[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1599-S1604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE RELATING TO ``BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR
PURPOSES OF THE TERMINATION OF CLEAN ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION CREDITS AND
CLEAN ELECTRICITY INVESTMENT CREDITS FOR APPLICABLE WIND AND SOLAR
FACILITIES''--Motion to Proceed
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No.
363, S.J. Res. 107.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution by
title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 363, S.J. Res. 107,
providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of
title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the
Internal Revenue Service relating to ``Beginning of
Construction Requirements for Purposes of the Termination of
Clean Electricity Production Credits and Clean Electricity
Investment Credits for Applicable Wind and Solar
Facilities''.
Vote on Motion to Proceed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. 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.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--53
Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Motion to Proceed to the Motion to Reconsider
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to the motion to
reconsider the cloture vote from March 12 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. Mr. 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 Calendar No. 311, H.R.
7147, a bill making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes.
John Thune, Bill Hagerty, Marsha Blackburn, Eric Schmitt,
James Lankford, Bernie Moreno, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Steve
Daines, Josh Hawley, James C. Justice, Shelley Moore
Capito, Kevin Cramer, Ashley Moody, Jim Banks, James E.
Risch, Tim Sheehy, Joni Ernst.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make a couple of
observations and remarks before this vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Department of Homeland Security
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, let me just say that this obviously is a
vote which we have had multiple times now. It is on the House-passed
legislation that would fund the Department of Homeland Security in
accordance with the agreement that was reached between Republicans and
Democrats, House and Senate, some time ago.
But I would say, to reflect on it, there have been a lot of
conversations over the past couple of days with respect to how do we
get the Department opened up and funded again, and this vote will
reflect the amendment that was proposed by Senator Collins and others
that would fund all of DHS, except the Office of ERO.
So this is the one office that would be--that the Democrats have
indicated, particularly over the weekend, this is what they had desired
to see happen, and so this vote will reflect that particular provision
that was put forward by Senator Collins. It is in response to what
Democrats have insisted on and said that they wanted all along, which
was to fund everything but the Office of ERO, the Office of Enforcement
and Removal Operations at the Department of Homeland Security.
So this vote should reflect that, and I hope Members who are
interested in getting all of these Agencies within the Department
opened up would cast a ``yes'' vote when the opportunity comes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. 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. CORTEZ MASTO. 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
The yeas and nays resulted 54, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 71.]
YEAS--54
Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
[[Page S1600]]
Fetterman
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS--46
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). On this vote, the yeas are 54,
the nays are 46.
Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion, upon reconsideration, is not agreed to.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Unanimous Consent Request
Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, I want to point out these are just texts
that allow us to do certain motions here, and I don't need this for the
moment.
I want to speak to you--honestly, speak to my Democrat colleagues--
from the heart. We have a situation in America today in which 260,000
families are without a paycheck. This fiscal year, they have been
without a paycheck for more than half of this year.
Now, in the private sector you look at it and say: Well, why would
you not pay somebody? Typically, it is because they didn't do a good
job, they didn't show up for work, they didn't punch in properly--and
all of those things are very litigated, by the way, meaning, in a
private business, if you don't pay somebody what they are entitled to
make, you have something called a wage-and-hour lawsuit against you.
And yet, the third time in 6 months this body--this body--that is
charged with a simple job, which is the power of the purse to
appropriate money to fund the government, we have failed. And I get the
political posturing: That side of the aisle would say it is our fault;
this side of the aisle will say it is your fault.
I can tell you who, unequivocally, it is not their fault, and that is
the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security who wake up
every day and go to work; they do their job.
And by the way--you have been there, Mr. President, in your State of
Missouri, St. Louis, you have seen them firsthand. Members of Border
Patrol, Customs, immigration enforcement, CISA--you have seen them.
We see their work. What should we, as the body here, tell those
families? In fact, there is an expression that says: Explain it to me
like I am a 5-year-old. And there are lots of 5-year-olds affected--
grandkids, kids, siblings--that are wondering why they can't go to camp
because their mom or dad wasn't able to write a check. I don't know
what I would say if I were a dad.
You are a dad. You are a great dad, actually. I have seen you with
your daughter. What do you say to her if you didn't have money to pay
the bills, but you did everything right?
One thing I think would help bring us to the negotiation table is for
us to get together and say: Look--I will use the same expression that I
used the other day--let's eat our own dog food. If we are OK and we
find it acceptable for 260,000 American families to go without pay,
then isn't it reasonable for us to say that this body--and this body
alone, the U.S. Senate, who makes four, five times as much as they do--
for us to go without pay, that our pay be withheld?
Now, I will be honest. I think our pay should be docked, honestly,
because that is what would happen in a private sector. We are not going
to do that. I am just saying: Hold our pay.
By the way, this is not a bill that I am proposing; it is not a law;
it is just a proclamation that says: Every Senator here, all 100 of us,
can go to the clerk's office and say: You know what? We can blame
whomever we want to blame, but do you know what? I am going to be in
shared pain here. Hold my paycheck until we do our job.
What does doing our job mean?
And I look at the minority whip, I have gotten to know. I didn't know
you before I came to DC. I think you are a good man, actually. I have
had a chance to interact with you in different ways. I think this is a
guy who is a serious guy, and he cares, and I know you deeply care
about this immigration issue. I remember you telling the story about
how you have your dad--I think it was your dad's--naturalization paper
in your office. And that resonated with me because I have my
naturalization paper in my office. So I know you care. You are a man of
good integrity.
And what I am asking that we do is just be able to look ourselves in
the mirror every morning when we comply with Senate rules--put on a
jacket, put on a tie--come to work and say: Just hold our checks.
Because you know what we should do? Why don't we just get in a room
and hash this out?
The way this negotiation has happened is nothing like I have ever
experienced in my life. There is a conversation here, a conversation
there, a conversation there, a conversation all over the place from 17
different places. Why don't we just get together and deputize one or
two people on your side, deputize one or two people on our side, and
let's just get this done? I think all of us--I hope, I hope, I actually
hope--that we have the moral character in our heart to say: It is just
wrong not to pay 260,000 people.
And, look, let me just say this. If Renee Good or Alex Pretti were my
children, I would be horrified. What happened was a terrible, terrible
tragedy that two Americans lost their lives, but it is not the fault of
the 260,000 people who are just following orders, the vast majority of
the people who weren't even there. There are families that have never
even been to Minnesota.
Again, explain it to me like I am a 5-year-old.
You go through Customs. I have been to your airport, by the way, at
O'Hare--oh my gosh, that is an airport; that is a big one--and you are
a TSA worker there or you are a Customs person there because there is
lots of international flights. They go home and say: Dad, did you get
your paycheck yet? Deposit is due for Disney World. Been planning this
trip my whole life.
No, son. The U.S. Senate hasn't done that yet.
That is not right. It is just not right.
So I will make my first motion, and I don't know how persuasive I am.
I am going to guess that I wasn't very persuasive.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 296, S. Res. 526; further, that the
resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table.
And what this means is that our checks get held back. We will get the
money eventually, like DHS employees do, until we come to a resolution
of this national disaster.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving right to object. I say to my
colleague from Ohio, I believe you are sincere. I believe you want to
find a solution. I share that feeling.
There is a provision in this, which I am not sure that you are aware
of. It is very important. It is at the end of the second page, and it
says about the effective date of this.
This section shall apply on and after the day after the date of the
regularly scheduled general election for Federal office held in
November 2026.
I don't want to wait until November, and I think that is an approach
which puts that date in play. It really suggests that we are asking
even greater sacrifice of the people who are being disadvantaged.
I will just tell you that eight times now we have brought to the
floor a provision which would pay TSA, Coast Guard, pay all the
divisions of the Department of Homeland Security, except for the ICE
and enforcement divisions.
We can agree to that, and I believe the Senator from Oregon Senator
Merkley is going to offer that.
Mr. MORENO. Will the Senator yield for a question?
[[Page S1601]]
Mr. DURBIN. Oh, sure. Go ahead.
Mr. SANDERS. This is totally sincere. I think you are a good man. I
really do.
I am probably not supposed to say that.
Mr. DURBIN. You are not supposed to say that.
Mr. MORENO. But I do believe it.
Would you consider modifying the resolution to take that piece out,
just to make it clear, the paychecks while we are here, whatever the
wording--that you and I sit down and we technically fix that wording so
it basically says: During this period of time while DHS is not being
funded? Can we just make that amendment and technical fix?
This is not my bill. It is Senator Kennedy's bill. But would we be
willing to do that because I don't want this to fall on a technicality?
Mr. DURBIN. At this point, I am going to object, and we can discuss
many of the things which you brought up today. I would just tell you:
You will have your chance, within an hour, to vote for Jeff Merkley's
provision which will pay everybody working for TSA right now. So until
you get that chance--and I hope you vote the right way--I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. MORENO. I appreciate the Senator from Illinois and his point of
view. I will ask Senator Kennedy to make those modifications, and we
will come back out and fix it, but I appreciate, again, your
willingness to engage in this conversation.
So let me offer another proposal, just a little bit different
proposal. I think we can all agree that our job is--since we are
getting paid, we should do it--is to work hard here and stay through
whatever it takes, by the way. I would be willing to stay this weekend.
I was here all last weekend. I will stay through Easter. I will stay
through Fourth of July, whatever period of time it takes until we
release the paychecks of 260,000 Americans.
So what I would like my Democrat colleagues to consider is to fund
all of DHS, every single part of it, for 2 weeks--just 2 weeks.
We don't leave for Easter break. We spend every single moment
together since we don't have planned meetings Friday, Saturday, Sunday
for the next 2 weeks. Maybe we have codels and trips and family
vacations, but I have a great and understanding wife. I am sure
Democrat colleagues have the same thing, an understanding family--you
have to, to do this job. And we stay here until we just get together
and say: Hey, look. In a 2-week period of time, we can get there.
And I think there has been some negotiations that said: Hey, maybe we
can address this. The White House has come to the table unlike any time
I have ever seen. They have offered to codify tactics.
And I know, Mr. President, you personally are concerned about that
because you know a lot about law enforcement. You were the attorney
general of your State, and you know that if you put tactics into
legislation, there is a lot of unintended consequences. You could have
law enforcement breaking the law when, in reality, any of us would say:
Oh, actually, they are doing the right thing. There is a judgment call.
You can't be that granular. Things have to be reasonable.
So I think we can work out that language; it is just 2 weeks.
But here is what this resolution does, if my Democrat colleagues, all
they have to do is stay silent. Think about the power. If my Democrat
colleagues do not say a word. I don't know how long the Parliamentarian
will wait--maybe 7 seconds. If she hears nothing for 7 seconds, for 7
seconds--think about this, for 7 seconds, silence--260,000 people get
to go home tonight and tell their kids, their spouses, their brothers
and sisters, their mom or dad: I am getting paid. They are
retroactively paying me. They get paid for the next 2 weeks.
Nothing is--the world will still be here in 2 weeks. Politics will
still exist in 2 weeks. We can beat the you-know-what out of each other
for the next 2 weeks, but we have got 260,000 families that get to go
home and just--have you ever been in a situation, Mr. President, where
you just (inhale/exhale) and you feel like the world is better again--
260,000 people, for 7 seconds or less--maybe, say, 3 seconds--just
silence.
I hope that we can get there. And by the way, just to be crystal
clear, because what I heard from the minority whip was that my
colleague from Oregon was going to offer to fund TSA--this does that.
This does that. This will fund every single TSA worker in America.
Three seconds of silence gets every TSA worker paid, gets every Coast
Guard person paid, gets every CISA person paid, gets every FEMA person
paid, gets every Customs person, gets every Border Patrol person paid--
3 seconds of silence.
Two weeks. Put the burden on us. You won't take away our paychecks.
The Senator didn't agree to that. Will the Senator agree to not object,
to just say: Let's pay TSA workers right now?
By the way, I think, if there is a chance that C-SPAN2 is on live at
the airports and they saw you, Mr. President, say: Hearing no
objection, done, Americans would cheer at airports all over America
right now. St. Louis, Portland, Cleveland, Miami, Atlanta, for sure,
would cheer. My God, TSA workers are going to get paid. Come back to
work. We are so sorry. And we are going to spend 2 weeks--that is it, 2
weeks--not 2 years, not 2 months, 2 weeks--to sit down like grown men
and women and do our jobs that pay us $175,000 a year-plus, plus, plus.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 156, H.R. 4553. I further ask
that the substitute amendment at the desk 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 timing will start now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate that my colleague from Ohio
has come to the floor and said: Wouldn't it be great if we ensure that
a paycheck is written for 2 weeks?
I have a better idea. We have far more than 2 weeks left in this
particular year. The funding year ends at the end of September, so we
are talking about something closer to 26 weeks. While there might be a
cheer for 2 weeks, there would also be a lot of dread, and people
across the Nation would be going: So the proposal is to fund for 2
weeks while the majority sends us out for a 2-week break.
Mr. MORENO. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MERKLEY. Not until I finish my remarks, but thank you.
And so there are going to be two proposals by my colleague. And in
response to one, I am going to suggest that we free TSA as a hostage.
TSA, right now, we are seeing hundreds of TSA agents quit because
they are not being paid. We have seen thousands call in and say: I am
not available for work today.
They are probably sick from the stress of not receiving paychecks. We
can alleviate that completely for the rest of this entire year--this
entire fiscal year--with a proposal I will put forward in a moment.
And then if my colleague has another proposal, well, we will consider
that as well, but I will probably put forward a suggestion that we do
all 26 weeks for TSA and FEMA and the Coast Guard and Cybersecurity.
See, the debate where pushes come to shove is over ICE and CBP, and
it is because of the rules of engagement under which they have acted
have been so extraordinarily aggressive, terrorizing our communities.
So the conversation still remains and is underway about ICE and CBP
and the reforms.
Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. MERKLEY. When I am done with my remarks.
And so the key here is: Let's release these hostages because TSA is
being held hostage by my colleagues across the aisle, and FEMA workers
are being held as hostages--
Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, point of order of the Parliamentarian: I
would ask my colleague to remember rule XIX, in which you are
analogizing me to a hostage taker. I find that offensive. I think that
is in violation of rule XIX.
[[Page S1602]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). I will remind everyone that no
Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words
impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive
unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, and so I will just put forward the
fact. I am not impugning anyone, just the fact that nine times Members
of this body have come to the floor and asked unanimous consent to fund
TSA.
And an additional 12 times, Members of this body have come to the
floor and asked that we fund all four of those Agencies--the Coast
Guard and FEMA and Cybersecurity and TSA. So let's not continue to hold
these hostages. And TSA, right now, is the one we are--
Mr. MORENO. Madam President, again--again, Madam President--
Mr. MERKLEY.--completely focused on--
Mr. MORENO.--you have warned the Senator from Oregon. He has repeated
the exact same statement. I believe rule XIX does now allow him to
continue speaking if he is violating that standard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair does not find the statement by the
Senator to be in the context that you are taking it.
Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Madam President. I will just cut to the chase
here. Just as my colleague's heartfelt desire is to get those paychecks
written, so I, too, want to see them written. At the moment, we see the
TSA agents in high stress. Our airports are causing stress for people
all through the Nation, so let's get that piece done right here, right
now in this moment.
Therefore, I would ask the Senator to modify your request so the
Senate instead proceeds to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 362,
S. 4127; that the bill which funds TSA be considered read a third time
and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. MORENO. Madam President, the questions I was hoping the Senator
would answer, so they would be more fresh in his mind, were: Is the
Senator only suggesting right now, just to be crystal clear--crystal
clear--a lot of people's lives are at stake here, by the way.
Let me just clarify that a 2-week continuing resolution would pay
people retroactively. See, they are owed almost 40 days of pay. So this
would pay them back the money we have taken from them for the last 40
days and give us 2 weeks, not 2 weeks of pay.
I just wanted to make sure he understood because maybe I misspoke. I
wanted to make sure the Senator from Oregon didn't misunderstand what I
said.
I was suggesting that we fund DHS, which retroactively pays 260,000
people; give us 2 weeks to get a solution; and never ever do this to a
single American family again.
It is a disgrace that we are doing this, and I am not impugning any--
I am impugning all of us that we never do this--that we never allow a
hard-working American to go without a paycheck because of our politics.
I just want to make certain that the Senator understood that.
I also want to make certain that I heard the Senator properly because
I don't think his speech matched the resolution.
Is the Senator--so this is a simple yes-or-no question. If the
Senator doesn't mind, just give me a yes or no, if he wants to. He
doesn't have to. I have the floor. But it is up to the Senator if he
wants to answer yes or no, but I am going to frame it as a very simple
yes-or-no question.
Is the Senator suggesting that we not also fund FEMA?
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, may I respond to my colleague's
questions?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you. To his first question in which he sought to
clarify that his proposal is retroactive--
Mr. MORENO. Madam President, I was yielding for a yes-or-no answer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may answer.
Mr. MORENO. Is the Senator suggesting that we not also fund the
Federal Emergency Management Agency? Is he suggesting that we not do
that; yes or no? What is his response?
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, speaking to my colleague through the
Chair in the ancient Senate tradition, the answer to that, as I already
pointed out, is that I am going to offer two proposals: One, that we
fully fund TSA, and we do it not for 2 weeks but we do it for the
balance of this year through September 30.
Mr. MORENO. Thank you. The Senator answered my question.
Mr. MERKLEY. And second proposal--
Mr. MORENO. No, I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has the floor.
Mr. MORENO. Madam President, I have the floor. Thank you for the
point of--
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, just because I am answering the
question--
Mr. MORENO. Just--I have the floor.
Mr. MERKLEY.--I think I have the floor for a question.
Mr. MORENO. Madam President, would you please instruct the Senator
from Oregon who has the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has the floor.
Mr. MORENO. Please, let's maintain decorum here. I think the American
people deserve public officials, who are receiving paychecks while they
are not, to have a semblance of decorum and class with each other. I
hope that I have displayed that thus far.
Here is what is being proposed, just to be crystal--crystal--clear
because this gets very fuzzy: I have proposed a 2-week continuing
resolution that would retroactively pay every DHS employee and give us
2 weeks to negotiate.
And with my colleague from Oregon, whether intentional or not, what
he is proposing in this modification request--in this modification
request--I don't have a crystal ball or a time machine. I have no idea
what you are going to propose later. God knows what that is. I have no
idea.
But in this proposal, it is saying only fund the Transportation
Safety Agency. I don't understand why we wouldn't take the opportunity.
So I am going to ask my colleague back: Would the Senator consider,
in addition to funding TSA permanently for the rest of the fiscal
year--I love that, by the way. Let's do that, absolutely. Can I have an
amen? But in addition, fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It
seems like a pretty good Agency to fund. These are the men and women
that respond to disasters.
You have been there, Madam President, when they have responded to
your disasters in your State of Iowa, right? I mean, you probably know
these people are unbelievable. Let's fund them. Let's pay them. By the
way, let's pay them and say thank you.
Then we look at Cybersecurity, an Agency called CISA. We love
acronyms here. The Cybersecurity Agency. What do they do? They make
sure that we don't have threats. We are in a major conflict with Iran;
60, 70 percent of them aren't working. Would the Senator also consider
funding that? Seems like a good Agency.
Secret Service. Really important Agency. They keep the President of
the United States safe. His threat level right now--if you have been to
the White House, Madam President, my God, the threat level against the
President of the United States right now is at a peak.
We are about to do FIFA, the soccer championship--although, that is
also football, which is what we call it in Colombia, but we call it
soccer here. We are going to need Secret Service here.
How about Customs? Should we not fund Customs? What is their job?
Their job is to inspect packages coming in from other countries,
process visitors to your State and my State. Why don't we fund them?
Let's go through here this chart. The Department of Homeland Security
USCIS--ugh, another acronym. What do they do? They take people like me
who apply to be a U.S. citizen and process my legal immigration status.
I love this Agency. I thank them every day because they do a good job--
3,300 people. Can we also agree to fund them?
How about this group, look at the name of this Agency: The biological
and nuclear threat prevention Agency.
[[Page S1603]]
Can I have an amen to fund that Agency for the rest of the year and
never ever, ever gamble with that threat?
Now, let's talk about this Agency here: Homeland--you can't read
that, but Homeland Security Investigations special agents. If you think
of the enforcement officers as the police officers, these guys are like
the detectives. These are the guys that chase down the worst of the
worst criminals--the guys that machete people's heads off, child
traffickers, transnational gangs. These guys have gone without a
paycheck the last 40 days, and they are still at the job chasing the
worst of the worst. Would anybody here do that job? Would any of you
like to put this little badge on and go chase Pablo Escobar on
steroids? Because that is what they are doing.
And then let's look at this Agency down here. We talked about them:
Customs and Border Patrol. I don't know. I am sure--my Senate colleague
has been here a lot longer than I have, and that is true about most of
the people here. I am sure he is familiar with Customs.
You know, I am a simple guy so, you know, those are the blue uniform
guys. You come in from traveling and ``Can I see your passport? Do you
have anything to declare,'' right? Do we not want them on the job? We
don't want Customs on the job?
And then Border Patrol. I don't just think we should pay Border
Patrol for the rest of the fiscal year; I think we should give those
guys a massive bonus. They have cut border encounters in this country
by 98 percent.
So to my colleague, to summarize it all--we can skip a step; we are
going to skip a step--would the Senator be willing to modify his
proposal to adopt instead Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, the DHS Collins
amendment? It sounds very fancy, doesn't it? It funds all that stuff.
I have listened to speeches for the last 40 days, and my colleagues
have come out saying: Fund this Agency; fund this Agency; fund this
Agency. I am agreeing with them. I want them to accept yes for an
answer. I want them to say: Yes, let's do it; let's fund all of DHS
except for the one Agency that is not on there, which is the
Enforcement and Removal Operations.
So to my colleague from Oregon who said you want to fund all these
things--your words, not mine--for the rest of the fiscal year plus
retro pay--would the Senator be willing to change his amendment to my
proposal and instead substitute all of this with Calendar No. 311, H.R.
7147, the DHS Collins amendment?
The Parliamentarian--is he able to respond to that, or do you need me
to read the formal text here?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator modify his request for
modification?
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, has my colleague from Ohio objected to
funding TSA for the rest of the year?
Mr. MORENO. Madam President, I think I have the floor. English is my
second language, so I sometimes speak too fast and maybe don't use the
right language. So let me just be crystal clear again.
I am suggesting that we fund TSA for the rest of the fiscal year,
retroactively pay every worker, and do that for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, for CISA, do that for Secret Service, do that for
Customs, do that for Border Patrol, do that for Homeland
Investigations, do it for USCIS--we love these guys--and do it for--
definitely love these guys--the biological nuclear threat prevention
Agency. That is--to be crystal clear--what I am saying.
So to answer your question: Does that include TSA? Yes, it does
include TSA. This would fund TSA for the rest of the fiscal year.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, has my colleague from Ohio objected
to--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio renewed his original
request. Is there objection to that request?
Mr. MERKLEY. His objection is heard?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request
from the Senator from Ohio, which he just renewed?
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I
propose we fund TSA for the rest of the year. My colleague, as I
understand it, has refused to agree to that; and, therefore, he has
essentially objected. But he has asked for a modification.
I am happy to, at this very moment, propose that we go to a request
which funds FEMA and the Coast Guard and Cybersecurity and TSA--
essentially everything except ICE and CBP--and the other Agencies are
fee funded. I am happy to go to that proposal if my colleague is
willing to fund FEMA and Coast Guard and Cybersecurity.
But I think he has been well aware that he keeps putting a poison
pill in here. He keeps asking for Customs and Border Protection to be
funded without modifying how they are behaving across the Nation, and
he keeps asking for ICE to be funded without modifying their actions
when they are operating like a secret police.
That is why negotiations are underway with the White House--over that
issue. So let's stop holding FEMA and Coast Guard and Cybersecurity and
TSA hostage. And I am happy to put forward a proposal right now that
would fund all four of those Agencies for the balance of this year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MORENO. Madam President, there is an old movie line that says: I
think we have a failure to communicate. So let me try one last swing
here to make sure that I make it crystal clear. By the way, I
absolutely mean this sincerely, absolutely, with total respect. I know
that my Senate colleague from Oregon knows that DHS is more than four
Agencies. I know he knows that.
So what I just want to clarify is: In this modification to my
modification--yes or no--is the Senator from Oregon including USCIS?
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I think my colleague can check and see
that that is a fee-funded organization.
Mr. MORENO. So the Senator does not want to fund USCIS?
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I think, if my colleague checks, he
will find that USCIS is funded through fees. And let me explain what a
fee is. A fee is when--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has the floor.
Mr. MORENO. Madam President, he answered my question. I was 5 when I
learned what a fee was. So the answer to that question is not including
USCIS, which is odd because they do have an appropriations line in the
appropriations bill, by the way. So the answer to that question is no.
So no.
Here is what is ironic. My colleague from Oregon--you can't make this
up--wants to not fund the people who are in charge of defending our
borders and deporting criminal aliens but does not want to provide
funding for the Agency that brings people here legally. Wow. That is a
moment.
Let's go to this next one. Will the Senator from Oregon agree to fund
the Homeland Investigations unit? In the Senator's proposal, does it
include funding for HSI? Yes or no?
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, my colleague is engaged in a dialogue
here that I would be happy to resume at another moment. He has rejected
both my proposal to fund TSA--he has rejected my proposal to fund FEMA
and Cybersecurity and TSA and the Coast Guard.
At this very moment, there is a ceremony going on to honor our police
officers who protected this Capitol on January 6, and that is to honor
a plaque that has been posted by the Senate, in a bipartisan way, and
agreed to have put up when it was being hidden by the Speaker of the
House in some closet.
And so I understand the points my colleague is making. I think the
Senator understands the points I am making. I have countered his
proposal with a proposal to fund TSA for the balance of the year. I
countered his proposal to fund everything but ICE and CBP. And although
the Senator has never said the words ``I object,'' I understand he is
objecting through his dialogue. If I misunderstand that, please let the
Senator say now that he agrees to my proposals and we will be done with
this conversation.
But I really think it would be good for both of us, in a bipartisan
way, to go down and honor the officers that protected the Capitol.
Mr. MORENO. Madam President, so just to be crystal clear--because,
again, this is getting a little deeply
[[Page S1604]]
ambiguous--is the Senator from Oregon suggesting that we fund the
entirety of the Department of Homeland Security--everything,
everything, everything, the entirety of Homeland Security--with the
exception of Customs--the people who inspect packages, the people who
greet people at Portland International Airport--and Border Patrol and
Homeland Investigations and Enforcement and Removal Operations? Is that
correct?
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, my understanding is the second proposal
funds everything but ICE and CBP is my understanding of the Murray
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio agree to that
modification?
Mr. MORENO. Madam President, I would agree to--we are almost there,
but this is actually very important. We are making a lot of progress.
And I think the plaque will be there for a long, long time.
So here is where we are at, just for a recap. We used to have 10
commandments in my company, and commandment 11 was: Thou shalt recap.
So let's just recap where we are.
The Senator from Oregon, on behalf of the Democrat Party, is saying
that he is willing to right now fund the entirety of the Department of
Homeland Security--everything, every single Agency of the Department of
Homeland Security, but--but--but is carving out the Customs and Border
Patrol division and the entirety of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, which includes these guys, the guys who chase down bad
guys.
So I would ask that the Senator take a look at the Collins amendment,
H.R. 7147, Calendar No. 311. Let's include the guys that chase the
really bad guys. I will agree to the Senator's proposal if he will
include the guys who chase the really bad guys--Homeland Security
Investigations--and include the guys who greet people at your airport.
What the Senator is suggesting is: Don't pay the guy who screens people
who are leaving--you want to pay them--but don't pay the people who are
taking care of the people coming back in. This is backwards land. Let's
fund everybody at the airport. So why wouldn't we fund Customs? In
fact, why wouldn't we fund Customs, the guys in the blue--if you have
an issue with Border Patrol, the guys in the green jackets--is that
what the Senator is saying? You would agree to fund everybody but
Border Patrol and Enforcement and Removal Operations? Because I think
we are super close. We can finish this dialogue and bring peace and
tranquility to 260,000 families.
Is the Senator willing to do that? Is the Senator willing to modify
one little tweak just in between--we are there--saying: Hey, let's
include HSI, and let's include the guys patrolling our border; let's
include the Customs guys? Or are you saying: No; if we pay people at
the airport who receive visitors from foreign countries and the people
who guard our border, who are doing an amazing job, and people chasing
bad guys--because you won't fund those three things--I am saying: Well,
good. We will put Enforcement and Removal Operations on the side. By
the way, a $5 billion haircut to this budget, why don't we just do
that?
Will the Senator from Oregon accept that? Let's get this done, make
the American people very happy, and have glorious news for a lot of
American families that are looking--think of the power the Senator has
right now, the power you have right now to feed 254,000 American
families by the words that are going to come out of your mouth.
I would ask all of us to have the humility to understand how powerful
it is, the Senator's next words, because your next words will provide
the paycheck for 254,000 American families. Please. I beg you. Please.
Please do the compassionate thing, and then we will work on ERO later.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, is that a question?
Mr. MORENO. Yes.
Mr. MERKLEY. I would be happy to answer the question. Twice when I
have answered questions, my colleague has reclaimed the floor in the
middle of it. Does he intend to actually let me answer the question
this time?
He is not responding--
Mr. MORENO. Of course.
Mr. MERKLEY.--which means he is reserving the right to object when I
get part way into the explanation to his question.
But let's be clear. Because of the sequence of events in which I
proposed two modifications and he rejected two modifications--he
rejected and objected to paying through the end of September the TSA.
And then I proposed that we fund everything except for CBP and for ICE
because those are the two issues under negotiation with the President,
and he has again objected. And he is proposing a 2-week extension and
then people don't get paid again.
So we are going to bring this to a close because essentially my
colleague has asked me to participate in this debate. And it is very
clever, and I have willingly done so; but I would think 26 weeks is a
whole lot better than 2 weeks.
And so since my colleague objected to paying TSA, objected to paying
everyone in Homeland Security except for ICE and CBP--because that is
under negotiation with the House and with the President--I have
objected to his 2-week extension.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. MORENO. Madam President, let's just spend 60 more seconds here to
recap what we have. So my colleague from Oregon representing the
Democrats--who has been given a lot of time to kind to figure out how
to come here--has said that what the position of the Democratic Party
today is--today's position--different Saturday, by the way; different
Sunday. By the way, different than Monday morning in which the minority
leader went on Joe Scarborough and said that it was President Trump who
objected to the idea to fund all of DHS except for Enforcement and
Removal Operations. And then, of course, I think President Trump was
maybe a genius there--because maybe by him saying no on Sunday, it made
the Democrats say yes. And then he said yes on Monday evening. Then the
Democrats had to go back to no. Kind of crazy.
What we are doing is not going to fund for the rest of the fiscal
year people who keep our country safe because they want to defund the
people whose job it is to keep our borders secure and to deport people
who broke into our country illegally, including murderers, rapists,
transnational organizations. They do not want to fund those Agencies. I
just want that to settle in here and point out to the Presiding Officer
that what I proposed today--and the Presiding Officer voted yes--54
Republicans--sorry--53 Republicans and 1 courageous Democrat--54 voted
for that.
All it would take is 6 Democrats, and 254,000 people would get their
paychecks. It is a sad day. I will mark the time, 5:45 p.m. It is a sad
day for the U.S. Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
____________________