Nation has been on an aspirational journey to realize those
visions for 250 years that we are celebrating now, this summer, July 4,
250 years since that Declaration of Independence. But that journey--
that journey is a complicated one.
Certainly, when the Declaration of Independence was written, it was
not true that all men and women were created and treated equally. They
were certainly not treated equally.
We traveled through the journey of discrimination and prejudice of
oppression, but we aspired to a better nation. We struggled with the
challenges and the shortcomings. So our history, it is marked by
extraordinary achievements, but it is also marred by significant
failings. All of it is part of our journey, our collective journey, and
no one has the right to erase it. Hands off our history.
As the lead Democrat on the Interior spending committee, I know the
critical role that our national parks play in telling those stories of
our complicated history, and they tell that story to millions of
visitors each year. And those visitors go: Wow. So that is what
happened, and that is how we responded to it to try to get to a better
place or that is what happened, and isn't that something worth
celebrating? And let's keep returning to those types of achievements
again.
So we are often a bit stunned by knowing our own history, a bit
inspired, but all of it creates a better foundation for us to go
forward.
Alan Spears of the National Parks Conservation Association said:
As Americans, we deserve national parks that tell stories
of our country's triumphs and heartbreaks alike. We can
handle the truth.
And, yes, we Americans can handle the truth. There are nations all
over the world with authoritarian governments that whitewash their
history. But we Americans are better than that. We can handle the
truth. We can celebrate the achievements; we can regret the mistakes;
and we can move forward to build a better nation.
The Lewis and Clark Expedition began in Missouri and reached all the
way to my State of Oregon. It was a triumph of exploration, but
America's westward expansion also brought some tragedies: the
destruction of Native Tribes, the slaughter of the American bison. And
we owe it to our children and the generations to come to tell the
entire story. We have faith in their ability to build a foundation of
understanding that will support better decision making and a better
celebration of our Nation, knowing it is based on the truth, not on
some--well, some version, some fictional version of the past.
But President Trump isn't strong enough to handle the history of our
Nation. He wants that purged version, that version where all of the
kind of missteps are set aside or anything that might trouble the soul
about something that happened in the past. Let's not allow Americans to
know that. Let's hide it from them. Let's hide it from our children.
What a massive mistake to live in a world where citizens can't face
the truth and where a President is terrified of the truth and wants to
hide it.
On March 27 of last year, 2025, President Trump signed Executive
Order 14253, directing the National Park Service to review and remove
what it considers to be ``improper ideology.''
[[Page S997]]
``Improper'' means it doesn't celebrate our Nation and mentions some of
the challenges that we faced along the way.
Following that Executive order, exhibits and information about all
kinds of things started getting deleted from our national parks: Tribal
history, women's suffrage, climate science, civil rights, the history
of slavery, the history of Jim Crow--removed. The Trump administration
is literally whitewashing the history of the United States of America.
Here are just a few examples of materials the Trump administration
has purged from our national parks: At Independence National Historical
Park in Pennsylvania, an exhibit about enslaved people who lived and
worked in George Washington's home; at Acadia National Park in Maine,
factual signs about rising park temperatures; at Grand Teton National
Park in Wyoming, information about the massacre of Native Americans; at
Muir Woods National Park in California, an exhibit about the role of
women in protecting the park.
And not just exhibits but entire sites are in danger, like the Emmett
Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monument in Mississippi. A Black
teenager, 14 years old, accused of looking at or whistling at a White
woman--he was beaten. He was mutilated. He was shot in the head, and he
was thrown into a river.
Knowing that history makes one understand our Nation better.
Pretending that there never was oppressive tactics inflicted on Black
Americans steals the opportunity to understand our history and where we
are today and what we aspire to.
A park employee warned: ``Without this exhibit to share the difficult
[Emmett] Till story . . . '' the monument ``would be almost completely
devoid of interpretation. . . . The exhibit emphasizes the `progress of
the American' people toward a better future.''
Isn't that part of the understanding of things that go wrong? It
helps us understand how we have moved forward, and that is an important
piece because it says that we can move forward, that we have overcome
some serious challenges of the past and moved forward; and, therefore,
we can do so again in the challenges that we are encountering.
In addition to these exhibits, the Washington Post reports that parks
across the country have flagged exhibits that, in an internal
government database, include the Arches National Park, the Harpers
Ferry National Historic Park, the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, the
Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail, the Manzanar National
Historic Site, even Ford's Theater National Historic Site, and the
Thomas Jefferson Memorial right here in Washington, DC. Trump wants to
whitewash all of that history.
Censorship is un-American, and it is damaging to all of us. So on
February 24, my colleague from New Mexico--and thank you for launching
this series of speeches--demanded answers from Interior Secretary
Burgum asking:
How many exhibits has the Department removed or otherwise
altered?
You know, in November, when the administration announced that the
parks were removing Martin Luther King, Jr., Day and Juneteenth but
adding President Trump's birthday as fee-free holidays, I wrote to
Secretary Burgum:
These alarming changes . . . are instead a thinly veiled
attempt to use our nation's most iconic landscapes to further
the self-promotion of President Trump.
Neither our national parks nor our national holidays should be about
a President trying to glorify himself as if he is a King. We certainly
should allow no President to whitewash our history.
In January, Senator Murkowski and I rejected the Trump
administration's proposed fiscal year 2026 spending cuts and, instead,
fully funded every single national park.
Let's understand that erasing history that doesn't center on those in
power is authoritarianism. Erasing science at the request of a
President is authoritarianism. Erasing the truth at the request of a
President because it upsets him is authoritarianism. And we will not
allow this authoritarian President to erase the history of our great
Nation.
The Trump administration claims to love America, but you cannot truly
love our wonderful Nation unless you understand our national journey,
our triumphs, and our shortcomings.
Loving America means embracing our collective effort to learn from
our shortcomings, to embrace the collective aspiration to build a
better future, to aspire to the noble values we hold dear, the values
that were expressed in our very founding documents of our Declaration
of Independence and our Constitution, the value that we were created
equal and that a great nation is one that provides opportunity for
every citizen to thrive and that every citizen can fully enjoy the
rights guaranteed in our Constitution: freedom of speech and freedom of
assembly and freedom of religion and freedom to participate in shaping
our shared future through free and fair elections.
Our national parks help explain that these freedoms don't exist for
everyone in the world, but they exist here because we envisioned the
possibility and we secured them. Our Founders secured them for
themselves and the generations to come, and we continue to work toward
that vision.
The freedoms are precious. We have won the birth lottery to be here
as citizens of the United States of America. And it is our
responsibility, the responsibility of every generation, to protect and
pass on these precious freedoms to the next generation. Let's start by
saying: Hands off our national parks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I would like to begin talking a little bit
about history, generally, rather than the topic that has been the
subject of the prior remarks, and then get into the question that has
been raised today.
There are several cliches about history, and one of the problems with
cliches is you hear them so often they lose their meaning, and you just
sort of sluff them off. But these two, I think, do have some meaning,
and they have become cliches because they are true.
One is, if you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it. I have
been hearing that all my life. If you don't know your history and if
you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it.
The second is attributed to Mark Twain who said:
History doesn't always repeat itself, but it [usually]
rhymes.
And that means that things that have happened in the past may not be
exactly what happens in the future, but the history predicts the
future.
I recently finished a biography of Cicero, the great Roman statesman,
and he said something about history that really stuck with me, which
is: If you don't know the history of your civilization, you live your
whole life as a child.
I thought that was a really important insight because what that is
really saying is all you have is your life. Whether you are 50 years
old or 40 years old or 25 years old, that is your sum knowledge if you
don't know the history that goes back 5 years, 10 years, 100 years, or
1,000 years.
If you don't know your history, you live your whole life as a child.
And what we are seeing in this process at our national parks is a kind
of lie to try to erase history, to try to keep us from understanding
the historical events that shaped this country. It is a lie. It is not
true.
If our parks and our historical sites are supposed to enrich our
lives and tell us about the background and the history of our country,
if you leave out the important parts, it is a damn lie, and that is
what is happening today.
We have a fantastic history. We have a great history. We have an
extraordinary history in his country of triumphs, of achievements. But
we also have dark periods of our history, and, indeed, I would argue
that one of our great triumphs is overcoming those dark periods in our
history.
To try to whitewash and eliminate and cover up the history of slavery
is to ignore the first third of our country's history altogether and
the cause of the greatest cataclysm this country has ever faced. And to
eliminate, for example, a display on slavery at Harpers Ferry is just
flat ridiculous. Harpers Ferry is there because of slavery and because
that was where John Brown's raid was, and that was the issue at that
moment.
It is like saying you can't have a model rocket at Cape Kennedy. I
mean, it is just ridiculous to try to make that
[[Page S998]]
kind of change. And the problem is, if we don't know our history--as I
go back to my early cliches--we may be doomed to repeat it or some dark
version thereof.
The President and the Secretary have talked about not wanting people
to be uncomfortable and feel bad about their history. People should
feel uncomfortable about slavery. They should understand that that was
part of the first third of the history of this country, and they should
understand the evils.
One of the most moving experiences I have ever had was when I went on
a civil rights pilgrimage, several years ago, to Alabama, and we went
to Montgomery. In Montgomery, there is a monument to lynching, and
hanging from the ceiling of this building are these--they look like
large coffins, frankly, and they have the names on them from virtually
every State, all the way up into the 1950s, where people were lynched
by mobs.
It was a shock, but it was something that educated me, that made me
understand the depth of this issue and how important it was to the
early part of the history of this country.
I had an experience that directly informed what I am talking about
today. Several years ago, I was on a trip with a group of Members of
this body to Europe. I think it was for the NATO conference. And on the
way back, we stopped at the Frankfurt airport, and there was a fellow
there who worked at the airport who was sort of guiding us through to
get to our gate to come home.
I got to chatting with him, and he told me something amazing. He
said, when he was in high school in Germany, he was required to go to a
concentration camp. He was required to see what his country had done to
the Jews and others in that incredibly dark period of German history.
The Germans are requiring their people to face their dark history,
and we are trying to cover up our dark history. I just find the
contrast extraordinary.
You learn from your history. You learn from the dark periods. And
here is a perfect example--the greatest sentence ever written in
English:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal.
That was written on a desk by a slaveholder, and the desk was built
by a slave at Monticello. That is an irony. That is perplexing. That is
difficult. It is uncomfortable, but it is part of the reality. It is
part of the reality of the history of our country, and it is something
we have to conjure with.
When I was a boy growing up, I used to go to a Rotary Club meeting
with my father, and the prize for people who came the farthest for the
Rotary Club meeting was a copy of George Washington's will, which is a
very interesting document because, in his will, he freed his slaves.
Again, that is a part of our history, and we need to understand that
the people who came before us went through difficult periods, and they
had to face difficult issues.
Whitewashing history, throughout history, is part of the
authoritarian playbook to try to manipulate history, to have all glory
go to the leader, all glory go to the government, and have people not
be uncomfortable about what went on in the past so they won't be
uncomfortable in what is being done to them by an authoritarian
government.
The glory of our country is the journey to ``a more perfect Union.''
I have always thought, ever since I first read the Constitution in law
school, it was very telling that the Framers used the term ``more
perfect Union.'' They didn't say ``a perfect union'' or ``toward a
union.'' They saw America as a journey. They saw America as moving
through time, by moving through and progressing over time.
When the Constitution was first written, the only people who could
vote were White male property owners. Since that time, through
tremendous struggle and sometimes violence--ask John Lewis or the early
suffragettes that were in prison--that circle of who could vote, of who
could participate has gradually grown. And that, to me, is the heart of
the American journey, and that is the heart of what we must understand
and recognize in order to know our history and not live our entire
lives as a child.
What is going on now, I believe, is an affront to the American
people. And what it is really saying is that the American people can't
handle the truth. Like Jack Nicholson said in the movie, ``You can't
handle the truth.''
The American people can handle the truth. They can understand what
happened. They can understand why it was evil and the struggles that
took place in order to overcome the dark portions of our history.
It is underestimating our people. They need to understand. We all
need to understand from whence we came.
And I will conclude by saying again: The glory of our country is the
journey, including the hard parts, toward ``a more perfect Union.''
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
National Parks
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I thought it was instructive to listen to
my colleague from Maine, Angus King. And today, he quoted Cicero in
saying: If you don't know your history, you live your whole life as a
child.
Well, here is another cliche: Ignorance is bliss.
Ignorance is not bliss, and yet that is what President Trump wants
the American people to be in--in a state of ignorance.
Our national parks tell the story of our country--good, bad, past,
present, and future. With over 430 national park sites covering more
than 85 million acres across our country, the national parks system
protects the beauty of our country and preserves the history that has
played out on these sites.
But under the Trump regime, this past year has been a historically
destructive period for our national parks. From stripping land
protections and gutting park staff to plastering Trump's face on
national park passes--frankly, I am just glad I have a lifetime pass
that does not have his face on it. From making Trump's birthday a free
entrance day, while limiting the free entrance day for Martin Luther
King, Jr., Day and Juneteenth, Trump and Republicans have been
conducting an unprecedented assault on our national parks.
What is more, they are attempting to rewrite history to their liking.
Last May, the Department of Interior advised national park sites across
the country to remove content at their sites that ``disparage
Americans.'' The Department claimed to have found hundreds of instances
of partisan ideology in exhibits at national parks and ordered that
they be removed.
What were these exhibits that were so partisan and offensive that
they were flagged and ordered for removal? They included an exhibit at
Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge to display information describing the
internment of Japanese Americans in wartime camps--concentration
camps--displays describing the massacres of indigenous people, displays
depicting the historical accounts of slavery.
Think about that. This regime views historical accounts of massacres,
slavery, and internment as partisan ideology so dangerous it warrants
removal. The removal of these exhibits not only strips these sites of
critical content, but it erases and whitewashes the history of our
country.
These exhibits and others like them reflect some of the darkest
stains on our country's history. That is precisely why it is so
important that we continue to talk about them and learn about them. It
is by preserving history that we prevent ourselves from repeating the
more egregious parts of our past.
Perhaps that is why Trump is so hellbent on erasing painful parts of
our Nation's history. He wants to wipe out references to the
unconstitutional internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans that
destroyed their livelihoods--indeed, their lives--their businesses, and
split apart families.
Doesn't this sound familiar, as this regime goes about arresting and
deporting thousands of immigrants without due process, spreading fear
and chaos in our communities?
Our national parks are places where we can learn about historical
events. Our parks also preserve pristine national landscapes in every
corner of our country.
Many of these sites are impacted, unsurprisingly, by climate change.
Protecting our parks from the impacts of climate change is not a high
priority for Trump and his regime, as he continues to focus on ``drill
baby drill.'' In
[[Page S999]]
fact, his regime is erasing exhibits addressing the impacts of climate
change on our parks.
Information about climate change helps national park visitors to
fully understand the environment that surrounds them. The National Park
Service has been ordered to remove the general climate change web page,
as well as specific changes on other national park websites, including
those from the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park site. Talk about sticking
your head in the sand.
For Hawaii, our unique geography means it is profoundly impacted by
climate change, from shoreline erosion to rising ocean temperatures and
so much more.
Americans need to understand what is happening to our environment so
that we can better understand how to protect these natural resources
for future generations. It is critical that our parks continue not only
their missions of conserving natural, cultural, and historical
landscapes, but that they accurately display important context about
the sites on which they exist.
As this regime--and why do I keep referring to ``this regime''? It is
because regimes are authoritarian. Authoritarian regimes tell parks:
Hey, do not tell the American people the full history of this site.
That is a regime. So that is why I continue to call this a regime.
Anyway, for this regime, as it attempts to rewrite history all over
the place, it is no surprise that they have set their sights on our
national parks. The millions of visitors to our national parks will not
get a full picture. Apparently, that is exactly as this regime intends.
Mr. President, we deserve better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
H.R. 6644
Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to talk
about the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act and why it is so important.
I want to start with core principles. Without a safe, decent,
affordable, comfortable place to call home, nothing in your life
works--not your job, not your family, not your education or your
health. That is because a home is more than just four walls and a roof;
it is a source of stability and comfort and dignity. It gives you the
freedom and the opportunity to build the life that you want.
I think that every Member of this Chamber knows this: Every day,
Americans are trying to figure out how to afford their lives, and
millions--in big cities and suburbs, in small towns and rural
communities--are stretching to pay their rent. And the dream of owning
your own home--that American dream--feels like a pipedream to many
millions of our constituents. It is hard for working families, and it
is hard for young people starting out, to even imagine being able to
put the money together for a downpayment or a mortgage.
So why is this happening? It is interesting. Across political parties
and across the country, most people who have looked at this question
agree: We have a supply problem in this country. Basically, there are
more people who need a place to live than there are houses people can
afford to rent or to buy, and then we are losing affordable homes and
we aren't building enough homes at prices that people can afford. That
is a supply problem. The result is housing costs soaring out of reach.
Over 22 million people in this country are paying more than 30
percent of their income on rent. So what that means is that they don't
have enough money for the other necessities in their life, like school
or healthcare or hopefully saving a little money. So that is 22 million
people who are struggling to hold it together because of the cost of
their rent.
Over 12 million people are paying more than 50 percent of their
income on rent. For those folks, their life just basically isn't
working. They are drowning. They are struggling to pay their bills.
They are not paying the bills that they need to.
I can tell you that in Minnesota there are just 41 affordable and
available places for people to rent for every 100 people with extremely
low incomes. So the rental market is very tight--not enough supply. But
the story for people who want to own their own home is also really
challenging. Mortgage payments are roughly 40 percent higher than they
were in 1990, even after you adjust for inflation. And in the past few
years, the median home price has reached $400,000. As a result, the age
of first-time home buyers is now 40 years old in this country.
Now, Archie and I were about 30 when we bought our first home. We
were newly married and had a boatload of school debt, but we could
afford the mortgage on our first home, which was about $85,000. Today,
that home would cost over $300,000.
So all of this is why the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is so
important. This is landmark legislation to build more homes, to bring
down housing costs, and to rein in corporate landlords. This is the
biggest housing supply bill to move through Congress in 30 years. It
has remarkably broad bipartisan support in Congress and the support of
people across the country who have been working hard on this issue for
so many years--from the United States Conference of Mayors to the
National Association of REALTORS, the National Low Income Housing
Coalition, the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders, the
Enterprise Community Partners. All of these are supporting this
legislation.
What this bill does is it boosts housing supply by cutting redtape,
by making it easier and cheaper to build good places for people to
live, and by preserving the existing supply of very affordable homes in
rural communities.
I have been working on this issue since I first came to the Senate.
When I first was here, we went around Minnesota, and we organized
listening sessions on housing in communities all across the State. I
can tell you, I got an earful. People told me that they couldn't find
an affordable place to live. Businesses told me that the housing
shortage was making it impossible for them to recruit talent into their
communities. Mayors were telling me that a lack of housing was hurting
their community housing vitality. And developers told me it was too
complex and expensive to build new homes.
So as chair of the Housing Subcommittee with Senator Mike Rounds, my
wonderful ranking member, we dug into this. We dug into the challenges
especially around the Rural Housing Service. Now, the Rural Housing
Service has been a vital link in the chain to provide very affordable
places for people to live in rural communities. Think of the elders who
live on a fixed income who want to stay in the communities where they
raised their families or people who are living with disabilities or
working poor families.
Most of the properties in the Rural Housing Service were built in the
1960s with the help of Federal mortgages to finance them, and often,
they were the only affordable places to call home in rural communities.
Today, many of these homes are in disrepair, and the Rural Housing
Service is in desperate need of reform and modernization. And if we
don't take action, we are at risk of losing 400,000 very affordable
places for people to live in rural communities.
So I am so excited to say that our bill has been included in the 21st
Century ROAD to Housing Act. Here is what it does: It makes some really
simple, commonsense reforms. It cuts redtape to make it easier for
nonprofits to assume the mortgages of these properties and to fix them
up and preserve them for low-income renters to use for years to come.
It simplifies the foreclosure process, and that saves the government
money and also protects tenants so properties can be transferred more
easily. And it gives the Rural Housing Service more capacity to work
with local banks on financing by helping them modernize how their
computer systems work.
Here is what that looks like in realtime. Last August, I visited
Maplewood Apartments in St. Peter, MN, which is a small and wonderful
community in southern Minnesota. This apartment complex needed a lot of
TLC to be a decent place for people to live. Local nonprofits and
public partners joined together to fix it up, and I had a chance to see
what that work had resulted in, to see what it meant, particularly to
one resident, Lisa Gallegos, who welcomed me into her new home. She
told me about what a difference this place made in her life--this
apartment--where she finally had the space to be able to focus on her
life and making her life work rather than
[[Page S1000]]
worrying every single month about how she was going to hold it
together, how she was going to pay the rent and pay her other bills.
This example is why it is so important that we preserve these rural
apartment units and why my bill with Mike Rounds is so important.
Now, none of this happened overnight. Mike and I held hearings. We
put out a request for comment. We had leaders from the USDA and housing
advocates from around the country come in and tell us what needed to
happen. And we listened, and we went to work. And with the 21st Century
ROAD to Housing Act, we are going to get it done.
I want to especially thank Senator Rounds for being such an excellent
partner and friend in this work, and I also want to thank Senators
Daines, Warner, Crapo, Fetterman, Cramer, Warnock, Shaheen, Moran,
Cortez Masto, Ricketts, King, Risch, and Heinrich, all who joined in
this effort as cosponsors.
Overall, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act takes many important
steps to boost supply for housing. It creates the first ever incentives
for cities and towns to build more housing. It removes regulatory
barriers and helps streamline environmental reviews to speed up
affordable housing construction, and it makes it less expensive. It
boosts financing options for modular housing and also for manufactured
housing and affordable homes. It removes unnecessary requirements for
manufactured housing to have the chassis on them--the wheels on them--
that are not necessary. This is going to save thousands of dollars.
This bill focuses on increasing housing supply, but it also is
ensuring that homes that are built end up in the hands of families and
not corporations. In Minnesota, I often hear stories from people who
are trying to buy a home and then an anonymous corporate actor swoops
in with an all-cash offer and they just can't compete with it. A young
couple looking to buy their first home can't compete with an all-cash
offer from a hedge fund.
Out-of-State landlords have also gobbled up homes, turning them into
rentals, leaving these properties in disrepair, leaving tenants in the
lurch, and jacking up the rent all at the same time. One of the worst
actors in Minnesota bought up more than 600 homes and then failed to
meet even the most basic expectations as a landlord. The city of
Minneapolis found code violations at 58 percent of their properties,
with tenants reporting long periods of not having any hot water or a
working furnace or having bats in their place or literally having to
use buckets of water to get the toilets to flush. The Minnesota
attorney general Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit against the firm and
settled for more than $4 million.
Now, this firm in Minneapolis isn't alone, and it is not just
happening in Minnesota. Many of us in this Chamber have worked for
years to hold corporate investors accountable and to stop the American
dream of home ownership from being bought up by private equity. So I am
so glad that language addressing the role of institutional investors in
home ownership is included in this package because homes should be for
people, not for corporations.
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act does a lot of good. There is
going to be more work to do to make it possible for every American to
have a safe, decent place to live, but this bill is an important start.
I have spent almost 9 years in the Senate, working with anyone who
wants to work with me, to improve the capacity of Americans to afford a
decent, affordable place to live. So I am proud to support this
legislation, and I am very proud that the Rural Housing Service Reform
Act is an important part of this bipartisan bill.
I want to particularly thank Senator Scott and Senator Warren and
their staff for their creativity and diligence and optimism to put this
bill together at a time when Congress needs more bipartisan work. And I
also want to thank my partners on the Housing Subcommittee: Senator
Rounds, Senator Lummis, and now Senator Britt, who is the chair of the
subcommittee. Each of you have been serious about working together to
tackle problems and to find solutions and to put aside the partisanship
that too often defines our work.
Passing the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act will help people afford
a decent place to live, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor.
(Mr. LEE assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). The Senator from Utah.
Remembering Rex Edwin Lee
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, 30 years ago today, my late father Rex Edwin
Lee passed away after a nearly decade-long heroic fight with cancer.
Now, 30 years is a long time. Children grow up, so do grandchildren.
Families expand, chapters open and close, and yet there are some people
whose absences are always felt because the influence of their lives
continues to shape those around them long after they have left us.
My dad, pictured here, was one of those people. He certainly was for
me and I know for many others.
During his lifetime, he held many offices, received many honors. He
was, by any measure, a giant in the legal world. To me, he was, first
and foremost, my dad.
To my mother, he was the love of her life and the man with whom she
built a family--a family of seven children, a family with evermore
grandchildren and now great-grandchildren in their line of succession.
To his seven children, he was a source of energy, of steadiness,
humor, discipline, fun, and love.
To his students, he was the kind of teacher who challenged views and
inspired a love of the craft that was undeniably contagious.
To so many others, he was proof that brilliance and kindness need not
be mutually exclusive, that a man could be formidable without being
harsh, intensely accomplished without being self-important, and deeply
faithful without being pious.
He grew up in a small town, St. Johns, AZ, a really small town that
remained part of him throughout the rest of his life. He used to joke
that he may have been 18 years old before he realized that the name of
the town was not ``resume speed ahead.''
St. Johns was a sleepy little community, but it was home to him and
so many he loved.
He was grateful for his roots and didn't carry himself like a man
embarrassed by his smalltown beginnings. Gratitude was one of the great
governing themes of his entire lifetime. He loved that the parable of
the 10 lepers referred to the fact that only 1 returned to Jesus to
thank him. He described this as this establishing what he called ``a
human gratitude index.''
Gratitude, he would say, is, too often, far too rare, and it is one
of the most uncelebrated but valuable virtues a human being can learn
to possess.
However accomplished he became, he seemed to always be aware that
life had given him much and that he owed much in return. Even as a
young man, there were signs of what he might one day become.
He had a precocious love of language, argument, ideas, and
persuasion. He attended Brigham Young University initially. I might
add, when he first got there, he went there with a little bit less
enthusiasm for that institution than he would later develop.
He had his eye elsewhere. In his small town of St. Johns, AZ, he had
a couple of cousins, his first cousins whom he looked up to: Morris and
Stewart Udall, just a few years older than he. They were the sons of
his father's sister.
They had both gone to study at the University of Arizona. He wanted
to follow in their footsteps, but his parents insisted that he spend at
least 1 year first at Brigham Young University in my hometown of Provo,
UT, but he took an almost instant liking to BYU.
When he got there, he was quickly elected as his freshman class
president, and he noted how interesting this was to him that he was
elected class president. His freshman class at BYU was several times
larger than the entire population in the town he had been raised.
He flourished in every way at BYU. He was, just before he served his
senior year, elected to student body president, an early sign of the
leadership that would later bring him back to BYU, first, to build its
law school and, ultimately, to serve as the university president.
Right in the middle of his undergraduate years, he left to serve a
mission for 2\1/2\ years where he went to
[[Page S1001]]
Mexico serving as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. That experience strengthened his faith, and it gave
him an enduring love for the Spanish language, of the Mexican people,
and the rich cultural heritage that comes with it.
He became fluent in the Spanish language and really understood
features of the culture that stayed with him for the rest of his life
in a way that many around him found remarkable.
Many years later, when I myself became a missionary, he and I
developed a practice of writing letters to each other in Spanish, and I
was often astonished, particularly during my first few months of my
missionary experience, at his degree of proficiency in the Spanish
language. I quickly learned to keep a dictionary close by because he
was routinely using words that I had yet to learn.
I frequently have interacted with people, people who were born and
raised in Mexico, who often described his proficiency in the Spanish
language in a way that suggested to them, if they closed their eyes,
couldn't see that they were talking to a gringo, you would think they
were speaking to another person who had been born and raised in that
country.
It was, by the way, during his time in Mexico as a missionary that he
first laid eyes on and crossed paths with the woman who would become
his wife and eventually my mother. Of all the victories he achieved in
his distinguished career, he would have been the first to say that one
stands above the rest, that is persuading my mother Janet Griffin to
marry him.
By the time my dad reached the University of Chicago Law School, it
had certainly become clear that his gifts were rather extraordinary. He
ended up graduating first in his class from that institution, and from
there went directly to serve a clerkship with Associate Justice Byron
White, who was then a fairly new member of the Supreme Court of the
United States.
After his clerkship, he returned to Arizona, and he worked for one of
Phoenix's premier law firms, Jennings Strouss & Salmon, where he later
became a partner.
In 1972, while I was just a baby, he received a phone call. Having
received another phone call from someone in Salt Lake City a few weeks
earlier, he had been told that the church was thinking about
establishing a law school at Brigham Young University.
They asked him as a Latter-day Saint lawyer what he would think of
that.
He said: I think that would be a big mistake.
Why?
Well, Utah--a relatively small State--it already has a perfectly good
law school at the University of Utah. We don't need another one.
A few months went by, another call came, and said: You know about
that law school that we talked about starting, the one you told us not
to start?
Yeah.
Well, we are going to start it anyway. We want you to help us figure
out whom to hire to run it. Could you help us find a dean?
He said: Sure. I will come up with a list of potential candidates--
knowing that the church probably wanted a Latter-day Saint who had been
a faculty member at an accredited law school, and he came up with a
good list of them.
When that conversation occurred, he thought his job was done. A few
months after that, he got a call from Salt Lake City informing him he
would be the founding dean of the yet-to-exist, yet-to-be-accredited,
yet-to-have-an-entering-class, any-student-body, or any-faculty law
school in Provo, UT.
It was, at that point, that my family moved from Arizona to Utah when
I was a year old.
Again, there was no faculty. There was no building. There was no
library. There were no students. He had to recruit all of this in just
a few years' time, starting from scratch, not only without ABA
accreditation but without any real promise that ABA accreditation would
come.
Later in life, I realized how difficult this must have been. This is
the first class, the charter class. It began in the fall of 1973.
I asked him: How on Earth did you do that?
He said: I just looked for really smart undergraduate students. I
would find them. I knew where to look, and I would have conversations
with them in which I did a heck of a sales job, and I promised them it
would be a good experience.
Looking back on that now, I am not sure how I would have responded,
but I do know that the charter class of BYU's law school went on to
accomplish all sorts of things. They punched way above their weight.
The school was accredited long before that charter class graduated.
My dad approached that job with his characteristic determination, and
under his leadership, the J. Reuben Clark Law School at BYU began to
take shape.
In 1975, a couple of years into that experiment, he took a leave of
absence from the law school and went to Washington, DC, to become the
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice. Having been invited to assume that role by Ed
Levi, who served as the Attorney General of the United States under
President Ford.
He would return back to the BYU Law School 2 years later to continue
serving as dean.
He enjoyed that experience very much, and a few years later in 1981,
he received another phone call and was invited to return to Washington
to serve as Solicitor General of the United States under President
Reagan. In that capacity, it was his job to represent the U.S.
Government before the Supreme Court. He argued many dozens of cases
during one of the most demanding and interesting periods of time in the
Supreme Court's history. During his time as Solicitor General, he won
23 of the 30 cases he argued during that roughly 4-year period, during
President Reagan's first Presidential term.
He held records both as the Solicitor General of the United States
and later as an attorney in private practice before the Supreme Court
for arguing more cases before the Supreme Court in a single term than
anyone had in the Court's history at that point.
In 1986, he returned again to the faculty at BYU as a professor while
working simultaneously as a partner at Sidley Austin, one of the
Nation's finest law firms, where he helped found the flagship Supreme
Court practice at that firm. From that point forward, much of his legal
practice consisted of arguing cases specifically before the Supreme
Court. For a lawyer, there are few greater privileges.
As a child, I learned something interesting. I learned that anytime I
wanted to attend one of my dad's arguments, it was a very effective way
of missing school. I had an almost perfect track record of this. I
figured out what his argument schedule was, and when I saw it
approaching, I knew that if I pled my case correctly, I could go and
watch. More about that in just a minute.
Right before he died, he was still rehearsing in his mind, still
preparing to argue what would have been his 60th case before the
Supreme Court despite being confined to a hospital bed.
A lot of my own early exposure to the law came from watching him in
court, often just as an excuse to miss school. I discovered to my
delight that if I asked, they would usually let me go, and I would sit
there in court as a young boy trying to take in the majesty of the
place, listening to language I didn't fully understand and yet
understanding just enough to know that what my dad was doing was
important.
Over time, I learned to decode some of the language--not all of it by
any means, but I started to play games. I could figure out which
Justice was going to ask a question next, how the Court might respond
to certain arguments. I even picked up subtleties of mistakes lawyers
would commonly make that would usually make the Justices not respond
well.
All of my siblings attended my dad's arguments from time to time, and
for whatever reason, the law bug seemed to have bitten two of his seven
children more than others. My brother Tom and I both became lawyers,
entering our dad's profession.
As fate would have it, many years later, Tom and I, after entering
the practice of law and having served in various capacities--law firms,
government service--Tom later became a law professor at BYU's Law
School. But back in 2010, within a 24-hour period, we both experienced
different turns to
[[Page S1002]]
our careers. On one night in 2010, I won the Utah Republican primary in
my first Senate race. The very next morning after winning that primary,
my brother was confirmed by the Utah State Senate as a member of Utah's
Supreme Court--a post he held for 12 years.
There were many influences in our lives, of course, but no one can
seriously doubt the source of so much of that inspiration. We were
raised by a father who loved the law with all of his mind and loved God
and his family with all of his heart. Our father's faith was central to
his life. He was a devout Latter-day Saint, and he taught all seven of
us--my brother and I and our five sisters--he taught us how to pray, to
read the Scriptures, to trust in the Lord, to serve and love others.
He served in many callings, many positions in the lay ministry in our
church. He had a profound belief in religious liberty, and he thought
carefully about why it mattered. He understood the structure of the
Constitution. He understood the historical development of religious
liberty. He understood the arguments of Jefferson and Madison and the
distinction between the establishment clause and the free exercise
clause and how they intersect and the jurisprudence that had grown up
around those important guarantees.
But he also understood that for millions of Americans and so many
billions around the world, religion is itself a covenant and a duty and
a blessing. He understood that a free people cannot remain free if they
are denied the right to live out the deepest obligations of the soul.
He believed that. He defended that. He lived that.
At home, for all of his stature, he was never remote. Sometimes he
had to go out of town, other times he might have to work long days at
the office, but he always came home without too much time elapsing, and
he was ever present when home. In fact, one of the wonders of my late
father was that taking into account all he did, I don't think any one
of us ever felt neglected, despite how many obligations he had.
When I was a boy, I decided to make some money by shoveling the
neighbors' driveways after heavy snowstorms. I very quickly found
myself during certain winter months with more work, more jobs than I
could easily handle within a finite period of time. My clients, after
all, demanded that their driveways be shoveled, and I didn't want to
let them down.
My father offered to help me. I offered to pay him. He declined. I
remember--I think his exact words were: Consider me your indentured
servant. You don't have to pay me, but you can collect the money
attributable to my labors on your behalf. Consider it my service to
you.
So there I was, a boy with a small snow-shoveling enterprise,
collecting the proceeds, while my father, one of the finest lawyers in
America, worked beside me in the cold, helping his son keep
commitments. He was still much bigger than I was and able to shovel a
lot more snow than I was. He was there for me.
Another family story that captures something essential about my dad
is a story I have always loved, a story that I have gotten from my
brother Tom. Tom is a few years older than I am. When I was either very
little or perhaps not yet born, my dad one day was assembling a swing
set in our backyard in Arizona. He was using some specialized tool that
had come with the swing set, specific to that set.
My brother Tom kept asking what that tool was called. My dad looked
at it, a little confused at first, and then said: Look, I don't know
what it is called, but when you need one of those, nothing else will
do.
The same, as my brother has often observed, could be said of my dad.
He was so many things at once, and he did so many things at once--
scholar, advocate, teacher, administrator, church member, husband,
father, mentor, friend, patriot, and that list could continue on for
some time. It is hard to reduce him to one word or even one set of
words, but when you needed a person of exactly his unique combination
of gifts and talents and interests, nothing else would do.
He had a genuine warmth and a mischievous side to him. He loved
amusement parks and roller coasters and wasn't too dignified to shout
both on the way up and on the way down on the roller coaster,
especially if some of his teenage children were there, capable of being
perfectly embarrassed by that spectacle of a grown man shouting at the
top of his lungs.
In 1987, while he was still in outstanding physical condition--an
avid runner, a marathoner--he was diagnosed with a very aggressive,
advanced form of stage IV non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. It was a devastating
cancer diagnosis. He was told by many of the doctors that he may not
live more than a few months. Yet what followed from that moment was one
of the most instructive chapters of his life.
He fought for months and nearly died during that initial period
following his initial diagnosis, and then, through excellent medical
care and what felt to us like a providential chain of events tantamount
to miracles, he was granted more time, nearly 9 more years.
What did he do with those 9 years? Well, he didn't retreat into
bitterness or caution. He didn't allow pain to become the dominant
feature in his life, or the fear of subsequent deterioration of his
health. He returned to work. He continued to serve in the church as the
bishop of our local church congregation in Provo. He continued to teach
as a professor at BYU while maintaining a full-time law practice. He
continued to argue cases before the Supreme Court--something he loved,
once commenting that is the most fun one can have in any activity that
doesn't involve eating ice cream. He continued to be a father, a
grandfather, a mentor. And he did so all without any complaint.
Just about 2 years after that initial diagnosis, which fortunately
turned into remission, he was asked to serve as the 10th president of
Brigham Young University--a position he had neither sought nor
anticipated, but he did it willingly, gladly, grateful for the
opportunity to serve.
He served with ambition and with purpose. During his presidency,
among other things, he established an academic freedom policy and
launched the university's first, ambitious capital campaign. He told me
that when he designed this campaign to create BYU's first endowment, he
intended to raise $250 million. They thought he had lost his mind. They
thought they would never get that done. Well, it happened a few years
later. They finished it under his successor, president Merrill Bateman,
and his vision helped launch that.
At the time, BYU didn't have an endowment, but it began the work of
building one. He laid the groundwork that made that possible, and it
came to fruition just a few years after he died. Today, that endowment
stands valued in the billions of dollars--a lasting part of his legacy.
He was proud to help bring about massive expansion of buildings on
campus. He was thrilled with the opening of the BYU Museum of Art--
another enduring contribution to his service as president of the
university.
Yet even those achievements are dwarfed by the less tangible part of
his presidency. He created a culture on campus in which people felt
they belonged. Students felt seen. Faculty felt and, in fact, were
heard. There was a sense of shared purpose on campus, and much of that
came from his ability to build genuine rapport with all of those around
him. That spirit became one of the defining features of his time as
president.
I remember talking with one of his law partners after he had died--
Carter Phillips, a longtime partner at Sidley Austin and a dear friend
and colleague of my dad's. He said: Walking across BYU's campus with
Rex Lee serving as president was unlike any experience I could ever
imagine on any other college campus in America--a combination of
walking across the campus with someone who is at once royalty, a rock
star, a sports star, and everybody's buddy, and also just a revered
academic figure.
He said: I have never seen anything like it. But people liked him,
and they greeted him with a smile.
In March of 1990, less than a year after he had been installed as
BYU's 10th president, cancer came calling again, and that cancer
diagnosis was a troubling one. I remember when he informed me one
morning in March of 1990 that they had rediscovered cancer. It was a
slightly different form of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
[[Page S1003]]
He said: This one is more aggressive, less amenable to treatment.
This one will take my life. It is just a question of how long, but we
think we can stretch out my lifespan by a number of years through
aggressive treatment--which he continued to receive almost entirely
during the time he continued to serve as BYU president while continuing
to still argue Supreme Court cases every single year. That was part of
the deal he made with the university. He would do that if they would
let him keep his hobby of arguing one or two cases before the U.S.
Supreme Court a year. They relented.
Fast-forward a few years to the winter of 1996, the early months of
1996, late February. I remember taking him to the hospital for what
would be his last hospital visit a couple weeks before he died. He had
an oxygen mask over him helping him breathe. He was mostly unconscious.
But as a second-year law student, I understood the words that he was
muttering under the mask, and I associated them with one of the cases
he had been briefing and was hoping to argue before the U.S. Supreme
Court--what would have been his 60th argument.
He was almost unconscious as we were wheeling him in and yet still he
managed to continue that fight. He was, even in those fading hours,
still preparing in his mind for what he believed would be his next
argument before the Supreme Court. That was my dad to the very end--he
was ready to make the case.
I will never forget the moment I experienced it--exactly 30 years ago
today--as a young law student, right in the middle of my second year of
law school. When that day arrived, we knew something was afoot. I had
to go back to law school for a few hours for a class. We knew he would
likely not survive that day.
Early in the morning, I was at the law school already, preparing for
class. I looked out the window, and I saw the Sun rising over the
Wasatch Mountains, over the Y Mountain, and Squaw Peak Mountain, which
was close to our home and close to the law school. I realized that day
that the Sun was rising over those mountains for the last time that he
would inhabit this Earth. I knew that the world would be a sadder place
without him.
Just a few hours later, I went to class, and I went down to his
hospital room in the intensive care unit, where all seven of his
children and my mother surrounded him. I called Sharon, my wife, just
before I went down there, realizing that things were about to change.
She was at home with our two 1-year-old twin boys, James and John, and
cried for herself and for me and the rest of my family as I told her we
were about to lose him.
As the end drew near, we could tell by his vital signs that it was
happening. I kept looking at him, thinking: I wish I could download
everything that he has got in there. I need this knowledge--this vast
reservoir of the law, of human relations, of how to be a good follower
of Jesus, of how to be a good neighbor and friend. I want to download
all of it.
I knew that was in vain. We don't have the technology to do that. We
didn't 30 years ago, and we still don't. But I knew I needed to learn
everything about him and that I had an abundant supply of things that
he left behind in his writings, in his speeches, and in his
interactions with people with whom I interacted on a regular basis.
As I reflect back on these 30 years without him since he has been
gone and how fully his influence remains, I hear him still, and I still
hear a lot of the advice that he gave me: Use the simple word if it
will do. Never use a 3-dollar word if a 10-cent word will suffice and
get the idea across. Be kind. Give others the benefit of the doubt.
When you have won your case, sit down, and don't say another word. Do
not spoil a good argument by saying one word too many. And for the love
of all that is sacred and holy, when asked by a judge in a courtroom a
question--even the most remote, hypothetical--answer the question.
Don't try to dodge it. You will regret it.
The older I get, the more grateful I am for these and so many other
valuable words of advice I got from him--grateful not only that he was
admired but that he was admirable; grateful not only that he was
brilliant but that he was good and kind; grateful that his ambitions
were elevated by faith; grateful that his public life never consumed
his private duties and never eclipsed, in any way, anything else that
he had to do.
If he were here, I would tell him that we still miss him, that we
still love him, that his example lives on and still instructs us, that
his faith still steadies us, that his gratitude still shames our own
occasional forgetfulness, our own departure, or our own falling into
the trap of what he called the human gratitude index; that the things
he built, both in institutions and in people, continue to endure.
Most of all, I would thank him. Thirty years later, I still feel now
what I felt then.
I miss you, Dad. I love you, and I thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, first, I am grateful to be on the floor to
hear those moving words about Senator Lee's father--an exceptional man.
I thank him for sharing those stories with his colleagues.
Iran
Mr. President, I am on the floor today to talk about the growing,
alarming incoherence of the President's war in Iran--an illegal war, a
war that he has not sought consent for, a war with an ever-changing
rationale and war plan, a war that is costing taxpayers billions of
dollars but also costing them at home in their communities, as energy
prices continue to soar.
Let me start with the bombing of this girls' elementary school in
Iran. I start here because it shows, in this one horrible incident, the
insanity and the destined failure of the President's strategy in Iran
and the extraordinary ways in which President Trump is lying to the
American people about this war.
Trump has, apparently, learned nothing from our nightmares in Iraq
and Afghanistan. You cannot bomb a nation into submission. You cannot
impose regime change from the air.
What will happen now that an entire nation is looking at images of
America murdering little girls at an elementary school? Yes, this was a
mistake--no doubt about it. Mistakes happen in war. But these
inevitable mistakes are the reason these bombing campaigns almost
never, ever achieve their objectives. All these bombing campaigns do--
with the thousands of civilians who, in the end, they kill--is to
harden the nation that you are bombing and invading, causing them to
take a harder line, to choose harder line leaders--more militant
leadership--in order to protect the nation against the enemy invaders
who bomb elementary schools.
What makes this incident even more unforgivable is that the President
is lying to us. Earlier today, when asked about growing evidence that
it was, in fact, a U.S. Tomahawk missile that hit this school, he said:
I don't know about that.
Earlier in the week, when he was asked about the bombing of the
girls' school, he said:
Well, I haven't seen it.
He went on to say that the Tomahawk, which is one of the most
powerful weapons around--you know, it is sold and used by other
countries, whether it is Iran that has some Tomahawks and wishes they
had more or--whether it is Iran or somebody else, the Tomahawk is very
generic. The President of the United States knows that Iran doesn't
have Tomahawks. The President of the United States should know that we
are the only nation using Tomahawks. The idea that he is pretending to
not know about the bombing of this school--the idea that he is trying
to pretend that the Iranians somehow stole a Tomahawk missile from the
United States, figured out how to launch it, and aimed it at a school--
is absurd and offensive.
Further, this administration refuses to be straight with us about the
reasons that we are at war. What he has said is that he wants
unconditional surrender and that he wants to be involved in the
appointment of the next Supreme Leader. That is regime change--
unconditional surrender and the President of the United States choosing
the next leader of Iran. But as we have learned in closed-door
briefings, that is not actually the Department of Defense's plan. That
is not a
[[Page S1004]]
goal of the war. We are, in fact, apparently, very satisfied to leave
in charge of Iran hardline leadership. The new Supreme Leader is, by
most estimates, more radical and likely going to be more provocative
and more anti-American than the Supreme Leader whom we killed.
The President told the Iranian people to rush out onto the street.
``Take over your government.'' But he is prepared--his war plan is
prepared--to leave in charge of Iran hardline leadership.
Let's be clear. The President is not prepared to come to the defense
of the Iranian people if they rise up in the streets. There is nothing
in the war plan that suggests we will do that.
The President has also said, over and over and over again, that a
goal of the war is to permanently deny Iran the ability to have nuclear
weapons. You have heard the President say this. That was in a
Department of War press release just days ago.
In our closed-door briefings, we learned that that is, in fact, not a
goal of our war plan--that it is not a goal of the war to destroy their
nuclear program--which is, of course, not surprising because you cannot
destroy Iran's nuclear program from the air. You cannot, A, destroy
knowledge. You cannot hunt down with missiles every single Iranian
scientist who knows how to build a nuclear reactor. And the materiel is
buried so far under the ground to be immune from an air campaign.
So, yes, it stands to reason that one of the goals of this war is not
to destroy the nuclear program. But then, why are the President and the
Department of Defense telling us that the point of the war is to
destroy their nuclear program?
They are not telling the truth about this girls' school that was hit
on the first day, and they are not telling the truth about the aims of
the war. As we learn more in our closed-door briefings, we learn how
unbelievably unprepared they were for the fallout. It is bad enough
that they are not telling the truth about why we are at war, but it is
incomprehensible that they did not do the basic planning to manage the
fallout.
They have no plan to open up the Strait of Hormuz--a totally
foreseeable result of a military action against Iran, a completely
foreseeable result of murdering the Shia's top religious leader in the
middle of the holy month. The strait has now been closed for,
effectively, 10 days. There is no plan to reopen it. It is getting
worse, not better.
As news broke today that Iran is now, for the first time, mining the
strait--and we can't get into this conversation on the floor of the
Senate--we all know that, once that mining begins, it is very hard, if
not impossible in the short run, to counteract. If the strait is closed
for weeks more or months more, that is a global economic catastrophe.
Already, my constituents are paying through the nose for this war. It
gets infinitely worse if that strait doesn't open up, and the
administration has no plan to open it up.
The incompetence and the lying should infuriate every Member of the
Senate and every citizen of this country. This war is costing us at
least $2 billion a day. There are no achievable war aims. The goals
shift from day to day. There is no plan to manage the consequences and
the fallout for American citizens or citizens of the Gulf.
You saw stories today of additional new missiles raining down on our
Gulf allies. You probably know that they--much faster than we--are
running out of the interceptors that stop those missiles. There will be
increased deaths in the region very soon because we did not have the
adequate supplies ready for our allies in the region to protect
themselves against an onslaught of Iranian aerial attacks. It is just
incompetence--incompetence--made worse by mistruths and made worse by
the President's lying to the American people about what is happening
and what the goals are of the war.
At the very least, we need to have Secretary Rubio and Secretary
Hegseth in front of the Senate. I can't believe that my Republican
colleagues don't feel like it is a giant middle finger from the
administration that there hasn't been a single hearing on the most
significant military action that this country has undertaken in a
generation.
What is the point of being a U.S. Senator? Why are we here? Why have
we worked so hard to get this job if we are not prepared to ask the
administration to come and present to us why they are putting our
constituents' lives at risk and why they are driving up the costs at
home for our constituents as this war continues to exacerbate rising
prices?
We are abdicating our responsibility as Senators. No, let me put it
more specifically. Republican leadership and Senators are abdicating
their responsibility as Senators--because they run the place--by
refusing to demand that the administration come and testify in public.
All we have had are closed-door briefings. There is a limited amount
of what we learn behind those doors that we can talk about.
Increasingly, it is pretty obvious why the administration will not talk
publicly about the Iran war, why they will not come and answer
questions before the U.S. Congress--because they have no plan that is
achievable. They have a rationale for this war that is shifting by the
hour, and they have no plan--no way--to protect the American people
from the consequences of their incoherence.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Waiving Quorum Call
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the
mandatory quorum call in relation to Calendar No. 343, H.R. 6644.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Motion to Table Amendment No. 4311
Mr. BARRASSO. I move to table Senate amendment No. 4311.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Motion to Table Amendment No. 4310
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I move to table Senate amendment No.
4310.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Amendment No. 4307
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the
yeas and nays on Senate amendment No. 4307.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on Amendment No. 4307
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on Senate
amendment No. 4307.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment No. 4307 was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 4308
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on
substitute amendment No. 4308.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on adoption of the substitute amendment.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. Justice), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Moreno), and the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Moreno)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 10, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]
YEAS--84
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Banks
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Boozman
Britt
Cantwell
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Curtis
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
Kim
[[Page S1005]]
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Lummis
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Merkley
Moody
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schiff
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sheehy
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Thune
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--10
Budd
Cruz
Johnson
Lee
Paul
Schatz
Scott (FL)
Tillis
Wicker
Young
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Booker
NOT VOTING--5
Blackburn
Gallego
Justice
Moreno
Tuberville
The amendment (No. 4308), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed
to.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The senior assistant 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 Calendar No.
343, H.R. 6644, a bill to increase the supply of housing in
America, and for other purposes.
John Thune, Mike Crapo, Jim Justice, Lindsey Graham, Eric
Schmitt, Chuck Grassley, Roger F. Wicker, Mike Rounds,
John Barrasso, Roger Marshall, Tim Sheehy, Markwayne
Mullin, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Jim Banks, Joni
Ernst, Pete Ricketts, John R. Curtis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call under rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R.
6644, a bill to increase the supply of housing in America, 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. Justice), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Moreno), and the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Moreno)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego)
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily
absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 82, nays 11, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.]
YEAS--82
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Banks
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Boozman
Britt
Cantwell
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Curtis
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Lummis
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Merkley
Moody
Moran
Mullin
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schiff
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Thune
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--11
Budd
Cruz
Johnson
Lee
Murkowski
Paul
Schatz
Scott (FL)
Tillis
Wicker
Young
ANSWERED ``PRESENT'' --1
Booker
NOT VOTING--6
Blackburn
Gallego
Justice
Moreno
Shaheen
Tuberville
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). On this vote, the yeas are 82,
the nays are 11, and one Senator responded ``present.''
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
SAVE America Act
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I would like to speak to the SAVE America
Act.
The United States was founded on the principle that the right to vote
is sacred and that protecting it is our sacred responsibility.
I am going to read a quote from the Boston Gazette, published on
April 16, 1781. This is Samuel Adams' writing 245 years ago:
Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his
vote . . . that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts
in human society for which he is accountable to God and his
country.
I often find that principles described in history become more
relevant with time, and today, as this Congress debates whether proof
of citizenship should be required to vote in Federal elections, those
words from 1781 speak clearly to us now.
When you ask the American people about this, there isn't much debate.
I had two telephone townhall meetings this afternoon--one in north
Louisiana, one in south. I asked: Press 1 if you support the SAVE Act.
Press 2 if you don't and 3 if you are undecided.
In both cases, with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, 83
percent supported the SAVE Act. It turns out, nationwide, that is also
what the American people say regardless of their party: 71 percent of
Democrats and 95 percent of Republicans. That is why I am a proud
cosponsor of the SAVE America Act--that is, the Safeguard American
Voter Eligibility Act.
By the way, in my State of Louisiana, we already have to show an ID
to vote, and we participate. It isn't like this is an obstacle to
voting--no. This is actually something that people adjust to, and there
is no problem. Why? We are used to it. When the Presiding Officer and I
get on an airplane to fly to Washington to do the people's business, we
have to show an ID of some sort. I know that when people go to
political conventions, they have to show an ID to get their credentials
to nominate the person running for President. It seems like it is
reasonable to say that if you need an ID to get a credential at a
convention in order to nominate someone to be President, we could ask
people to show an ID to vote for that President.
Now, when you hear that Senate Democrats refuse to support the SAVE
America Act, you kind of scratch your head. Again, we use an ID for so
many other things. Why shouldn't we have an ID to choose the leader who
is going to steer the future of the United States? There is something
kind of odd about that, especially when the American people are
speaking so clearly.
As far as the talking filibuster is concerned, I have supported
returning to the talking filibuster since I joined the Senate in 2015.
Let's see the proposal. Let us look at it. We can debate the proposal
and then get it done. It is common sense, and it is overwhelmingly
supported by the American people. Only 1 percent say they are
undecided.
My Senate Democrats know that most of the constituents are for
verifying citizenship to vote. They are ignoring the will of the people
they represent. I can only assume it is to appease a small, leftwing
base--the 16 percent of the people who are against it.
This does not prevent an eligible American from casting a ballot. It
doesn't take away anyone's constitutional right. It simply strengthens
trust in our system by ensuring that only citizens participate in
Federal elections, which is as our Founding Fathers intended. Our
constitutional Republic was founded on the principle that every lawful
vote should count and that no unlawful vote should dilute the voices of
the American citizens.
The SAVE America Act is simple, reasonable, and widely supported.
When it comes to the Senate floor next week for a vote, I ask my Senate
Democratic colleagues to remember this: You command an ID to buy a gun,
which is one constitutional right, but you won't require it to cast a
vote, which is another constitutional right. Listen to the people. Pass
the SAVE America Act.
[[Page S1006]]
With that, I move on to other business.
____________________