[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 51 (Friday, March 20, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1419-S1425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026--Motion to
Proceed--Resumed
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R.
7147.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, a bill
making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes.
SAVE America Act
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I said at the beginning of this debate that
I was going to use the word ``commonsense'' a lot, and that is because
the SAVE America Act unites a bunch of commonsense policies, the kind
of things that are just intuitively obvious--or, at least, they should
be--and should be getting 80 to 90 votes, or more, here in the Senate.
I have talked at length this week about commonsense election policies
like showing a photo ID at the polls and demonstrating that you are an
American citizen, in other words, eligible to vote when you register.
Today, I want to talk about a couple of other commonsense policies in
this bill, in this case, not about protecting our elections but about
protecting our youth.
In recent years, we have seen men--biological men who identify as
[[Page S1420]]
women--take up spaces in athletics meant for actual women and girls.
And this is happening across a range of sports: track, swimming,
volleyball, basketball, soccer, softball, and the list goes on.
Now, I don't think I really need to tell anyone the problems with
that. They are pretty obvious. There is the physical danger, of course,
that can be posed to women by men competing in their sports.
But more than that, this is an issue of fairness and equality. At the
most basic level, every roster spot that goes to a male is a roster
spot that doesn't go to a female. That is a high school girl who has
lost out on the chance to play high school sports because a male has
taken up her space.
And for those women who are on the roster, the presence of a male on
the team can, and frequently does, rob them of opportunities to excel.
The simple biological, scientific fact is that men possess physical
advantages when it comes to sports, things like greater muscle mass and
greater aerobic power. And that means that, by and large, men are
likely to dominate in women's sport, taking wins and medal
opportunities away from women.
And it is not just about the unfairness of losing out on a place on
the podium. Being knocked out of medal contention can mean the loss of
things like college scholarships. As one female runner who was robbed
of multiple wins by a biological male described the situation, ``it
robs girls of the chance to race in front of college scouts who show up
for elite meets, and to compete for the scholarships and opportunities
that come with college recruitment. I'll never know how my own college
recruitment was impacted by losing those four state championship titles
to a male. When colleges looked at my record, they didn't see the
fastest girl in Connecticut. They saw a second- or third-place
runner.''
Let me read that again.
When colleges looked at my record, they didn't see the
fastest girl in Connecticut. They saw a second- or third-
place runner.
That is unconscionable, and what is even more unconscionable is that
my Democrat colleagues are apparently OK with allowing this to happen.
With the way they talk about themselves as defenders of women's
rights, you would think they would be the first--the very first--people
up to bat for fairness and equality for female athletes, but they are
not.
Last March, the Senate took up the Protection of Women and Girls in
Sports Act, legislation to ensure that women--and women only--
participate in women's sports at federally funded educational
institutions; and every single one of my Democrat colleagues voted
against the bill. Not one Democrat had the courage to say that women's
sports are for women.
As the father of two female athletes and grandfather to a
granddaughter who started playing sports, I feel pretty passionately
about the subject.
I am grateful for the tremendous strides we have made in women's
athletic programs over the past half century, and I cannot believe that
one half of the U.S. Senate is apparently content to see those gains
undermined by allowing men to take up places in sports meant for women.
With the SAVE America Act, Democrats are getting another chance to
vote for legislation that would protect women's sports. It would be
nice if this time they had the courage to stand up for female athletes.
I wish this were the only issue--the only consequence of radical
transgender ideology--that we had to worry about. But as bad as it is
for a female athlete to lose out on a college scholarship because her
achievements are overshadowed by those of a biological male, the
subjection of children to gender transition procedures is even worse.
In recent years, substantial numbers of children diagnosed with
gender dysphoria have been prescribed puberty blockers--cross-sex
hormones--and, in the most extreme cases, been approved for
irreversible surgical procedures that permanently mutilate their
bodies. And all of this has been done with little to no scientific
evidence to support these dramatic interventions.
The Cass Review--a landmark, comprehensive study on medicine, gender
issues, and youth conducted in Great Britain--repeatedly highlights the
lack of scientific evidence to support gender transition procedures for
minors. And thanks in substantial part to that review, Britain's
national science service decided to largely discontinue providing
puberty blockers to children.
And Britain is not the only European country that has reined in its
provision of gender procedures for minors--Finland, Sweden, and Denmark
have also done so. And a New York Times piece notes that there is
reason to believe that there are other European countries that may
follow suit.
Meanwhile, both the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the
American Medical Association have come out against surgical gender
transition procedures for minors, noting the lack of evidence to
support their use.
It has become very clear that we simply do not have substantial
scientific evidence to suggest that gender transition procedures
benefit children. What we do have, however, is scientific knowledge of
how dangerous these procedures can be, and the list of side effects is
long and serious.
A 2025 report from the Department of Health and Human Services notes
that side effects for gender transition procedures can include
infertility, loss of bone density, heart disease and metabolic
disorders, surgical complications, negative cognitive impacts,
psychiatric disorders, and more.
It is unthinkable that we are subjecting children to these dangers
before they can have any real understanding of what they are consenting
to.
Mr. President, 12- and 13-year-olds cannot understand what it will
mean to possibly damage their bones for the long term. And 14- and 15-
year-olds are not capable of comprehending what giving up their
fertility could mean. That is because they are children. They are still
changing and growing and developing, and through no fault of their own,
they simply don't have the experience and knowledge to grasp the full
magnitude of what they are consenting to.
The Senate has been officially debating the SAVE America Act, which
would ban gender transition procedures for minors, since Tuesday; and I
have been struck by the near total silence of my Democrat colleagues on
this issue during this debate.
Despite their embrace of the extreme sort of radical gender
ideology--witness the refusal of even one Democrat to stand up for
women in sports--I am not sure I have seen a single Democrat come to
the floor to defend gender transition procedures for minors.
Now, they could just be keeping their powder dry for now, but I have
to wonder if maybe some Democrats are reluctant to publicly advocate
for subjecting children to, in many cases, irreversible medical
procedures backed up by little scientific evidence with a whole host of
serious, long-term side effects.
Open the 2025 HHS report on gender transition for children, and you
come across this horrifying passage:
In many areas of medicine, treatments are first established
as safe and effective in adults before being extended to
pediatric populations. In this case, however, the opposite
occurred: clinician-researchers developed the pediatric
medical transition protocol in response to disappointing
psychosocial outcomes in adults who underwent medical
transition.
I mean, just say that again:
[C]linician-researchers developed the pediatric medical
transition protocol in response to disappointing psychosocial
outcomes in adults who underwent medical transition.
We have essentially been using children as guinea pigs. It is
unconscionable, and it should stop now.
The SAVE America Act will give every Member of this body a chance to
take a stand against the abuse of children, and I urge every Member of
this body to vote to protect children from further harm.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
H.R. 7147
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the chaos at TSA is reaching a boiling
[[Page S1421]]
point. We need to reopen it as quickly as possible. That is what Senate
Democrats are intent on doing. So, tomorrow, the Senate will take a
very simple procedural vote on beginning to reopen TSA, which Democrats
are leading.
Tomorrow, America will see the matter crystal clear: which Senators
want to open up TSA, pay TSA workers, and end the chaos at our airports
and which Senators are going to block TSA funding yet again. If you
want to open up TSA, vote yes tomorrow.
Every previous vote offered by the Republicans has tied TSA funding
to also continue funding for ICE, without any reform of ICE. This is
different. This doesn't tie the TSA to ICE funding because ICE funding
is controversial. This does not make the workers at our airports or the
passengers at our airports hostages.
Republicans are saying: Unless you pass ICE as-is, without reform, we
are not going to help the TSA workers get paid and reduce the lines at
the airport.
We are saying: Just do it, no ands, ifs, or buts.
Negotiations to rein in ICE and end the violence still have a way to
go. There are some very deep disagreements. Republicans still have not
accepted that the American people want legislation--real legislation--
to ensure the kind of brutality we saw in Minneapolis can't happen
again. But in the meantime, Republicans do not need to hold the rest of
these Agencies hostage, including TSA.
To my Republican colleagues: We both see the chaos at TSA. We both
know and would admit there is a lot more work to do on ICE. There is no
good reason to keep holding TSA hostage. There is no good reason to
reject our proposal to fund it.
We are going to hold this vote tomorrow, and I urge my Republican
colleagues to vote yes.
SAVE America Act
Mr. President, on SAVE, the Senate is in session today, and all we
are really doing is wasting time on a voter suppression bill written
only to appease the fringe elements of the MAGA base. With so many
problems facing our country, the cost of living so high, with people
struggling to make ends meet, with the war going on in Iran,
Republicans instead are choosing to spend time making it harder for
citizens to vote. This is exactly what the SAVE Act is designed to do.
It is designed to make it harder for citizens to vote.
Do not listen to the Republican talking points about voter ID. That
is a ruse. Underneath the surface, the SAVE Act is a voter purge bill.
Most of its core elements don't even talk about voter ID. They want to
make it harder to register to vote than it is to register to buy an AR-
15.
MAGA Republicans want to force every single State in America to
submit their voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security. They
want Americans' information to be run through an algorithm that Elon
Musk and DOGE could use to kick eligible American citizens off the
voter rolls without them even knowing they were kicked off.
When you show up at the polling place, they say: Mr. Jones, Ms.
Smith, you are no longer on the registry.
And you say: Why?
They say: Well, you will have to go find out.
That is a disgrace. That is undoing what is deeply American: the
right to vote. They want to make registering to vote a bureaucratic
nightmare.
They want to end vote-by-mail, end registering online, end
registering on college campuses and in churches, and even end
registering at the DMV, where, of course, you have to show ID.
That is what the SAVE Act is, and Republicans know it. They know that
if the American people are given a fair chance to make their voices
heard, Republicans are in trouble.
Iran
Mr. President, on Iran, thanks to Donald Trump's war with Iran, gas
prices are now nearing $4 a gallon. Experts predict that this weekend
gasoline will cross the $4-a-gallon threshold. In just the last month,
gas prices have gone up by $1 a gallon. Brent crude is hovering around
$108 a barrel, much higher than it has been.
And Donald Trump has the gall to say that prices are ``not that
bad.'' Do you hear that, America? Donald Trump is telling you $4 gas is
not that bad. What bubble does he live in? How often does he fill up
his car with gasoline? When Donald Trump says that the prices are not
that bad, who is he kidding? He is speaking like a billionaire. America
is being led into war by Marie Antoinette.
And then Kevin Hassett, the top economic adviser to Trump, says
Americans' pain is ``the [least] of our concern[s] right now.'' Can you
believe this? The highest economic adviser in the Trump administration
says Americans' pain is ``the [least] of our concern[s] right now.'' If
there is anything that shows how much Donald Trump and his minions are
out of touch, that is it right there. Trump and his acolytes are
unbelievable. They are so clueless. They are in a bubble.
Meanwhile, the war with Iran is expanding. Iranian strikes on Qatar's
energy structure have knocked out 17 percent of the country's LNG
export capacity. QatarEnergy says two LNG trains could be sidelined for
3 to 5 years--a staggering blow to global energy markets. In other
words, even if this war ended tomorrow--and there are no signs it is
anywhere close to ending--the damage Donald Trump has unleashed will
take a long, long time to fix.
Meanwhile, the war in the Middle East is expanding, not shrinking.
Donald Trump is sending additional warships and thousands of marines to
the region. He refuses to fully rule out boots on the ground, a step
that would mean more American casualties and even higher costs than he
now projects. And this week the administration was floating a funding
request of more than $200 billion--$200 billion--to finance this open-
ended war. No way; that will never happen. It is a preposterous and
dangerous risk. We should never accept giving Donald Trump a blank
check to wage war in Iran in perpetuity. Even a fraction of the $200
billion is unacceptable for a war without a plan, without an endgame,
without the support of the American people. And, of course, the money
could be used for so much better--reducing Americans' costs on
healthcare and on housing and on electricity and on daycare.
So much could be done with that money instead of a war that Donald
Trump has chosen to wage without even a vote in Congress.
Meanwhile, Trump continues to vilify and bash our closest allies even
as he publicly asks for their help. Today, he called NATO a ``paper
tiger'' and called our allies ``cowards.'' How does he expect to form a
coalition, which he says he needs, if he is just going to spend his
time calling them names--calling our allies names?
The damage Donald Trump is doing to our alliances will last a long
time and is sickening. He has spent years trashing our allies,
insulting them, threatening NATO, undermining the very alliances that
have kept us strong for generations. Now, suddenly, after Trump has
dragged the United States into a war that is not going his way, he
turns around and asks those same allies to jump in and help. What world
does he live in? And when the allies don't immediately leap into this
open-ended conflict in the way Donald Trump wants, what does he do? He
calls them ``cowards.''
Donald Trump's leadership is pathetic--pathetic.
The war needs to come to an end now. The American people have had
enough.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
H.R. 7147
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the Senate will soon confirm Markwayne
Mullin to be the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
It is critical at this time that we have a fully functioning and
fully funded Department of Homeland Security. The American people need
that to keep all of us safe. We are going to do very well having
Senator Mullin's trustworthy leadership in place.
Today, the Department is not fully funded--it is not funded at all--
because of the Democrats. We just had the Democrat leader on the floor
of the Senate saying he wants to vote against funding the Department of
Homeland Security, and he says he plans to do it again today.
Right now, the Department of Homeland Security is shut down, people
are
[[Page S1422]]
unpaid, and the Democrats are the ones that continue to proudly say
that they are the ones defunding it. For 35 days, they have blocked
every effort to reopen the Department of Homeland Security. It is time
to vote to get it open again.
Americans need and deserve safety and security. The Democrats are
preventing it. Americans all around the country are on high alert
because they have seen multiple attacks by radical Islamic terrorists
across the streets of this Nation. Americans have died, and blood is on
their hands.
A terrorist forcefully rammed his truck loaded with explosives into a
synagogue and a preschool in Michigan. There were staff there. There
were teachers. There were 100 children inside. Had it not been for the
quick-acting security guards, many of those inside would have been
killed. We later learned that that terrorist's brother was a commander
in the terrorist group Hezbollah.
Here in Virginia, at Old Dominion University, another terrorist shot
and killed a decorated ROTC instructor.
In New York City, two terrorists threw homemade bombs into a crowd.
The terrorist admitted to authorities later that they had hoped to hurt
or kill more people than were killed by the bomber in the Boston
Marathon.
In Texas, a terrorist shot into a crowded establishment. He was
wearing a T-shirt that said ``Property of Allah.'' Three people were
killed, and dozens were wounded.
It is not just the kinetic attacks; it is also cyber attacks. Iran
this week launched a major cyber attack on a major medical device
company in Michigan. Because of that attack, hospitals around the
Nation had to temporarily pause transmitting vital-sign data from
patients under treatment.
The attacks continue, and the Democrats continue to defund our
Department of Homeland Security.
The Wall Street Journal noted this week that the cyber attack we just
witnessed against the medical device company shows the reach of Iran's
cyber capabilities.
The Department of Homeland Security was set up after the 9/11 attacks
in 2001. They are there to prevent all of these kinds of attacks, and
the Democrats have shut it all down. Because of the shutdown of the
Department of Homeland Security by the Democrats, our Nation is
vulnerable to terrorist attacks on multiple levels--physical, cyber.
Republicans stand ready to end this shutdown today. We want to end it
today. We are going to vote today.
The minority leader was on the floor, and he said: Well, tomorrow, we
are going to have a vote about trying to change committee assignments
and move something over there and move it around, and we will just deal
with one part of it.
The country needs to be protected. The American people need to know
that they are safe in their communities.
The White House has outlined an entire list of bipartisan solutions
to address the concerns that the Democrats have raised. They include
expanding the use of body cameras for officers and making IDs
for officers clearly visible. Democrats have rejected all of these
good-faith offers. They rejected bipartisan solutions. Instead, they
once again are trying to peel apart the Department of Homeland
Security.
This is a comprehensive Department put together after a terrorist
attacked us in our homeland, and it is to protect the people in this
country. Piecemeal Democrat bills cannot hide the fact that Democrats
caused this current shutdown. If they think they can avoid blame for
this shutdown of American security, they are wrong. The people
understand that the Democrats are standing between their own securities
in their own homes and the terrorists who are out there.
I think Democrats ought to pay attention to President Obama's
Secretary of Homeland Security. His name is Jeh Johnson. We have all
worked with him. He had a warning just this past weekend for the
Democrats. He said this:
If ever there were a time we needed to fund the Department
of Homeland Security, it's right now.
He went on to say:
[We] need all 22 components of Homeland Security
functioning all at once, side-by-side.
Not piecemeal, torn apart, which is what the Democrats are trying to
do.
This is a statement of a Democrat. He ran the Department for
President Barack Obama, and he is telling the Democrats on the floor:
Fund all of it.
Senate Democrats have clearly lost their direction, and they have
lost the argument. Even Democrats are saying they are wrong.
One of the components of the Department of Homeland Security is
something called Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The American
people are well aware of that.
Senator Schumer was on the floor making a comment about them a few
moments ago. He said they are controversial.
Well, just a few years ago, Senator Schumer had something very
different to say to NBC News. He said:
ICE does some functions that are very much needed.
Apparently, he doesn't think any of it is needed today. Now he wants
to abolish ICE. He has said it. Democrats want to abolish ICE. They
have said it. They want to defund law enforcement. You have seen the
chants. You have seen the people: ``Defund the police.'' ``Defund
ICE.'' They don't seem to care about the safety and the security of
people in this country. They seem to want to stand more with illegal
immigrant criminals than they do with American people. This is a
radical position. It is now also the default policy of the Democrat
Party.
So what are the necessary functions that Senator Schumer might have
been talking about a few years ago when he said ``ICE does some
functions that are very much needed''? Well, one of those is called
Homeland Security Investigations. They are part of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement--the part he wants defunded. He wants it all gone.
Mr. President, 7,100 special agents work for Homeland Security
Investigations. They do vital work that keeps America and Americans
safe. This week alone, these hard-working agents helped to seize over
170 pounds of methamphetamine in Utah. Additionally, they arrested a
child trafficker in California who was trafficking not one but two
children. They helped to investigate and arrest an illegal immigrant in
Louisiana who was a member of the terrorist group MS-13. That is this
week.
They want that entire Department gone. The American people need them.
We need that level of security.
Senate Democrats are now defunding the American heroes who stop drug
cartels, who stop terrorists, who rescue children from human
traffickers.
The actions of the Democrats continue to make our Nation less safe.
It is time for them to join us in protecting the Nation's security.
So we are going to vote again today. We are going to vote to fund the
Department of Homeland Security, and we will fund it right away today,
fully, immediately. The Democrats are going to have to say whether they
are going to stand with us and the American people or they are once
again going to stand against safety and security. They are the only
ones standing in the way, and blood is on their hands. The American
people will hold them accountable.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, a woman named Kristi Noem
came and appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. We had been
asking her to come in and explain her management of the Department of
Homeland Security for months. She said she was too busy; we knew
better.
We watched one aspect of what that Department was doing with the ICE
agents not only in Chicago, which I am honored to represent, but also
Minneapolis.
Finally, she weakened and succumbed to our request and basically
said: I will come. I will do the Senate on Tuesday, I will do the House
on Wednesday, and then don't bother me for a while.
It didn't work out as she planned.
She appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and wouldn't
answer questions directly to her about the management of the Department
and things she had said and done.
The Achilles' heel turned out to be a $200 million publicity stunt,
which she had bilked the taxpayers out of, so that
[[Page S1423]]
she could travel around the country by television, by social media,
riding horses, appearing before Mount Rushmore, and she said the
President approved it.
The next day, she appeared before the House Judiciary Committee and
had a similar experience.
By the end of the day, she was finished. Two weeks ago, the head of
the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, was fired by
President Trump.
Clearly, there is something wrong in that Department, and it starts
with ICE, this paramilitary force that showed up in the city of Chicago
and across the United States and has killed at least two, maybe three
innocent American citizens.
Their charge was to go after criminals who managed to sneak across
our border and live in the United States. You heard the President's
speech over and over again: We are going to get the ``worst of the
worst.'' Remember he said that?
The terrorists, the murderers, the rapists, the criminally insane,
that is what we are going after. But the record of the ICE Agency is
much different. When they take a look at all of those that they have
deported and taken into some kind of a holding cell, it turns out that
only one out of seven have any kind of criminal record--one out of
seven.
So six of the people that they are arresting and detaining and moving
off to different detention camps have no criminal record at all. They
are not the worst of the worst. They are folks that overstayed a visa
into the United States, period.
So she came and appeared before us, and we have said repeatedly on
our side, we want to work with the administration to change the
standards for ICE so that they are basically the same standards that
apply to your State troopers and your hometown police, basic standards
of law enforcement that professionals follow. ICE is a far cry from
that today, but what we are looking for are changes that makes them
comply with the law and the Constitution.
There is a question of funding the Department of Homeland Security.
Two weeks ago, the Democrats said: Here is our position. We will fund
everything in the Department of Homeland Security, all of it, including
TSA, except for ICE, and we are negotiating with the White House. Let's
get it done.
Nine times we have come to the floor. Nine times Democrats have come
to the floor and said we will fund the entire department, including
TSA, including FEMA, including the Coast Guard. ICE, let's resolve by
negotiation. We are in the middle of that right now.
Nine times the Republicans objected to that proposal from the
Democrats. So to come to the floor now and blame the Democrats because
people in TSA are not being paid doesn't reflect the reality and what
happened on the floor.
Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act
Madam President, now there is also a matter pending on the floor. I
will see if I still have a copy of it here. This is the matter that is
before us on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is entitled ``SAVE
America Act.'' What this proposes to do is a dramatic change in
registering to vote in America.
Let me be specific. With this proposal, the proof that you have to
present of your identity when you register to vote changes
dramatically.
When you look at the second page of this, they start listing what you
have to bring in to prove that you are eligible to vote. The first
suggestion is a passport. Well, half of the people in America, roughly
half, own a passport and half do not. So if you decide you want to get
a passport to make sure that you or your son or daughter who has turned
18 get a chance to vote, how do you get a passport?
Well, there is an Agency of the government, the State Department, and
you come and pay a filing fee of $165. You can get an expedited
approval in a matter of days and weeks for an additional $60, but it is
basically $165 for a passport. Let me remind you, half of the people in
the United States do not have a passport.
Creating this as a standard of the election in November, can you
imagine what is going to happen at the passport office? How many
Americans register to vote each year? About 50 million--50 million.
How many passports are currently being issued by the Department of
State without this law passing? Twenty-five million. So you are going
to triple the workload at the Department of State for people who want
to be registered to vote in time for November. How is that going to
work? No explanation.
The second opportunity you have to prove you are really an American
is to present your birth certificate. Problem: Turns out a substantial
number of Americans don't have a birth certificate; they have to obtain
one. And, secondly, there is a problem when the birth certificate
reflects a maiden name of a woman before she was married or in a
hyphenated relationship. And so there has to be a change made there.
In each State there is a cost and a time involved in that process. So
this is supposed to make it easier to vote? No, not at all.
What is it that has changed in America that makes us want to
dramatically change the laws on registering to vote? Well, voter fraud,
according to the other side of the aisle--people who are ineligible;
they don't even profess to be Americans; and they are going to try to
vote.
And you say to yourself: Well, that must be a terrible problem. They
say millions and millions and millions of people are involved in that.
So let's take a look at the record.
From 1999 until 2023, 24 years, do you have any idea how many people
who didn't have American citizenship were prepared to violate the law
and try to vote? Well, each year we are talking about some 50 million
people registering, 24-year period of time, the number must be huge.
Seven million? No. Seven hundred thousand? No. Seventy thousand? No.
Seven hundred? No.
The number is 77 people in 24 years attempted to register to vote in
the United States and weren't legally American citizens. Seventy-seven
of the millions that were trying to register during that period of
time.
So the Republicans are proposing changing the law for everyone, no
matter where you are from, no matter what your political affiliation
may be for a new standard of proof. It is not necessary. In fact, to
charge $165 for a passport so I can prove I can vote is in the nature
of a poll tax.
What does the Supreme Court have to say about poll taxes? In the case
of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the U.S. Supreme Court
declared that any poll tax was unconstitutional.
The Nation had already ratified the 24th Amendment, which declared
citizens' rights to vote in Federal elections ``shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay
any poll tax or other tax.''
The Harper case involved a poll tax in the State of Virginia. The
Supreme Court threw it out. Do you know how much the poll tax was in
Virginia when this case was decided? One dollar and fifty cents.
Now, compare that to going out to have a passport issued to you and
paying $165. That is a lot of gasoline, $165.
In striking this fee down, Justice William Douglas said, ``the right
to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be . . . conditioned'' on
whether somebody has $1.50 in their pocket.
Yet the Republicans are trying to make this the basic standard, a
passport, the most acceptable standard under their rhetoric.
Iran
Madam President, let me conclude by saying a word about the situation
in Iran. We kept asking the administration what their goals were with
the invasion of Iran. Do you remember the public hearings, the
congressional hearings where they sent in the Secretary of Defense,
Secretary of State, they were interrogated by Senators and Congressmen
from both political parties and asked to explain why we invaded Iran?
The reason you don't remember is because it never happened. We
invaded this country without any congressional debate.
We are bound by the Constitution, which says in article I, section 8,
it is Congress that declares war, and yet we have no explanation
formally from this administration and no opportunity to ask basic
questions.
I will close with this: 22 years ago there was a vote in this
Chamber, a vote to invade Iraq. If you remember,
[[Page S1424]]
we had a fulsome debate before that happened, and the administration
under President George W. Bush explained they had weapons of mass
destruction which threatened our allies and friends and even the United
States, and that is why we had to invade.
I was skeptical of that. I was one of 23 Senators who voted against
the invasion of Iraq 22 years ago. It was 1 Republican and 22
Democrats, we voted no. It turned out to be the best vote I ever cast.
When we sent our forces in there, Saddam Hussein was swept aside
quickly, and then they started looking for weapons of mass destruction
and found none. None.
And here we go again. A $200 billion first appropriation for this
war--$200 billion. If just a portion of that money had been saved for
health insurance premiums, helping people pay them in the United
States, some 24 million Americans wouldn't be facing a dramatic
increase that they can't afford in their health insurance premiums.
Madam President, $200 billion is what President Trump is asking for. It
is time for us to have that debate we didn't have before the invasion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Moody). The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we are negotiating right now over much-
needed reforms for ICE and Border Patrol. The reality, which I think we
do all understand is that we are still very far apart; but as
negotiations continue, Democrats have tried again and again to give
paychecks to TSA and CISA and the Coast Guard and FEMA, Agencies that
are doing really important work right now.
In fact, we have tried nine times to get those paychecks moving, both
a full-year CR, which Republicans have blocked multiple times now, and
after those were rejected, targeted efforts such as the repeated
attempts we have made to try and pay TSA workers.
The only reason these workers are going without pay right now is
because Republicans are holding their funding hostage so they can try
to give ICE even more money, without including any necessary reforms.
That is what the bill Republicans have once again teed up for a vote
would do. So Republicans are saying: We will not let you give TSA or
other important Agencies a single dollar unless you let us shell out
billions of dollars to ICE and Border Patrol, which are already sitting
on billions of dollars. Think about how absurd that is.
Republicans won't let us give more funding to TSA, which can't pay
its employees right now, unless they can give more money to ICE and
Border Patrol, even when Republicans know ICE officers are still
getting paychecks because Republicans know Border Patrol agents are
getting paychecks.
They know they already shoveled billions of dollars at these Agencies
in their ``Big Ugly Bill.'' Secretary Noem went out and blew hundreds
of millions of dollars to cut ridiculous ads and plaster her face all
over TV. She blew hundreds of millions on new private jets. ICE wasted
millions on souped-up SUVs with flashy paint jobs, and they can't even
use them.
So what ICE and Border Patrol need is not more money, what they need
is accountability. Democrats have been very clear what we are asking
for here since late January, and our asks have not changed. We are
talking about incredibly basic, necessary reforms. Taking off masks,
requiring body cameras and IDs is not some extreme thing. Requiring
judicial warrants is not some extreme thing.
It actually is the same procedure the local police use, and we need
these reforms because they directly respond to the abuses that have
been happening.
With warrants you won't have a random American citizen getting
dragged out of their car on their way to a doctor's appointment. With
warrants, you don't have so much profiling where ICE and Border Patrol
haul the same American citizen away from his worksite twice, not
charged with a crime, not part of a targeted action, just hauled away
by masked thugs.
With warrants, you don't have so many cases of mistaken identity
where ICE drags a man out of his house in his underwear and even
refuses to look at his ID. Now, the DHS Secretary nominee just this
week said they would use them. That is a welcome surprise, but we need
to see that in legislative text now.
And let's talk about why it is important to have ICE follow the same
basic use of force standards as our local police.
If Federal agents were following proper use of force, maybe families
on the way back home from a basketball game wouldn't get tear gassed
and parents wouldn't have to bring their baby to the hospital when they
stop breathing.
If Federal agents were following proper use of force, maybe citizens
like Marimar Martinez and Carlos Jimenez would never have been shot by
Federal agents, and maybe citizens like Ruben Ray Martinez, Renee Good,
and Alex Pretti would still be alive.
There is a reason we have been demanding Republicans work with us to
rein in ICE and Border Patrol. Have Republicans looked around? They
gave ICE and Border Patrol unprecedented sums of money, and then Donald
Trump and Stephen Miller turned them into rogue Agencies.
Republicans don't want to talk about that. They don't want to even
address that. But the American people have had enough of this rogue
Agency. We need to rein it in, and we are negotiating right now over
how to do that. But it is clear it is going to take more time to get
there, and we need the White House and we need Republicans to finally
address these key reforms.
But there is no reason to make TSA wait for their paychecks.
Absolutely none. Democrats are eager to break the logjam and fund
Agencies like the TSA and Coast Guard and FEMA and CISA. The offer to
fund these while we keep negotiating stands.
I am even ready to make it happen on a temporary basis while we
continue working on reforming ICE and Border Patrol if that is what is
needed, but so far, Republicans have responded to that offer with the
same message they are going to send today. Republicans are saying: No,
we will not give you any TSA funding, none, unless you shove billions
of dollars at an Agency that we already gave billions of dollars to.
``No,'' they are saying. ``We will not let you send out TSA paychecks
unless we can give a blank check to ICE,'' which is already sending out
paychecks.
Well, let me be clear: We are not going to give Stephen Miller a
blank check, as this bill would do. I am not going to stand by and let
Republicans shovel more money at a rogue Agency without having real
change in legislative text.
Americans are demanding serious reforms, and we are putting our foot
down. So I will be voting no, and I urge my colleagues to join me as
well.
Now, I will say we had an effective meeting this week with the White
House and some of our Republican colleagues, but the basic challenges
remain: The White House and Republicans need to work with us to address
these key reforms. To that end, my colleagues and I remain focused on
the White House's coming forward with a proposal that really addresses
the major concerns I have outlined here today.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. SCHATZ. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mrs. MURRAY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington objected.
The objection is heard.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. I will be back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I hear you.
The majority leader.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S1425]]
Motion to Proceed to the Motion to Reconsider
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I move to proceed to the motion to
reconsider the cloture vote from February 24 on the motion to proceed
to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Motion to Reconsider
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the cloture vote on
the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Cal. No. 311, H.R. 7147, a bill making further
consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2026, and for other purposes.
John Thune, Mike Crapo, Marsha Blackburn, Bill Hagerty,
Tim Sheehy, Roger F. Wicker, Susan M. Collins, Todd
Young, Jim Banks, Bernie Moreno, Jon Husted, Eric
Schmitt, John Hoeven, John Barrasso, Pete Ricketts,
Roger Marshall, Katie Boyd Britt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum
call under rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 7147, a bill making further consolidated
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close, upon reconsideration?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from Montana (Mr.
Daines), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Sheehy), the Senator
from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Wicker).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt)
would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons),
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Virginia (Mr.
Kaine), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Klobuchar), the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff),
the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), the Senator from
Minnesota (Ms. Smith), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr.
Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 37, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Ernst
Fetterman
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Young
NAYS--37
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kim
King
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Slotkin
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Wyden
NOT VOTING--16
Britt
Coons
Daines
Fischer
Gallego
Kaine
Kelly
Klobuchar
Paul
Schiff
Shaheen
Sheehy
Smith
Tuberville
Whitehouse
Wicker
The motion was rejected.
(Mr. RICKETTS assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCormick). On this vote, the yeas are 47,
and the nays are 37.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, upon reconsideration, the motion is not agreed to.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________