[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 64 (Monday, April 13, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1702-S1703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Appropriations

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we are now more than 6 months--halfway 
through--the 2026 fiscal year, and somehow, thanks to my Democrat 
colleagues, there are still parts of the Federal Government that aren't 
funded for 2026.
  Mr. President, 43 days--43 days--Democrats shut down the government 
last fall--the longest government shutdown ever--all because they 
couldn't bring themselves to accept a clean, nonpartisan funding bill. 
Now they have refused to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security 
for well over 50 days--all because they couldn't take ``yes'' for an 
answer.
  Republicans and Democrats had reached an agreement in January to fund 
the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of the fiscal 
year, but Democrats reneged on that agreement, demanding reforms to 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement--over and above the reforms, I 
might add, that had already been agreed to in the funding bill. 
Republicans offered to give them additional reforms. In addition to 
implementing reforms on its own, the White House repeatedly offered 
Democrats a robust package of additional reforms.
  But nothing was ever enough for the Democrats. They just kept moving 
the goalposts, and eventually--eventually--they just walked away. It 
turns out their objective wasn't actually reform; it was a political 
issue. They didn't want a solution; they wanted a talking point--
although I think they have overestimated how well ``defund law 
enforcement'' is going to play in November, because, let's be very 
clear, that is what this is. If this were about making reforms to some 
of the ways law enforcement does business, then Democrats would have 
accepted reforms, but they didn't. Instead, shortly before Easter, 
Democrats voted to defund--defund--law enforcement at the Department of 
Homeland Security. They voted to defund deportation of criminal illegal 
aliens--individuals guilty of things like murder, assault, and sexual 
crimes against minors. They voted to defund drug interdiction. They 
voted to defund the DHS arm that investigates transnational criminal 
organizations, narcotics smuggling, and human traffickers. They voted 
to defund our border security. That is right--Democrats voted to defund 
U.S. Border Patrol. Apparently, the Biden administration, with its 4 
years of recordbreaking illegal immigration, was not an anomaly; 
Democrats really don't believe in defending our borders.
  I have to say it is mind-boggling. Leaving aside the national 
security implications of Democrats' position, Democrats do realize that 
it was partly the Biden border crisis that helped sink their party in 
the last election, don't they? I would think so. Do they really think 
that defunding border enforcement--border enforcement--is going to give 
them a victory in November?
  Since Democrats have chosen to abdicate their responsibility to fund 
key parts of the Department of Homeland Security, Republicans are 
stepping in. Thanks to our foresight in the Working Families Tax Cut, 
immigration enforcement and border security are funded through the end 
of this fiscal year. But it is clear we can't rely on Democrats to fund 
law enforcement when it comes time to pass fiscal year 2027 funding in 
September, and so Republicans are going to take up a reconciliation 
bill to fund border security and immigration enforcement for the next 3 
years.
  Senator Graham and the Senate Budget Committee are already working on 
a budget resolution to set up consideration of this bill. And I want to 
see the Senate take up this resolution and the subsequent bill--the 
reconciliation bill--to follow without delay.
  We need to keep this process tight and focused so that we can get 
this done. Otherwise, we are going to end up in the unacceptable 
situation where parts of the Department of Homeland Security are going 
unfunded, not just now, but for the long term.
  I know the Republicans in both Houses of Congress are in complete 
agreement on the need to ensure that law enforcement is fully funded. 
And I am more than confident that if we work together, we can have 
legislation to the President in the near future.
  As for my Democrat colleagues, well, I guess we will see how well 
open borders and defunding law enforcement play for them in November.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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 Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened to the Republican leader from 
South Dakota Senator Thune in his remarks today, and I would like to 
say a few words that may be in disagreement with him on some of the 
things that he said.
  Let me preface my remarks by saying the Republican Senate leader is 
my friend. I think he would count me as a friend as well. We have 
served together for many years. There are many things we agree on; many 
things we disagree on.
  But that is what the floor of the Senate is all about: Men and women 
elected to the Senate come to the floor and discuss the issues that 
they or the people who gather in the Gallery or at home follow this 
debate.
  And there are differences of opinion. It is not unusual. But what I 
have seen in the 30 years--this is my 30th year in the U.S. Senate 
representing the State of Illinois--is that despite these 
disagreements, there comes a moment where the doors are closed, cameras 
are gone, and Members of both political parties sit down and say: OK, 
can we solve this problem? Is there a way to solve it?
  And let me tell you what this problem is, and for some of you, it 
will not be a surprise because you have witnessed parts of it. There 
was an effort made by this President when he was elected to start a 
massive deportation effort. That is how they characterized it. It was 
massive.
  Millions of people living in America would be forced to leave. And 
the Agency, the Department of Homeland Security would be in charge of 
that effort. We heard the President explain over and over and over 
again at his rallies what his goal was.
  He used the words, you will recognize them: We are going to expel the 
``worst of the worst.'' Terrorists, murderers, rapists, criminally 
insane, sex and drug traffickers, they are gone. They never should have 
been allowed in this country, and now, they are going to be gone.
  Well, let me hold up my hand and say: That is a worthy goal. I 
believe,

[[Page S1703]]

having been involved in the debate on immigration for decades now, 
there are some basics that I believe, and most Senators of both parties 
agree. Let me see if they ring true to you as well.
  We should never knowingly allow a dangerous person to come into this 
country--never knowingly allow a dangerous person to come into this 
country. And if they are in this country seeking legal status and 
citizenship and are dangerous or commit a crime, they are gone. I think 
most Americans would say: Well, that just makes sense. We don't want 
dangerous people here. And if they come here and want to be part of 
America for any period of time, they have to demonstrate that they will 
be positive, contributing to this society and our economy.
  What happened to the previous administration with the border, I am 
not going to debate one way or the other. We are in the present dealing 
with the second year of this President's term, and we are dealing with 
the situation as of today. The question is, What are we going to do 
about it?
  Because it turns out that President Trump's promise to go after the 
``worst of the worst'' was a promise that was not kept. I know it 
personally from the city of Chicago because the ICE forces showed up in 
Chicago.
  I went over to their facilities. I asked as a Senator to see some of 
the people who were being held. They refused me that opportunity. It 
was the first time ever. They said: This is too dangerous a situation. 
We can't let you see the people we have arrested.
  Well, it turns out that the legal reports of the people who were 
arrested and the people detained and the people sent away did not just 
include a handful of people who were dangerous but many more who were 
not dangerous. They have not broken any laws, and yet they were 
deported.
  Some of them were American citizens, arrested by the ICE Agency. And 
now remember what happened in the streets of Minneapolis. We all saw 
that video over and over again. Two innocent Americans protesting, as 
they have a right to do under the Constitution, were killed on the 
streets of Minneapolis by ICE agents.
  When they were asked later on by the Agency who were these people, 
they said they were domestic terrorists. They called them domestic 
terrorists. And when they took a look at their background, it turned 
out it wasn't true. One of them was actually a nurse in a veterans 
hospital in Minneapolis.
  And so we said to ourselves: What is going on here? Thousands of ICE 
agents descending on populations in cities like Minneapolis and 
Chicago, deporting people from those cities, and they don't fit the 
definition of dangerous people, dangerous criminals. We have to do 
something about it to clean this up.
  And why would we have ICE agents wearing masks? Why are they hiding 
their faces? I will just tell you: If your home State is South Dakota 
like the Republican leader or Illinois like myself, our policemen don't 
wear masks; our State troopers don't wear masks; our deputy sheriffs 
don't wear masks. What is going on here? I know what is going on, and 
you do too.
  It strikes fear in the hearts of a lot of people to see those folks 
heavily armed with combat type uniforms wearing masks. It is to create 
fear; it is not for effective law enforcement.
  What we have tried to argue on this side--the Democratic side of the 
aisle--is we ought to use the same standards for the ICE agents that we 
use for police in our own States. That makes sense to me. I have talked 
to a lot of law enforcement about this, and they say: Our people don't 
wear masks, and they don't need to.
  Now, if they are undercover agents, different thing, keep them safe, 
do what you need. But that is a rare circumstance, a limited number of 
people that it applies to.
  So we have gone back and forth for weeks now as to what to do to 
reform the ICE agents and those who are working for this effort for 
masks and deportation. I thought we were at least moving in the right 
direction, but we had limited success.
  And so we said on 11 different occasions to our friends on the other 
side of the aisle: Republicans, join us in doing this. Let's fund 
everything else in the Federal Government, everything else in the 
Department of Homeland Security, and leave this one area, ICE agents 
and such, which we are debating, separate.
  We offered that amendment 11 times, and 11 times they voted no. Now, 
they can explain why they voted no. I happen to think they believed it 
was politically right for them to stick with the President at that 
point.
  But we have gone beyond that point now. Just 2 weeks ago, Senator 
Thune from South Dakota the Republican leader came to the floor and 
asked for unanimous consent to pass a funding bill, which excluded ICE 
from being included into it, and it passed here.
  It was sent over to the House of Representatives where there is a 
Republican majority; they rejected it. They said: We want everything 
funded or nothing. So they funded everything, which brought us to a 
standstill again.
  Needless to say, this needs to be resolved and soon. The good news is 
that the Agencies at the Department of Homeland Security like the Coast 
Guard, CISA, and FEMA, and a lot of other Agencies which you may be 
familiar with are going to be funded, but we still have to work out the 
ICE agents part. That is an important element in this, and it should be 
done and done right to make sure that our constitutional rights are 
protected.
  If any law enforcement agent in any State that you happen to live in 
decided that it was time to search your home and to crash down your 
front door to get into your home, they would need a judicial warrant 
for that purpose. Arguments are being made by some that ICE agents 
should be excepted from that; I think that is wrong. If you don't have 
a court that says you have legal authority to tear down my front door 
and come into my home and arrest me, then you shouldn't do it. You need 
a judicial warrant, except in the most extreme circumstances, and that 
doesn't apply to what ICE is doing. So that issue still is out there.
  That is the background that Senator Thune was alluding to. He sees it 
differently than I do, but that is not new in the Senate. There are 
always differences of opinion. The question is, Will we come together 
now and try to work out those differences? We have 3 weeks, this week 
and two more, that we will be in session. This is an opportunity to get 
it done. No excuses. Both parties, Democrats and Republicans, let's get 
it done, starting this week.
  I am ready to stand and volunteer for that effort if I can help, but 
it should be done, and done soon.