[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 21, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1850-S1854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SETTING FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 AND SETTING FORTH THE APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS
FOR FISCAL YEARS 2027 THROUGH 2035
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The clerk will report the
concurrent resolution by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 33) setting forth the
Congressional Budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I defer to Senator Graham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Order of business
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.
I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of the S. Con. Res. 33,
the budget resolution for fiscal year 2026, the majority and the
Democratic managers of the resolution, while seated or standing at the
managers' desk, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve,
review, and edit documents, and send email and other data
communications from text displayed on wireless personal assistant
devices and tablet devices.
I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be
permitted on the floor during consideration of the
[[Page S1851]]
budget resolution; further, that the staff be permitted to make
technical and conforming changes to the resolution, if necessary,
consistent with amendments adopted during Senate consideration,
including calculating the associated change in the net interest
function and incorporating the effect of such adopted amendments on the
budgetary aggregates for Federal revenue, the amount by which the
Federal revenue should be changed, new budget authority, budget
outlays, deficits, public debt and debt held by the public; further, I
ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior
to each voting consideration of S. Con. Res. 33.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4364
Ms. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, more than 2 months ago, the Supreme Court
ruled that the tariffs that President Trump had imposed under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, were unlawful.
That means that more than $166 billion in taxes--or tariffs--under
IEEPA were illegally collected, and they are owed back to the importers
who paid them.
Now, this wasn't a shocking outcome because the law that the
President tried to use for these tariffs--IEEPA--had never been used to
impose tariffs. It does not even mention the words ``tariff'' or
``duty'' once, anywhere, in that law.
And so 15 months ago, a number of us introduced legislation to
clarify that IEEPA cannot be used for tariffs.
Congress then submitted three amicus briefs, arguing that these
tariffs were unlawful. The lower courts agreed. And on February 20, the
Supreme Court blocked the tariffs and said that they should be repaid.
Now, 2 months later, here we are. No refunds have been paid, and the
administration says it could take another 60 to 90 days before any
refunds will be paid out.
Yesterday, some businesses were finally able to apply for refunds in
the Customs and Border Protection's new system, but that system didn't
allow businesses to even apply for refunds they have been waiting the
longest for. This new system, which is called CAPE, disadvantages small
businesses who may not know they need to file to receive refunds.
Those who don't have large legal teams to pursue these claims and
have to take time away from their businesses just to give Customs
information that it already has, they are not going to be able to
comply with these requirements.
It also makes small businesses more likely to sell their refund
claims to Wall Street banks like the one run by the Secretary of
Commerce's sons and to sell those claims for a significant discount.
This administration was ready to reimpose a 10-percent tax on
everything Americans import on the same day the Supreme Court ruled,
but it took 2 months to roll out a partial refund system. That has real
costs.
It hurts small businesses who are already struggling with high prices
and shouldn't have to wait months to get refunds for unlawful taxes. It
hurts our economy, with businesses unsure when or even if they will be
able to reinvest this money. And it hurts taxpayers because these
refunds have to be paid with interest.
That means that every day of delay adds $22 million to the bill for
these unlawful and damaging tariffs. That is $1.3 billion more just
since the Supreme Court ruled with billions more to come. Those are
added costs because this administration failed to prepare for the
obvious outcome.
So let's be clear on what is happening. President Trump's tariffs
raise prices across the board, and now he is slow-walking getting out
the refunds that Americans are entitled to. There is a better answer.
That is the Speedy Tariff Refund Act, legislation that Senators Markey
and Wyden and I have been working on. It is a bill that would require
that Customs pay refunds automatically within 30 days, that it use the
information it already has, and that all of these refunds be paid now.
The bill prioritizes refunds to small businesses rather than putting
them at a disadvantage to big companies. Those businesses have already
had to deal with added costs they can't easily absorb and constantly
shifting tariffs that make it impossible to plan.
So this is not complicated. The Court said these tariffs were
unlawful. The money was collected. It should be returned promptly and
in full. It is time to pass our bill. It is time to return the $166
billion to the American people because every day we delay adds another
$22 million to the tab.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to request unanimous consent
to pass the Speedy Tariff Refund Act.
The bill forces the Trump administration to immediately return the
money it has stolen from American businesses under Donald Trump's
illegal tariffs. Nothing illustrates the hostility that Donald Trump
has shown toward helping Americans seek refunds better than his
comments to CNBC this morning.
Donald Trump said this morning that it would be ``brilliant'' if
companies do not seek refunds and that he will remember those who
don't. That sounds like a threat to me. The President of the United
States basically said he will remember those who don't seek a refund or
come forward.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's
so-called ``emergency'' IEEPA tariffs. The Court's ruling was clear:
the tariffs were illegal, and the administration must refund the money
to the American importers that paid the tariffs. It has now been 2
months since the Supreme Court's decision. Not a single penny has been
paid back.
The Trump administration is deliberately delaying these refunds, even
after Trump's own lawyers claimed that they would be issued.
While Donald Trump funnels money to his vanity projects and illegal
war, his administration is doing everything it can to avoid returning
the money it stole from American companies. That is why I quoted the
President's threat this morning.
I have heard from countless small business owners who paid the
tariffs but still have no idea when or if they will ever get their
money back. This leaves businesses and workers on a financial
rollercoaster, questioning if they are going to be able to keep their
doors open.
Yesterday, Customs and Border Protection began accepting refund
requests through yet another online system, which is already riddled
with glitches and errors. But instead of paying refunds automatically,
Customs and Border Protection is requiring businesses in America to
file yet another round of paperwork to get a refund. This is just more
bureaucratic red tape, making it harder for Americans to get their
money back.
Customs and Border Protection is even excluding whole categories of
imports from the refund system for now, and they are doing it despite
the Court of International Trade's order to pay refunds of all IEEPA
tariffs.
It is as clear as Crater Lake that Oregonians can't rely on this
administration to return their money, so Congress needs to step up. My
bill requires the administration to pay tariff refunds, with interest,
within 30 days. It applies to every importer who paid IEEPA tariffs,
not just certain imports, and it makes it clear that CBP must pay the
refunds automatically without requiring additional paperwork.
I am sure my Republican colleagues are also hearing from small
businesses in their States that are desperate to get a tariff refund. I
urge them to join me, Senator Markey, Senator Shaheen, and to do it
today. The Senate can act today to put money back in the pockets of
small businesses and ensure Donald Trump no longer keeps scamming
Americans out of the tariff refunds they are owed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of S. 4364, the Speedy Tariff Refund Act; that
the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise to
speak in opposition to the Speedy Tariff Refund Act of 2026.
[[Page S1852]]
I share my colleagues' support for ensuring that any administrative
processes are efficient and easy to navigate, especially for small
businesses, but this legislation is unnecessary. The bill would require
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to swiftly refund tariffs
collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The
CBP is already in the process of doing just that. In fact, yesterday,
CBP launched its new portal through which importers of all sizes may
file declarations requesting refunds. The portal is called the
Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries--the CAPE--
portal. This portal will help CBP manage the expected high volume of
submissions to ensure that importers can track the refund process.
CBP is committed to helping the public navigate this portal. In fact,
it released written guidance and is holding public webinars, including
one held earlier today.
As CBP demonstrated to the satisfaction of the U.S. Court of
International Trade, this is a necessary process given the complexities
of tariff refund calculations. By all accounts, CBP is now
expeditiously complying with the court's order.
For these reasons, I object.
I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. WYDEN. Just very briefly, as I know Senator Merkley is waiting to
speak, we are talking about CBP. If we really want to know what they
are in the process of doing, they are in the process of playing more
stall ball, making it tough for small businesses to get access to these
tariff refunds.
As I said, it is all summed up by what Donald Trump said to CNBC. I
interpret that as, point blank, a threat to people who go out and try
to advance their rights, and I think it is wrong for the President to
do it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
S. Con. Res. 33
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today because our Republican
colleagues have introduced a new budget resolution to yet again utilize
a special process called reconciliation. We just voted a short while
ago on a motion to proceed. That motion to proceed succeeded along
purely party lines, and that takes us into the realm of this special
device called reconciliation.
Just 10 months ago, we already had a reconciliation bill that is
sometimes called H.R. 1. President Trump called it the One Big
Beautiful Bill, but much of America has a different name for it. They
call it the Big Ugly Betrayal. Why? Because it betrayed families in
America to fund tax breaks for billionaires, and in the process, it
added to our national debt. It slashed $1 trillion from healthcare
programs for families. It kicked 15 million Americans off of their
health insurance. It took food off the plates of more than 3 million
families with children. Why? To give away the Treasury to the richest
Americans. What other phrase could possibly describe this other than
``families lose, and billionaires win''?
But it isn't just today's families who lose from that bill; it is the
families of the next generation because that bill added, according to
the Congressional Budget Office's independent, nonpartisan estimate,
$30 trillion to our national debt over 30 years, and that is only if
their inflation or interest rates are accurate. They note that, in
general, their assumption was that interest would not go above 4
percent, but at 1 percent higher, that $30 trillion in debt for the
next generation, which essentially doubles our national debt, would
instead be adding an additional $50 trillion.
I am sharing this because this bill--this second reconciliation bill
during the Trump administration--builds on the foundation of the first.
The first one was ``families lose, and billionaires win,'' but could
this bill possibly be different? Not only is this bill not different,
but its entire existence involves a betrayal of this Senate Chamber
because the bill is based on a provision in budget law from 1974, the
Budget and Impoundment Control Act.
Every single Senator who voted on that bill voted in favor of it--
Democrats and Republicans together--because the complete agreement was
that it would be used only to decrease the deficit, and every single
Member thought we needed to have an instrument to control the deficit.
OK. Fine. Well and good. That was in 1974. But in 1996, Republicans
decided they wanted to give away even more treasure to the richest
Americans, so they said: The problem is we can't do that because it
increases the deficit rather than decreases the deficit. There isn't a
pathway to do it because we know we can't get 60 votes to close debate
on giving away the Treasury to the richest Americans.
So the then-leader, Robert Dole of Kansas, proceeded to appoint a
Parliamentarian who had worked for him and who had also been around in
1974 and understood that the entire reconciliation was about reducing
the deficit, and the result was a ruling that that core premise could
be stood on its head. You could use reconciliation not to decrease
deficits but to increase them. It meant you could do a massive tax bill
giveaway to the richest Americans. That is at the foundation for both
of the Bush tax cuts--or tax giveaways to the rich, maybe, to more
accurately describe it--and to a similar bill that was done last year
and to a similar bill that was done in the first Trump administration.
So here we are. In addition to impacting tax legislation, this change
saying that this special device that everyone agreed was only for
decreasing the deficit could be used to increase the deficit meant that
it could also be used in the fashion that it is being presented by my
Republican colleagues today.
So the pillars of that initial act are all being violated--the pillar
that in the first 10 years, there could be no net deficit; that after
the first 10 years, there could be no deficit in any individual account
in any individual year; that the budget had to be based on real
numbers, not phony numbers; and that the real numbers would come from
an independent Agency set up by the bill at the Congressional Budget
Office. But that bill last year, the ``Big Ugly Betrayal'' bill,
toppled all of those pillars--immediate deficits, long-term deficits
and long-term debt, using fake numbers on the analysis, all of it--so
there is no foundation for accountability left.
That is the background for what brings us to today and to the vote
that was just held in which the majority party said: We are again going
to present a bill that increases the deficit and increases debt.
Wow. I must say this is not the way I would like to be celebrating
our 250th anniversary. Wouldn't it be great if, on a bipartisan basis,
we restored accountability to our national budget? Wouldn't that be a
way to celebrate this anniversary and help create a foundation for the
next generation to thrive rather than shortchanging the children of
today, who will be adults in the near future, and shortchanging the
children of the children of today? But there we are. Instead, the
majority party has decided to celebrate our 250th anniversary by--well,
by expanding secret police in America, because that is what the bill is
all about that they have presented.
We know what the foundations are for families to thrive. It is
healthcare. It is housing. It is education. It is good-paying jobs. We
know that you also need investments in infrastructure in order to make
all of that happen.
So will this bill that the majority just presented address the issues
families are facing?
Will it be designed to bring down the cost of groceries? No, it will
not.
Will it be designed to bring down the cost of healthcare, perhaps by
restoring the tax credits that their last bill took away from millions
of families? No, it will not.
Will it be designed to bring down gas prices, which are more than $1
higher than before the war was launched on Iran? In my State of Oregon,
a gallon of gas is over $5 and a gallon of diesel is over $6. This is
the Bush tax on ordinary families. Was it designed to bring that down?
No.
How about to expand nutrition assistance--nutrition that was savaged
in the ``Big Ugly Bill'' 10 months ago? Does this bill remedy that to
help the children of America get enough to eat so they can actually
study when they are in school? No, it does not.
Does it address the mass shortage in housing that has resulted in
really high rents? No, it doesn't help that either.
[[Page S1853]]
How about investing in first-time home ownership to help restore the
dream of home ownership because that dream has been dying? No, it
doesn't address that either.
How about helping the United States prepare for unexpected
disasters--wildfires? floods? hurricanes? No, it doesn't do that.
Does it, perhaps, reduce our debt? No, quite the opposite. It is
unpaid for, and it increases our debt.
So nothing to help working families; nothing to improve
affordability--a major crisis across this country; nothing to reduce
the deficit and debt.
Instead, this bill is ICE and CBP--Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection--up to $140 billion.
There is a set of instructions being sent to committee, and each
committee is being told: You can spend up to $70 billion. Two
committees. Seventy billion. That is up to $140 billion.
But when I say that this bill is all about funding ICE and CBP, you
might say: Wait, didn't we do that 10 months ago? Didn't Republicans,
on party line, pass a bill to give massive amounts of money to ICE and
CBP just 10 months ago? And your memory would be correct.
This is the budget for ICE, and you can see that it increased
modestly from 2017 to 2024, but look at this--an additional $75
billion, roughly equal to seven times its normal annual appropriation.
So it funded also CBP in a very similar fashion--only gave an extra
65 billion to CBP. So 75 billion to ICE; 65 billion to Customs and
Border Protection. Massive, mega increase in expanding Agencies that
have been empowered by this administration to operate like secret
police.
So instead of this bill being used to address the concerns of
families across America, this bill is being used to expand the
operations of Trump's secret police. That is what this bill is.
Now, of this massive amount of money that was provided 10 months ago,
how much has been spent? Now, you would assume, because Republicans are
coming back and saying: This is a top priority in America, that that
money--that extra 75 billion for ICE and 65 billion for Customs and
Border Protection--must have been spent.
Well, now, the Office of Management and Budget, which is in the
executive branch--it is run by Mr. Russell Vought, who was the chief
architect of Project 2025 aimed at creating an authoritarian state--
they issue a report monthly. It is called monthly Report on Budget
Execution. And the forms, for those of you who want the details, are
called SF-133.
We looked at those forms for this last month, and what those forms
say is that 63 billion of the ICE spending has not been obligated yet.
It is not even under contract. It isn't that it hasn't gone out the
door; it is not even under contract. And of the 65 billion for CBP, 40
billion is not yet obligated.
That means $103 billion of the money that Republicans gave to expand
ICE and CBP is still available. So why the hell is the top priority in
America getting another $70 to $140 billion for these two Agencies, as
opposed to addressing all the significant national challenges that we
have--all of the challenges that families have as they are pressed to
the wall by the cost of fuel and the cost of healthcare and the cost of
housing and the cost of medicine? Why isn't this bill addressing any of
that? And instead it is providing $70 to $140 billion more for two
Agencies that still are sitting on top of over $100 billion from last
year's bill.
I noted that the goal of this bill is to expand the secret police in
America. Those are strong words because ICE and CBP were not secret
police before this administration, but this administration changed
their conduct.
They turned them into a force that operates in secret and is
terrorizing communities across this country--operating in secret
wearing masks, operating in secret in uniforms without identification,
operating in secret in vehicles that are unmarked and sometimes have
had their license plates removed to make them as untraceable as
possible, operating without warrants and crashing through people's
doors, stopping citizens without cause--pulling their weapons, bashing
out their windows, and dragging people out of their cars.
These are the tactics of secret police around the world, and they are
happening right here in America, right now.
And in that cultivated manner of thuggery, they are not just pulling
out their weapons; they are pulling the triggers. Ruben Ray Martinez--
shot dead. Renee Nicole Good--shot dead. Alex Pretti--shot dead.
The day after Renee and Alex were shot dead in Minnesota, two
individuals were shot sitting in their car just blocks from my house in
Oregon. We didn't know that they were mortally injured because the
administration wouldn't release any information.
Thankfully, they did not die. The woman, on that occasion, was shot
through the chest. The man was shot through the arm--sitting in their
car just one day after Renee and Alex were shot in their car.
It is certainly clear that what these two Agencies need is not more
money. They are sitting on $100 billion-plus in unobligated funds. What
they need is more accountability. That bill should be on the Senate
floor--the one that says no face masks, no uniforms without ID, no vans
without license plates or ID, no breaking down doors without warrants,
no invading sensitive places like hospitals and churches and synagogues
and mosques and daycares. That is the bill.
What we need now is not more money. It is more accountability--
standard practices for the way public officials operate in a democratic
republic. Instead, we now have standard practice of this administration
for how secret police operate under an authoritarian organization.
My colleagues across the aisle have said: Well, we need to fund these
organizations because they aren't funded. Well, clearly, if they still
have $100 billion sitting in the bank, sitting in their accounts with
the government, they are funded.
And as for the rest of Homeland Security, that is not funded because
the House of Representatives killed the bill. In that case, I can thank
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who came together and said:
Homeland Security isn't just about ICE and CBP. It is also about FEMA--
emergency management. It is also about TSA that provides support to get
us through the airport. It is also about Cybersecurity, which is
important. It is also about the Coast Guard. And the Coast Guard is so
beloved in my home State of Oregon, as it is, I imagine, in every
coastal city.
And so every single Senator said: Yes, fund those four Agencies while
we continue to debate both ICE and Customs and Border Protection. We
all agreed. In fact, the Speaker of the House agreed and said send the
bill over. And then it got over there, and he got cold feet.
He got cold feet because he didn't have the support of President
Trump, and he didn't have support of some Members of the most right-
leaning wing of the Republican Party. That was the moment that Trump
could have instantly made one phone call and that bill would have
passed.
So if they are not funded, it is because the President chose to keep
them unfunded, and the House of Representatives chose to keep those
additional Agencies--FEMA, TSA, Cybersecurity, and Coast Guard--
unfunded.
In addition, this bill doesn't just provide 1 year of funding. It
says: Fund them--that is, ICE and CBP--this additional funding on top
of the $100 billion they still have--fund them for another 3 years.
Now, I would like to just remind my colleagues how extraordinary this
is. Reconciliation was never supposed to be about spending money. It
was supposed to be about deficit reduction, but now, we are taking a
bill that was in the regular appropriations process and funding two
Agencies for 3 years--that is their plan. And that is simply wrong
because it means we are saying that in this--the start of the second
year of the Trump administration--they are going to fund these Agencies
through Trump's entire administration.
You know where this leads. There will be another administration in
the future, and they will say in the first year of the administration:
Fund all 4 years. Hell, fund 5 years--1 year into my successor--fund
that. What does that strip away? It strips away the accountability
involved in the budget process.
Further, going down the road, we are creating a vortex of
unaccountable
[[Page S1854]]
spending and debt and a failure--a failure--to restrain this type of
massive misspending of American money. It is our treasure. Our treasure
is being spent, not for the things that Americans are concerned about
but for doubling down on the expansion of Trump's secret police.
This vision of families lose and billionaires win began with Trump's
inaugural speech. He didn't line up the champions for families behind
him. There was no healthcare champion. There was no housing champion.
There was no education champion. There was no champion for
infrastructure in America. But there was a line of billionaires
standing right behind the President. That is what this administration
has been about: families lose and billionaires win.
Well, there is a better vision for our Nation, and that better vision
is families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share. That is a
vision--in a government by and for the people--that all 100 Senators
should be supporting: Families thrive, and the rich and well-off pay
their fair share.
Let's work toward that vision--not just in this year or in the year
to come but for the next generation and the generation that follows.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
____________________