Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 71 (Wednesday, April 22, 2026)

[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 22, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1902-S1924]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RECOGNIZING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE MONTH IN APRIL

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 686, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 686) recognizing the significance of
Community College Month in April as a celebration of more
than 1,000 institutions throughout the United States
supporting access to higher education, workforce training,
and more broadly sustaining and advancing the economic
prosperity of the United States.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; and that the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 686) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record
under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

S. Con. Res. 33

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we are here tonight because our
Republican colleagues have introduced a budget resolution. It is a
budget resolution that unlocks the reconciliation process.
But before we examine this next reconciliation bill, let's recognize
that it has been just 10 months since we passed the last one. That was
the one that was known as H.R. 1, or in Trump lingo: One Big Beautiful
Bill. Of course, most of the Nation called it ``One Big Ugly Betrayal''
because that was a more accurate describer of what it did to families
across our Nation.
It slashed a trillion dollars from healthcare programs--a trillion
dollars from healthcare programs--for families. It kicked 15 million
Americans off health insurance. That certainly doesn't help American
families.
It took food off the plates of more than 3 million families with
kids. You know, kids can't really do well in school if they are hungry;
making them deliberately hungry--what were you thinking?
What were you thinking in destroying healthcare by a trillion dollars
for 15 million Americans, taking food off the plates of 3 million
families with kids, and to do it to fund tax breaks for billionaires?
Wow. That is all about government by and for the powerful.
But you know why I love this country? Because it is all about
government by and for the people. That is the vision our Nation was
founded on. That is the beauty of a democratic republic.
But what did we get last year? We got the opposite. We got the
opposite--the type of policy that comes out of a strongman state, the
type of policy that comes out when the powerful exercise tyranny over
the people--the type of tyranny our Founders revolted against when they
created our Nation. That is what we saw 10 months ago: families lose
and billionaires won.
And that is not all that bill did. It also gave 65 billion to Customs
and Border Protection and 75 billion to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement or ICE. And that amount of money was about seven times a
normal annual appropriation.
We can see here in this chart 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, all less than
10 billion; 2025, and there we are. So much more. The annual
appropriation, plus this extra for ICE of an additional $75 billion.
And anyone looking at the chart goes: Wow. They already prefunded,
for multiple years, ICE. They did exactly the same thing for Customs
and Border Protection--CBP.
So we heard a few moments ago from my colleague at the head of the
Budget Committee that ICE is out of money. Oh, really? Not true. That
CBP is out of money. Not true.
In fact, the President's Office of Management and Budget puts out a
monthly report, so go look it up yourself. They are sitting on $103
billion of unobligated funds.
So they already have funds for this year and next year and the year
after. So the entire premise of this bill is completely false--
completely false. They don't need more money. What they do need are
reforms about their conduct across America because they have been
terrorizing our communities across our country because this
administration said: No longer will you use

[[Page S1903]]

the standard practices of ordinary enforcement that have been the
standard in our Republic and democratic republics across the land.
Instead, we are going to start violating those standards. We are going
to put on face masks. We are going to rip the ID off the uniform so you
can't tell who we are. We are going to use vans that have no label on
them, and we are going to sometimes even strip the license plate off in
order to disguise who we are, not because we are under cover but
because we don't want people to be able to say: Can you believe what
happened when those CBP agents came to town or those ICE agents came to
town? Hard to say that when they are not identified.
But those standards exist because there is accountability to the
citizens of the country. Again, government by and for the people, not
by and for the powerful.
There are things called civil rights that this administration has
forgotten about. They proceeded to say: We don't need warrants to break
into people's homes. Are you kidding me? Every sixth grader in America
has heard about the Bill of Rights and that we have the sanctity of our
homes, and the government can't break in without a warrant. But this
majority party, led by Trump, said: Yes, you can. Forget the Bill of
Rights. Forget the Fourth Amendment.
And then when we detain people, you have another right, and that is
to contact a lawyer. But we are going to detain you and not let you
contact a lawyer. We are going to detain you and not let you contact
family.
And when family says: Where did my family member go that you-all
swept off the street? We are going say: We don't know. We moved them.
We don't know where. That is not conduct acceptable in a democratic
republic with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.
Well, since ICE and CBP have already been prefunded, since they are
sitting on $103 billion of unobligated funds, what is this all about?
It is about the majority saying: We want to drive home the point that
we are just fine with the way ICE is conducting themselves. We are so
fine that we won't reform any of those violations of civil rights or
constitutional rights in order to have a normal budget process
regarding CBP or regarding ICE.
Well, if we are going to have a special reconciliation process when
ICE and CBP have already been prefunded, how about we actually address
issues that America cares about because that extra money isn't going to
help with the border because they are already funded.
It isn't going to help improve security because they are already
funded.
But you know what is not adequately funded? Healthcare is not
adequately funded. There isn't a dime in this bill for healthcare. That
is important to the American people.
There is not a dime in this bill to help with the rising grocery
prices that have gone up, up, up under Trump's stewardship--a whole lot
of it impacted by his tariffs, which were themselves unconstitutional.
There is not a dime in this bill to address the gas prices, which are
over $5 a gallon in my State, and diesel is over $6 a gallon. Go talk
to a farmer across America and see if they are happy and ask
yourselves: If we are doing a special budget process, why not address
some help to our farmers who are impacted not just by the high cost of
diesel for their tractors, they are being extraordinarily impacted by
the tariffs as well. Why not help them?
Why not reduce the debt? This bill increases the debt. It is unpaid
for just like the Republican war in Afghanistan was unpaid for, the
Republican war in Iraq, going after nonexistent weapons of mass
destruction, was unpaid for. They launched wars that undermine our
security and cost the American Treasury $8 trillion of debt because
they wouldn't pay for it, and now that debt is coming home to roost.
And it means more interest payments, and it means paying higher
interest. It means less money for those fundamentals for families, like
healthcare and housing and education--the foundations for families to
thrive.

So there is not a dime for working families, not a dime to improve
affordability, not a dime to reduce a deficit or the debt; but there
is, in this bill, the instructions to two committees to spend up to $70
billion apiece.
Now, my colleague clarified that they are not really going to ask for
$140 billion but, more likely, $70 billion. OK. Well, $70 billion, that
is a lot of money. What could $70 billion buy for America's families?
Well, it could, every year for 3 years, pay the entire salary of
330,000 teachers across America. Wow. What an impact that would have on
classroom size in our Nation--a real investment in our children for the
next generation. Or that same $70 billion could hire 200,000 police
officers every year for 3 years. What an investment in public safety
for communities across this Nation. Or--we have been watching the dream
of home ownership die. Back in 2020, the median age for buying a first
home was about 33 years of age. Six years later, the median age for
buying a home: 40 years. In 5 years, the median age has gone up 7 years
because nobody is able to buy a home in America--in part because
private equity is buying up all the houses and driving up the prices,
and because our economy for the rich billionaires is not providing the
type of wages for middle-class America it provided before.
So how about downpayment assistance to help people become homeowners?
That same $70 billion, that would provide 7 million American families
with a $10,000 downpayment grant to help them become a homeowner.
So 330,000 teachers a year for 3 years, 200,000 police officers a
year for 3 years, 7 million families getting $10,000 downpayment
grants. I make these examples to point out how large this sum is and
how much need there is in America for us actually to invest in
families--not tax breaks for billionaires but in families, in housing,
in healthcare, in public safety, in education.
That bill 10 months ago--that bill was families lose, billionaires
win. Families lost healthcare. They lost nutrition. Billionaires got
massive tax breaks. And to help fund those tax breaks for the
billionaires, their bill added--get this--$30 trillion to the national
debt over the next 30 years. And if interest rates are 1 percent higher
than the interest rate used in the Congressional Budget Office's model,
it is $50 trillion in additional debt over the next 30 years.
So bankrupting America, failing to invest in families, going through
this charade for two organizations that are already sitting on $103
billion and obviously pre-funded, that is not about building a better
America. That is about families lose and billionaires win. That is
about undermining the future for the next generation rather than
building a better future for the next generation.
There is a better vision for America than families lose and
billionaires win. It is families thrive; and billionaires, they pay
their fair share. Families thrive; billionaires pay their fair share.
Investing in education helps families thrive. Investing in healthcare
helps families thrive. Investing in housing and home ownership helps
families thrive. Investing in infrastructure helps build the physical
infrastructure for the next generation.
But this bill says to hell with all of that; we are going to,
instead, create this false story about unfunded Agencies that are
already sitting on $103 billion.
Let's reject this vision that is designed for families lose and
billionaires win and instead adopt the vision of families thrive and
billionaires pay their fair share.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
(Mr. HUSTED assumed the Chair.)
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes telling you
about why I held the vote-arama tonight on reconciliation. Our leader
is going to make it to happen a lot quicker than I am. He has got the
patience of Job.
My Democratic friends--and they are my friends; I don't hate
anybody--agreed to a budget for the Department of Homeland Security as
part of our normal budgetary process.
They changed their mind, as is their right. But it caused the
Department of

[[Page S1904]]

Homeland Security to be shut down, and it hurt a lot of people
needlessly. It didn't hurt us. It didn't hurt us. We are still getting
paid. We are still going home. But it hurt a lot of people.
And our leader decided that he was going to negotiate with my friend,
Minority Leader Schumer, and Senator Schumer was going to meet us
halfway and figure out a way to get the Agency open.
He and my Democrat colleagues did agree to open everything but ICE
and, I believe, border security. They will never agree to fund ICE--
never, not in your natural lifetime, not in mine. They won't do it.
My friend Senator Schumer did the right thing last March, when we
were shut down. He agreed to release some of his Members to let us open
the government back up. The loon wing of his party--that is what I call
them; if you disagree with me, you can tell me why--beat him bloody.
They hit him so hard--now when they hit him, they are just working on
scar tissue--for doing the right thing.
Now, I don't consider all of my Democratic friends to believe in
defunding ICE. The people in control do. They know it. I know it. We
know it. They will never vote to fund ICE. This is the same group of
people that wanted to defund the police, and we know how that vampire
movie turned out.
Now, they will deny it, and that is their right. But it is the truth,
and everybody in this body knows that.
But, nonetheless, our leader said we can work it out.
We didn't work it out. They never agreed to fund ICE, and they never
will.
Now, about--I don't know; time runs together up here when you are
having fun--a month ago, 6 weeks ago, 2 months ago, we started talking
about reconciliation and doing it without Democratic votes, even though
the Democrats would be welcome to join us.
I want to give full credit. Ted Cruz, I believe, was the first one to
do it. I was second. And Ted went first only because he beat me to it
but also because Ted pointed out, in President Trump's first term, that
we shouldn't leave efforts to do reconciliation on the table. He was
right then. He is right now.
The leader said OK, finally, after doing everything he could, except
standing on one leg and barking like a dog. Senator Thune did
everything but stand on one leg and bark like a dog to get Chuck to
agree. It was his right. Chuck wouldn't agree. And for all I know, John
did stand on one leg and bark like a dog. It didn't work. So we finally
said: OK, let's do the reconciliation.
Now, once we started talking about reconciliation, which Senator Cruz
and I and others pushed, I said I wanted to try to use--well, I said,
first, I refuse to believe that Democrats in the Senate and the House
cannot adult hard enough to come up with a couple of issues that we can
agree to do, in addition to funding ICE and border security, in
reconciliation. I didn't believe that then, and I don't believe that
now.
Some people said I am naive. Maybe so, but I still believe it. And I
still think we ought to try. Why? Because there is not going to be a
third reconciliation bill. I am not seeing--I am not saying anybody is
lying. They are not. People probably intend to do a third
reconciliation bill, but you are not looking at Bambi's baby brother
here. There won't be a third reconciliation bill.
You know it, and I know it. This is it. This is the last train
leaving the station. Maybe we will do some other bills. I don't know. I
am labor, not management. That is above my pay grade. But this will be
the last one where we can add stuff to it.
And I would like to see us come up with one or two issues that will
help the American people with the cost of living and other things that
I know Republicans can agree to. And my Democratic friends, like
Senator Durbin, whom we are going to miss--and I mean that--are welcome
to come aboard if they want to.
One of the things I also said I wanted to try to do in reconciliation
was the SAVE Act. Here is what I want to do, and I am willing for all
of us to put our heads together to figure out how to do it.
The American people no longer have confidence in our elections. You
can debate whether that is justified or not, but it is just a natural
fact. I think that we can restore confidence in our Federal elections
if we do three things: if we come up with a way to make sure that
everybody who is registered to vote is an American citizen. I think we
can restore confidence in our elections if, No. 2, we pass a rule for
Federal elections that says you have to prove you are who you say you
are in order to vote. And, No. 3, I would like to see us--I consider
this part of the SAVE America Act, but it is not traditionally a part.
I think we ought to go back to having an election day and not an
election month. I know some votes come in late. I get that. We are
smart enough to figure out a way to accommodate that. But this election
month stuff is just undermining the people's confidence, both
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. That is what I mean when I
say the SAVE Act.

And I have said that I am going to try to put the SAVE Act on the
reconciliation bill, and I want to keep my word. Where I come from,
your word is your bond.
Now, Senator Thune, our leader, came to me earlier--and so did Whip
Barrasso--and said: Some Senators want to do the vote-arama tonight,
and they have got to get home for various reasons.
And I have been there.
And if you insist on going tomorrow--because, frankly, I am. I am
worried about the health of some of our Members--not that they are in
bad health, but it is hard to stay up all night. It was hard to stay up
all night when I did it in college. I was studying, of course.
But, anyway, I said: No, I would rather go tomorrow. I am going to
object.
And John explained to me, and others did as well: The majority wants
to go.
So I said: OK. I will pull my hold.
I didn't realize it then. This is my fault. I thought everybody knew
I wanted to offer amendments. I didn't realize then that there was a
way, procedurally, for me to be blocked from offering my amendments.
That is my fault. I just didn't know the rules.
Do you want me to talk again about our rules, Tony? I won't get off
on that tangent.
Did I mention they were put together by a heroin addict with a socket
wrench? If I didn't, that is how I feel about rules. But, anyway, that
was my fault.
So I called Senator Thune back and I called Senator Barrasso back and
said: Guys, my bad. I was ignorant. I am redoing my hold because you
all have the right to block me from offering amendments, but I have the
right to exercise my procedural rights and start this thing tomorrow
and leave more time to debate. And I apologize to every one of my
colleagues. I have been there. I am sorry. But I will tell them I am
sorry.
So I put together my amendments. I have got five of them, and I
showed them to Senator Graham and Senator Barrasso and Senator Thune. I
just left their office.
So if what we talked about leaked, I am not going to leak it. You
will know it was one of those three. They promised me they wouldn't
leak it.
Here is what I want to offer. And they can stop me, but I can stop us
from voting tonight, which is going to hurt some of my colleagues, and
I don't like to do that.
I think that we should instruct the appropriate committee--I will get
into it, if you want to; it is the Banking Committee--to come up with a
bill to prevent medical debt from being reported to the credit rating
agencies and ruin the credit of all these people who are too poor to be
sick, including middle-class Americans, because their credit gets
screwed up, and it makes it harder to get the money to pay off the
debt.
Now, the hospitals and others, they are foaming at the mouth right
now and having a grand mal seizure. But I am sorry. That is the way to
effect the cost of living in America that every mom and dad is worried
about at night. I wanted to do that. I still want to do that.
I wanted to instruct the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to
provide that, before the United States of America agrees with the
United Kingdom to give away our military base in Diego

[[Page S1905]]

Garcia, two-thirds of the Members of the U.S. Senate have to vote to do
that.
What Prime Minister Starmer is doing right now is deep-dish stupid.
He says he is going to stop, but he may be back.
I wanted to offer an amendment to instruct the Finance Committee to
put together a bill that would eliminate Federal income taxes and State
income taxes, if our colleagues would go on with it, for our poll
workers. They don't make but $50 or something. Why do we make them pay
taxes?
To allow the American people to buy insurance across State lines--now
the insurance commissioners are having grand mal seizures too, but we
ought to talk about it.
The bill would also increase the minimum distribution age of
retirement--the required minimum distributions from retirement
accounts--to 76. Right now, it is 75, and you have got to take it. And
they tax the living bejesus out of you. Some people need it; others
don't.
I was going to ask the Finance Committee to come up with a bill to
allow every American who has suffered a casualty loss to be able to
deduct it below the line on their income taxes. That will help with
affordability.
I wanted to ask them to put together a bill so that when you sell
your home--I think you get--$500,000 of the sale is subject to capital
gains. I am sorry. I am kind of tired. I may be wrong on that, but,
anyway, you get a specialty tax break. Hell, we set that limit in 1997.
I would like them to talk about increasing it. If the Finance
Committee thinks it is a bad idea to increase it, I would like to ask
them to at least index that figure, that special treatment, to
inflation.
I have some other things, but we have got a good Finance Committee,
and they can come up with a bill that will help our people deal with
the cost of living because if you think that the American people--moms
and dads--when they lie down to sleep at night and can't, they are
worried about the cost of living, you will never own your own home.
Everybody here knows that.
I have another amendment to instruct the Senate Rules Committee to
put together a bill that tracks my rule that I can't get brought to the
floor. So I am going to turn it into a bill to withhold pay from
Senators during a shutdown. They can get their money back after the
shutdown is over. I know that hurts some Senators more than others
because some of them have houses that are bigger than a Costco. I get
that. I am not one of them. But we have a lot of people in the TSA and
other people in the DHS who have various levels of income and wealth.
So it just seems to me there ought to be some shared sacrifice.
I have another amendment to--oh, I have another amendment that
would--I am sorry to take so long.
I think my Democratic friends--gosh, I hope I am wrong, but I think
my Democratic friends are going to shut down the government right
before the midterms. I hope I am wrong. If I am, please make me wrong.
I will come to this floor and apologize to every one of them by name if
I need to, but I am scared they are going to shut down the government
and create chaos. So my other amendment would be to instruct the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security, which already has been instructed--it
is germane--to take Senator Lankford's Prevent Government Shutdowns
Act, which is S. 2721, and Senator Ron Johnson's Shutdown Fairness Act,
which is S. 3012--you won't find two smarter people in the Congress
than James Lankford and Ron Johnson--and marry those bills so we will
be ready in case anybody tries to do a shutdown on us.
And I am sorry to pick on my Democratic friends. Hell, we have got
some Republicans who could try to shut it down too. That has been known
to happen. But, anyway, it will stop it. Whatever knobhead wants to
shut down the government before the elections, this will stop it, and
that is one of these things I wanted to do with my amendments.
Finally, I have an amendment to implement my version of the SAVE Act.
You have got to prove you are an American citizen. This would instruct
the Rules Committee. Prove you are an American citizen. Prove you are
who you say you are to vote, and let's go back to having an election
day and not an election month. I have got a lot of confidence in the
Rules Committee. They are really smart Republicans, and they are really
smart Democrats. They can do it, and I want to instruct them to do
that.
Now, they can stop me, but I can stop us from voting tonight. I don't
want to do that; it is going to hurt some of my colleagues. I was going
to stop us from voting tonight to try to prove my point because what
you allow is what will continue around here. I am pulling my objection
except for my right to offer the SAVE Act--my version of the SAVE
America Act. If you don't want to vote for it, don't. All I ask of you
is to think about it, to trust our Rules Committee, and to follow your
heart but take your brain with you because the American people--
Democrats and Republicans and Independents--are questioning our
elections.
This isn't about any one person--everybody is entitled to their
opinion--but I am telling you whoever loses in the next round of
elections--in the next round of elections, if we go back to an election
month, they are going to go: We got it stolen. It has got to stop. That
only happens in a country whose Powerball jackpot is 287 chickens and a
goat. That is not America, and we can stop it with this.
Anyway, that is where I am. So I appreciate your patience. I am going
to release my hold. I have been told I will be able to offer the SAVE
Act. Do whatever the hell you want on it. Vote for it. Vote against it.
Just follow your heart. Take your brain with you. Give the Rules
Committee a chance. And that is where I am. My work here is done.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, well, let me be very clear: The Democrats
are ready. Republicans wanted this vote-arama. Republicans picked this
fight. If Republicans want to slog this out on the floor, so be it.
But imagine, America, this is what the Republicans are fighting for--
to maintain two unchecked, rogue Agencies that are dreaded in all
corners of this country instead of reducing your healthcare costs, your
housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs. Can you believe it?
Can you believe it?
When America is crying out for real relief on the skyrocketing cost
of living, Republicans are spending another $140 billion on Trump's
private militia--on these two rogue Agencies--that have no restraint
and ignore people's real needs.
If you ever wanted to know what a bubble these Republican Senators
are in, look right here. Look right here. They are tying the Senate in
a knot, holding back, moving forward--all so they can fund with no
restraint Agencies that have been discredited widely in America.
Are you Republicans kidding us? Are you kidding the American people?
That is your priority--not lowering costs but billions for ICE; not
helping families but billions for masked agents--while America is
forking up $4 a gallon at the pump while families are set back
thousands more a year because of inflation. Where the heck are you?
Where the heck are you? Republicans think the best thing to do right
now is to cut another $140 billion check for unaccountable rogue
agents.
Democrats are ready to go. We will go to bat for the American people
anytime, anyplace, against anyone. America will see even more clearly
tonight where the Republicans are--not on the side of lowering costs
but on the side of masked agents occupying our streets.
Where the heck are you?
America is crying out for relief from high costs, and you are here,
adding $140 billion to an Agency--two groups, Border Patrol and ICE--
that nobody respects in this country.
On a whole series of amendments now, we are going to contrast where
we are--we Democrats--and where the Republicans are. The Republicans
will either side with the American people on high costs or bow to
Donald Trump and

[[Page S1906]]

Stephen Miller and tell the American people to take a hike. ``We don't
give a damn about you.'' This will be a reconciliation of contrasts.
The contrasts are stark. They are damning. Republicans are bending the
knee to Donald Trump and to Stephen Miller. Democrats are standing up
for the American people. Republicans are fighting with each other
because they know the box they are in--all kinds of dissension--but you
brought it on yourselves and have no one else--no one else--to blame.
So Democrats are united and strong, focused like a laser on reducing
costs. This will be a reconciliation of reckoning for Senate
Republicans who will continue to pay the price for their actions
tonight.
This reconciliation, this budget act, will show who is on whose side,
and clearly, if Republicans vote against our amendments, they are not
on the side of the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in my prior remarks, in one respect, they
were not exactly a model of clarity, so I want to be clear. I don't
want to do anything to hurt the reconciliation bill. I like my
amendments that I talked about. I don't know whether they will pass. If
they don't pass, I will tell you how I will sleep tonight--with a fan
on, because I think they are good amendments. But I am going to pull
them down, except for the SAVE Act, because I don't want to do anything
to keep ICE and Border Patrol from being funded. And I am pulling them
down.
I think Lindsey could stop me anyway. He says he doesn't know how.
But remember when I said Thune is going straight to Heaven? Lindsey is
going to have to be persuasive. But I know he can stop me. But rather
than make him do that and, if it gets on, jeopardizing this resolution,
I am going to pull them all down but the SAVE Act.
I am coming with the SAVE Act. Do what you want. Follow your heart.
Take your brain with you. If you don't vote for it, that is cool. I am
still going to sleep with the fan on and sleep well. I would appreciate
if you would consider voting for it.
Have a little confidence in our Rules Committee. I haven't met a
dummy yet who is on the Rules Committee.
And I am done. What am I supposed to do now?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am not on the Rules Committee. That
deals with the dummy thing.
I ask unanimous consent that there be up to 10 minutes for debate,
equally divided, prior to any amendment offered by Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield back all debate time on the
Republican side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, time to get this show on the road, so I
yield back all remaining time on the Democratic side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The minority leader.

Amendment No. 4799

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4799 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 4799.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against reconciliation legislation
that does not lower out-of-pocket health care costs while Americans
struggle to make ends meet)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION
THAT DOES NOT LOWER OUT-OF-POCKET HEALTH CARE
COSTS.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided on this
amendment.
The minority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, Republicans say they want to lower
healthcare costs. Well, here is a chance. Here is a chance for you, a
chance for Republicans to join Senate Democrats to start doing
something about it once and for all.
Tonight, with the very first amendment of the evening, I am offering
Republicans an exceedingly simple option: We should not consider any
reconciliation bill that does not lower out-of-pocket healthcare costs
for the American people.
Republicans slashed $1 trillion from our healthcare system as part of
their ``Big Ugly Bill.'' Since then, premiums have soared by thousands
of dollars a month for millions of people, prescription drugs are up by
600 percent, and out-of-pocket costs have gone up for people with
Medicare, Medicaid, ACA.
Instead of pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into ICE and
Border Patrol, Republicans should be working with Democrats to lower
out-of-pocket costs.
Republicans, listen to the American people. They are crying out for
you to lower their healthcare costs, not play these ridiculous,
ridiculous, games--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER.--by adding so much more to ICE and CBP.
So, Republicans, listen to the American people, say no to billions
more for unrestrained, rogue agents, and say yes to lower premiums,
lower healthcare costs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

Point of Order

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the Democratic leader, the Republicans are
working to reduce healthcare costs and lower premiums, but this
amendment is not in order. Creation of such a point of order is outside
the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee and is therefore not
appropriate for inclusion in a budget resolution.
Adopting this amendment would jeopardize the privilege of the budget
resolution and lose our ability to use reconciliation to reopen the
Department of Homeland Security. Therefore, under the provisions of
section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I raise a
point of order that the amendment offered is not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.

Motion to Waive

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections
of that act and applicable budget points of order for the purpose of
the pending measure and ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
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
Sullivan

[[Page S1907]]

Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--50

Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
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
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are
50.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Order of Business

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the remaining
amendment votes related to S. Con. Res. 33 be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico.

Amendment No. 4798

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4798 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Lujan] proposes an
amendment numbered 4798.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
grocery costs)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO GROCERY
COSTS.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, allowing our friends, family, and neighbors
to go hungry in the United States of America is a policy decision, a
choice--a choice--made by Donald Trump.
At a time when food prices are at an alltime high, fuel prices are up
because of President Trump's reckless war in Iran, and tariffs have
increased the cost of living across the board, American families are
being squeezed all across America, and this resolution before us today
does nothing to fix this.
Instead of working to address the affordability crisis and help
Americans across the country struggling to afford their bills, what
have Republicans done? Cut $187 billion from the best tool America has
to address hunger.
Mr. President, 41.2 million Americans rely on SNAP to put food on
their family's table, and 40 percent of recipients are kids. It is
critical that Congress reverse these cuts. I urge my colleagues to join
me in that mission and simply vote yes on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Point of Order

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment No.
4798. I appreciate the concerns of my colleague from New Mexico
regarding grocery costs and recent changes to the SNAP program. Working
Families Tax Cut took a practical approach to reduce SNAP by reducing
waste, enhancing accountability, and encouraging recipients to move
toward self-reliance through work and training.
This amendment is not germane to the budget resolution in violation
of the Congressional Budget Act.
I, therefore, raise a point of order against the amendment under
section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

Motion to Waive

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and waiver provisions of applicable
budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act
and applicable budget points of order for the purpose of the pending
measure.
I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine),
and the

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S1907, April 22, 2026, second column, the following
appears: Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Kane), and the

The online Record has been corrected to read: Mr. DURBIN. I
announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), and the

========================= END NOTE =========================

Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.The yeas
and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--3

Grassley
Kaine
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 47, the nays are 50.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Georgia.

Amendment No. 4897

Mr. OSSOFF. I call up my amendment No. 4897 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Ossoff] proposes an amendment
numbered 4897.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against reconciliation legislation
fails to address the practice of insurance companies stepping between
patients and their doctors to delay or deny access to care)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION
THAT FAILS TO PREVENT THE IMPROPER DENIAL OR
DELAY OF MEDICALLY NECESSARY HEALTH CARE BY
INSURANCE COMPANIES.

Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, think of the retired Georgia teacher who
had paid over $100,000 into a cancer policy, only to be diagnosed with
cancer and have her insurance claims denied.

[[Page S1908]]

Think of the Monroe County mother of three diagnosed with cancer who
needed a liver transplant, was told she had 6 to 12 months to live, and
had to fight her insurance company because her claim was denied; or the
thousands of Georgia children who have had their claims for needed
healthcare denied.
This amendment will ensure that this legislation prevents insurance
companies from denying or delaying medically necessary healthcare for
the American people.
Let's pass this amendment and protect Americans' healthcare.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

Point of Order

MR. CRAPO. Mr. President, this amendment is not in order. Creation of
such a point of order is outside the jurisdiction of the Budget
Committee and, therefore, is not appropriate for inclusion in the
budget resolution.
Adopting this amendment would jeopardize the privilege of the budget
resolution and our ability to use reconciliation to reopen the
Department of Homeland Security.
I raise, therefore, under the provisions of section 305(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act, a point of order that the amendment offered
is not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

Motion to Waive

Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, I hear procedural excuses in defense of
insurance companies. Americans deserve the healthcare they need, and
pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the
waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all
applicable sections of that act and applicable budget points of order
for the purposes of the pending measure.
I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

[Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hawley
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
Sullivan
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--49

Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Hagerty
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
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 49, and the nays are
49.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.

Order of Business

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be the next amendments in order: Graham, No. 5281; Hirono,
No. 4884; and Hickenlooper, No. 4956.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 5281

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5281, and I ask
it be reported by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] proposes an
amendment numbered 5281.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
apprehension and deportation of adult illegal aliens convicted of rape,
murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United
States)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3003. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
APPREHENSION AND DEPORTATION OF ADULT ILLEGAL
ALIENS CONVICTED OF RAPE, MURDER, OR SEXUAL
ABUSE OF A MINOR AFTER ILLEGALLY ENTERING THE
UNITED STATES.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit-
neutral reserve fund relating to ICE conducting apprehension, mandatory
detention, expedited deportation of adult illegal aliens who have been
convicted of rape, murder, sexual abuse of a minor after illegally
entering the United States.
Over 4 million people, illegals, who came in during the Biden years
were released into the United States. Jose Ibarra was one of them who
killed Laken Riley. We have arrested 380,000 illegal aliens with
criminal records over the past 12 months.
President Trump has prioritized detaining and getting out of our
country or putting in jail illegal immigrants who rape, murder, and
abuse minors, and this would give us more resources. Everybody in this
body should be for this. These people need to be caught, put in jail,
or kicked out of our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, that is exactly the point. I support the
Graham amendment. The reason I do is that under current law,
undocumented immigrants who are convicted of rape, murder, or the
sexual abuse of a minor are subject to mandatory detention and
deportation. What we object to is what is happening on the streets of
Minneapolis and Chicago. Fewer than 14 percent of nearly 400,000
immigrants arrested by ICE and the CBP had charges or convictions for
violent criminal offenses.
I support the existing law. I support the Graham amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 5281

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]

YEAS--98

Alsobrooks
Armstrong
Baldwin
Banks
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Boozman
Britt

[[Page S1909]]

Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gallego
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Merkley
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sheehy
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The amendment (No. 5281) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Hawaii.

Amendment No. 4884

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4884 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Hawaii [Ms. Hirono] proposes an amendment
numbered 4884.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against reconciliation legislation
that would not increase Federal funding for or participation in school
meal programs)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT DOES NOT
INCREASE FEDERAL FUNDING FOR OR PARTICIPATION
IN SCHOOL MEAL PROGRAMS.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, Republicans' budget resolution would
provide another $140 billion for immigration enforcement. With that
amount Republicans have proposed, Democrats could fully fund Federal
programs for low-income students, fully fund Federal programs for
students with disabilities, quadruple Federal funding for afterschool
programs, double the Pell grant maximum award, and provide universal
free school meals for all students.
That is why my amendment with Senator Van Hollen would ensure that,
before we give another blank check to ICE and CBP without any
guardrails, we ensure funding for free school meals so every child has
the nutritious food they need to learn and grow.
Republicans could easily do this, but they would rather spend our tax
dollars on lawless immigration enforcement and illegal wars.
Budgets are about priorities. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this amendment and showing that our Nation's children are
worth prioritizing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Point of Order

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment No.
4884. I appreciate my colleague, and I share her support for school
meals programs. This issue is within the jurisdiction of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, of which I am chair. I am eager for the
Agriculture Committee to turn to the child nutrition reauthorization.
It is prudent that we work together to examine and strengthen our
school meals programs so they are targeted to those most in genuine
need.
This amendment is not germane to the budget resolution in violation
of the Congressional Budget Act. Under the provisions of section
305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I raise a point of
order that the amendment offered is not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

Motion to waive

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and a waiver of provisions of
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections
of that act and applicable budget points of order for the purposes of
the pending measure.
I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

[Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.]

YEAS--48

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

Amendment No. 4956

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4956 and
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Hickenlooper] proposes an
amendment numbered 4956.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
ensuring that consumers are protected from price increases associated
with tariffs and the Iran war)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO IMPACTS
ON AFFORDABILITY FROM IRAN WAR AND TARIFFS.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, the President of the United States
calls affordability a hoax, but 92 percent of Americans call it a
crisis.
The President's tariffs, his healthcare cuts, and the unwanted war

[[Page S1910]]

created a cost-of-living emergency. Mortgage rates are up over half a
percent making it almost impossible for people to buy homes. Gas is up
over $4 across most of the country. Electricity prices are climbing
faster than inflation, and healthcare premiums have doubled and even
tripled. Parents are worried they can't afford care if their child gets
sick.
Farmers have all this and more. Fertilizer prices are up more than 40
percent. Diesel is up 50 percent. Together with what many scientists
refer to as a climate-caused drought, farmers are wondering if they
should even plant at all.
Our amendment is simple. It gives Congress a path to lower costs for
Americans by investing in and supporting clean, affordable energy and
other technologies without adding to the deficit.
Across this country, working families are struggling to make ends
meet. Let's do our job and help them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

Point of Order

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the focused budget blueprint before us
today is necessary to quickly fund ICE, Border Patrol Agents, and
support staff.
Since the Finance Committee is not instructed in this budget
resolution, this is not a tax, trade, or healthcare reform bill. The
budget makes that clear.
Adding a deficit-neutral reserve fund and finance jurisdiction is
nongermane, as it expands the scope of the budget resolution.
Therefore, under the provisions of section 305(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I raise a point of order that the
amendment offered is not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Motion to Waive

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of the
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections
of that act and applicable budget points of order for the purposes of
the pending measure. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is agreeing on the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--51

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Moody). On this vote, the yeas are 47,
the nays are 51.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Maryland.

Amendment No. 5294

Ms. ALSOBROOKS. Madam President, I call up my amendment 5294 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Alsobrooks] proposes an
amendment numbered 5294.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
increasing funding for child care for families)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
INCREASING FUNDING FOR CHILD CARE FOR FAMILIES.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
increasing funding for child care for families, which may
include making child care free or affordable for working
families in the United States or ensuring no family pays more
than 7 percent of the family income on child care, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over the period of the total of fiscal years 2026 through
2035.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. ALSOBROOKS. Madam President, so many of my constituents in
Maryland are worried--worried about making ends meet when the cost of
utilities, goods, and services are at a record high because of this
administration's reckless policies. The cost of housing is up. The cost
of groceries is up. The cost of healthcare is up. The cost of gas,
because of the President's war with Iran, is now $4.19 a gallon on a
good day. And the average cost of childcare in the State of Maryland is
around $25,000 a year.
Across the country, working families are demanding high-quality,
affordable childcare opportunities for their children. Childcare has
been hard to find and expensive for families for years, while many
childcare providers struggle to stay afloat. The system is broken, and
American families and their children are stuck paying the price.
Instead of solving the problem, the Trump administration has frozen
billions in childcare funding for States this year. Freezing and
delaying Federal childcare funds hurts childcare providers, forcing
them to close their doors.
As if that were not enough, the President's budget proposal slashes
funding for preschool programs by $315 million. Now, the President has
thrown salt in the wound for working families by telling them it is
about to get much worse. This month, the President said it is not
possible for the Federal Government to fund Medicare, Medicaid--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Louisiana.

Point of Order

Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, the Democrats have held the Department
of Homeland Security hostage for 68 days with the shutdown. This
discussion is about funding ICE, Border Patrol, and paying the men and
women who keep our country safe. The Senator is using childcare as a
distraction.
Republicans have supported reducing childcare costs for families
through multiple provisions of the Working Families Tax Cut, including
the expansion of tax credits for childcare expenses for working
families.
I am--we are--open to conversations about other ways to increase
access to affordable childcare options, but that must include an
acknowledgement from colleagues across the aisle that flaws in the
childcare system steal money from taxpayers, steering money away from
families who need it the most.
Ultimately, this amendment is not germane to the underlying bill to
fund the Department of Homeland Security, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
Under the provisions of section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, I raise a point of order that the amendment offered is not
germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

[[Page S1911]]

Motion to Waive

Ms. ALSOBROOKS. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the point of order,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--51

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
51.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask with respect that there be order
in the Senate and conversations be taken off the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.

Amendment No. 5414

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 5414 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 5414.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide reconciliation instructions for the Committee on
Rules and Administration and establish deficit-neutral reserve funds
relating to establishing identification requirements for registration
to vote in elections for Federal office, establishing photo
identification requirements for voting in elections for Federal office,
and election day and the counting of ballots in Federal elections)

On page 46, strike line 20 and insert the following:
(3) Committee on rules and administration.--The Committee
on Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $10,000,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2026 through 2035.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 3000. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUNDS WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND
ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Deficit-neutral Reserve Fund Relating to Establishing
Identification Requirements for Registration to Vote in
Elections for Federal Office.--The Chairman of the Committee
on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-
as-you-go ledger, for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or
conference reports relating to establishing identification
requirements for registration to vote in elections for
Federal office, which may include requiring photo
identification, by the amounts provided in such legislation
for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal
years 2026 through 2035.
(b) Deficit-neutral Reserve Fund Relating to Establishing
Photo Identification Requirements for Voting in Elections for
Federal Office.--The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget
of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger,
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to establishing photo identification requirements
for voting in elections for Federal office by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over the
period of the total of fiscal years 2026 through 2035.
(c) Deficit-neutral Reserve Fund Relating to Election Day
and the Counting of Ballots in Federal Elections.--The
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
Federal elections, which may include restrictions on allowing
voting other than on election day and requirements that all
votes be counted within 36 hours of election day, on by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over the period of the total of fiscal years 2026 through
2035.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes, equally divided, on this
amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this amendment would instruct our Rules
Committee to come up with an elections bill. It is my version of the
SAVE America Act, but you can call it what you want.
It would ask the Rules Committee to do two things: require that in
Federal elections you have to be an American citizen to vote and
provide for the provisions to enforce that.
No. 2, it would require that in Federal elections you have to prove
you are who you say you are in order to vote, and it would provide
provisions to enforce that.
No. 3, under this, it further instructs the Rules Committee that we
are going to go back to having an election day and not an election
month, and it instructs the Rules Committee to provide the provisions
to enforce that.
Now, I did not just pull this bill yesterday out of my rectum, though
I will concede sometimes I do my best thinking there.
I have been talking about this bill for a month, so it should come as
no surprise. Now, some say it can't be done under the Budget Act and
under the Byrd rule and reconciliation, and you know what? They may be
right.
But you know what else? They can't predict the future. They are not
clairvoyant. They have to wait on the future like the rest of us.
I hope you won't vote against this bill just because President Trump
has talked about it, this amendment, rather. If you think this is just
a Republican issue, then you are not revolving in the same direction as
planet Earth.
There are plenty of Democrats and plenty of Independents that are
worried about the integrity of our elections, and this would allow the
Rules Committee to try to resolve some of their concerns.
I trust the Rules Committee; there is not a dummy on there. There are
plenty of Republicans and plenty of Democrats. There are a lot of smart
lawyers in the U.S. Senate, but they are not the only smart lawyers in
America. And, in fact, believe it or not, there are some lawyers not in
the Senate who are smarter than we are, and I trust the Rules Committee
to go find them and try to craft a bill to fit within reconciliation,
working with our esteemed Parliamentarian.
Last two points: If this amendment passes, and I hope it will, the
Rules Committee is going to have to saddle up and ride. I am asking
them to do it within weeks, days, if possible. That is probably too
ambitious. If they have to work weekends, I will stay here with them.
Fine, do what you think is right. Don't vote against this just because
President Trump has talked about it. Follow your heart. Take your brain
with you.
I respect everybody in this body. Everybody. If you vote against this
bill, I

[[Page S1912]]

am not going to say a word, and I am sure as hell not going to go on
social media and call you an ignorant slut. That is not the way I roll,
unless I am pushed too far.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Point of Order

Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, of all the serious issues facing this
country, including but not limited to the affordability challenges that
so many working families are struggling with, I can't believe we are
back here debating a partisan attempt to rush through what I referred
to as a solution in search of a problem.
As we all know, and particularly the voters of Virginia will remind
us, voting is already underway this election year. And instead of
working to keep our elections safe and secure by making it more
accessible for eligible Americans to cast their ballot in our
elections, we have back before us a measure that would make it harder
for eligible citizens to register to vote, to stay registered to vote,
to cast their ballot, and make it tougher for election administrators
and volunteers to administer our democracy, as is so fundamental to our
country.
We have already gone down this road for several weeks and weeks and
weeks now. We have debated the so-called SAVE America Act, but I think,
despite how you talked about the SAVE America Act, which has certainly
not passed the Senate, even my Republican colleagues who have seen the
measure suggested by our colleague from Louisiana, it is an even more
extreme version.
Let me begin by saying, we already know that you have to be a citizen
to vote in our elections. That is nothing new. That is already existing
law. And despite the President's claims, there is zero evidence of
massive voter fraud across the country, which is the premise of these
proposals. So not only is it a solution in search of a problem, to
paraphrase a wise man, this measure is all foam and no beer.
This amendment seeks to eliminate or, at a minimum, restrict early
voting opportunities which 47 States in the country offer for eligible
citizens, 47 States. Why we would want to take away opportunities for
citizens to participate in our democracy, I don't know.
This proposal also suggests that all ballots be counted within 36
hours of the election. That may sound good, and it may be very doable
in States with smaller populations and smaller numbers of registered
voters, but in the larger States, yes, it takes more time to count more
ballots. And I know we can all agree that we want to do it securely to
maintain election integrity, things to ensure that if a ballot comes in
on election day, that that voter hasn't already voted by mail. It takes
a minute to cross-reference those records.
Or a ballot that is received on time by mail that you conduct a
signature verification to help confirm that the person submitting that
ballot is indeed the voter. You need more than 36 hours when you have
more than 20 million voters like we have in my home State of
California.
So what is this proposed amendment really about? It is about holding
on to power because the President knows that his agenda has failed, and
it is not just extremely unpopular but has done damage to families
across the country.
Just look at his most recent executive order seeking to ban vote-by-
mail--changes to the rules when the primary season is already underway.
But the language has these changes go into immediate effect, just
adding to the rising costs, just adding to the rising chaos, just
adding to the rising corruption.
And it is unfortunate that the election administration has been
turned into a partisan issue.
I actually ask our colleagues to protect the early voters, not just
in my State but in yours. Protect vote-by-mail opportunities, not just
in my State but in yours. Let's protect women who are married and
change their name and their right to vote, not just in my State but in
yours.
Colleagues, I urge a ``no'' vote on amendment No. 5414.

Point of Order

And, furthermore, Madam President, I raise a point of order that the
pending amendment is not germane and, therefore, violates section
305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1984.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Motion to Waive

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we will never know until we try.
Pursuant to section 904, with respect to my colleague, I move to
waive, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

[Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
McConnell
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

Order of Business

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be the next amendments in order: Hawley No. 4794;
Markey No. 5001; Paul No. 5378; Merkley No. 5235; and Kaine No. 5282.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Missouri.

Amendment No. 4794

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 4794, and I
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Hawley] proposes an
amendment numbered 4794.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
extending the prohibition on Medicaid payments to abortion providers)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO EXTENDING
THE PROHIBITION ON MEDICAID PAYMENTS TO
ABORTION PROVIDERS.

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, this amendment poses a simple and direct

[[Page S1913]]

question: Should we use Federal tax dollars to pay for transgender
surgeries and treatments for minor children?
More specifically, should we divert money from Medicaid--a program
that is dedicated to the most needy among us--and use it instead to pay
for risky, dangerous, irreversible transgender drugs and surgeries for
minor children?--because that is what has been happening.
For years, outfits like Planned Parenthood have gotten billions of
dollars from Medicaid and Medicare--billions of dollars taken from the
elderly, from the poor, from the needy--paid out to them which they can
then use for transgender surgeries, treatments, and drugs for minor
children. They proudly advertise it on their websites. One recent study
found that, in 3 years alone, Planned Parenthood got $1.5 billion from
Medicaid and Medicare--money to be used on these risky surgeries and
procedures for our children.
This is wrong. This is a terrible misuse of Federal funds. We should
put a stop to it today. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, it has been a year since Republicans
gutted Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics. For many women,
Planned Parenthood is their only source of primary care and prevention,
like cancer screenings and STI testing. There are 23 Planned Parenthood
clinics that have closed, and 75 percent of the clinics that have
shuttered their doors have been in rural or underserved areas. The
number of breast exam visits fell by 25 percent. Fewer women are
getting essential preventive care, heightening their risk of cancer.
All of this lifesaving care is on the chopping block if this
amendment passes. This amendment is just the Republicans' latest
attempt to strip women of the healthcare they need and depend on so
that they can go score some political points.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment--to strongly oppose it.

Point of Order

Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment
is not germane; therefore, it violates section 305(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, under no circumstance should Medicaid
money that is dedicated to the poor and the needy be used for
transgender surgeries and treatments for minor children. It is a moral
outrage. This body has a duty to stand against it.

Vote on Motion

Madam President, pursuant to section 904, I move to waive, and 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 senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--48

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). On this vote, the yeas are 50,
the nays are 48.
Three-fifths of the Senators, duly chosen and sworn, not having voted
in the affirmative, the point of order is sustained, and the amendment
falls.
The Republican leader.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we have four more amendments in this
tranche that we are doing right now, but if we could start to compress
this time for votes even more. We are still running close to 20
minutes, and it is a 10-minute vote, so let's try to do it in 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 5001

Mr. Markey. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 5001 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] proposes an
amendment numbered 5001.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would not
decrease home electricity bills)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD NOT
DECREASE HOME ELECTRICITY BILLS.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the
Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion,
amendment, amendment between the Houses, or conference report
that would not decrease home electricity bills.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, since Donald Trump took office,
electricity prices have risen by as much as 13 percent--three times
faster than inflation. Families are already falling into debt, and it
is only getting worse.
Utilities requested a record $31 billion in rate increases in 2025.
That is twice as high as the year before. Republican cuts to American
energy programs stoked this fire of a crisis. The Republican ``Big Ugly
Bill'' is expected--this is unbelievable--to kill 790,000 megawatts of
new, clean electricity over the next decade. It has already canceled or
stalled 28,000 megawatts from 365 energy projects. As we produce less
and less new electricity, the remaining electricity becomes more and
more expensive for families all across this country.
Instead of providing a blank check for ICE, we should be providing--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MARKEY.--relief on electricity bills for American families, and
that is what my amendment does. It says that if Congress is going to
pass--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MARKEY.--this budget, then the budget must result in lower
electricity bills for all American families.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. OK. Who is next?
Mr. MARKEY. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Point of Order

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we need dispatchable power. Something happens
when the government subsidizes and otherwise encourages nondispatchable
power and punishes and discourages dispatchable power: The price of
dispatchable power and power generally goes up.
That is exactly what happened following the passage of the Democrat
bill with the Orwellian name of the ``Inflation Reduction Act.'' The
same year that was passed, in 2022--that bill, which encouraged and
fostered nondispatchable power and discouraged dispatchable power--the
cost of electric power went up. It went way up. It went up more than
any year since the Energy Information Administration began tracking
this data in 1984. That is what happens, and that is what they

[[Page S1914]]

want to do more of. We need less of that. We are trying to turn it
down. They are trying to accelerate into the turn in a way that would
make energy more expensive.
So under the provisions of section 305(b) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, I raise a point of order that the amendment offered is not
germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Motion to Waive

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the point of order,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]

YEAS--48

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are
50.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 5378

(Purpose: To reduce new budget authority for functions 150,
250, 500, and 600 in order to offset $70,000,000,000 of new
spending by cutting $45,000,000,000 of foreign aid,
eliminating $5,000,000,000 in refugee spending, cutting
$16,000,000,000 from the Department of Education, and cutting
$4,000,000,000 of National Science Foundation funding.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5378 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 5378.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, Congress ought to fund border security, but
we should be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars and fully pay for
the $70 billion to secure our borders.
My amendment would eliminate over $5 billion in refugee welfare, cut
over $45 billion in foreign aid, and slash the National Science
Foundation by nearly $4 billion, as well as reducing the Department of
Education by 16 percent. This is consistent with the Trump
administration's goal of returning educational authority to the States.
These reductions would be made in just one fiscal year and would fully
pay for border security.
With $2 trillion deficits and a $39 trillion debt, we must stop
handouts to refugees, countries that hate the United States, and
Federal Agencies that study such things as frog mating calls in Panama.
Let's pay for the border security. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, my colleague from Kentucky is right that
this bill is unfunded, that it adds to the deficit and adds to the
debt. And maybe the best way to address that is not to send $70 billion
to two Agencies that are sitting on top of $103 billion right now of
unobligated funds. They couldn't even get started spending that massive
amount from H.R. 1 last year.
But blindly slashing away at scientific research when China is
producing four times the patents that we are producing each year,
blindly slashing away at Pell grants, which, under this proposal, would
be equal to 2 million individual students losing their Pell grants--
that is the type of detailed work that needs to be done in the
authorizing committees and in the Appropriations Committee. This slash-
and-hack strategy is way off base.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, there is nothing in the bill that cuts Pell
grants.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the bill cuts $16 billion from education.
It doesn't say specifically where, but that is a good example of the
type of thing that could happen.

Vote on Amendment No. 5378

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of amendment No.
5378.
Mr. PAUL. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 25, nays 73, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]

YEAS--25

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Britt
Budd
Cramer
Cruz
Curtis
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lee
Lummis
McCormick
Moody
Moreno
Paul
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Sheehy
Sullivan

NAYS--73

Alsobrooks
Armstrong
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Boozman
Cantwell
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gallego
Gillibrand
Graham
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S1914, April 22, 2026, third column, the following
appears: [Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.] YEAS--25 Hagerty Hawley
Hoeven NAYS--73 Graham Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Husted

The online Record has been corrected to read: [Rollcall Vote No.
99 Leg.] YEAS--25 Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted NAYS--73 Graham
Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono

========================= END NOTE =========================

Justice
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The amendment (No. 5378) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Change of Vote

Mr. HUSTED. Mr. President, on rollcall 99, I voted nay. My intention
was to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to change my vote
since it will not affect the outcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we have a finite list of five amendments.
So if everybody could stay in their seats, and we will try and knock
them off quickly and do legit 10-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 5235

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5235 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

[[Page S1915]]

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an amendment
numbered 5235.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
impacts of hedge fund ownership of single-family homes and rent prices)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
IMPACTS OF HEDGE FUND OWNERSHIP OF SINGLE-
FAMILY HOMES AND RENT PRICES.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in the State of the Union, President
Trump has told the story of Rachel Wiggins who had lost out to private
equity 20 times in trying to buy a house.
After all, it is very hard to compete against an all-cash offer, fast
closing, no inspection. The President said: I am asking Congress to act
because we want homes for people, not corporations.
And the Senate did act, and they included in a bill--the ROAD to
Housing Act--an element--and my compliments to my colleague from Ohio
and my colleague from Massachusetts who worked together to get the
element into that bill.
But right now down the hall, private equity is lobbying like hell to
make sure that element never passes. We have an opportunity tonight to
send a message that we agree with the President, that we have a
challenge in home ownership because home ownership is dying, and one of
the factors is private equity buying up the homes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, let's pass this amendment and restore
home ownership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, first of all, I am very thankful that the
Senator from Oregon is now completely on the side of President Trump in
making certain that we restore home ownership for Americans. I didn't
think I would see this moment, but I am excited that it happened either
way.
I obviously urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because we
have already passed it. We have already solved this problem. In fact,
congratulations to all of us--89 to 10, we banned institutional
ownership of single-family homes. I think that is fantastic.
By the way, in January, we saw a 7-percent decline in the prices of
homes in just San Diego because another factor that we are dealing with
tonight is that, unfortunately, the Democrats allowed tens of millions
of people to come into this country illegally. That drove up housing
prices.
So what this bill is about is actually enforcing our immigration
laws, making certain that we have border protection, and making certain
that we remove the people from this country that were not supposed to
be here in the first place. That will also continue to drive down
housing prices.
But again, I agree with the Senator from Oregon. This is about
lowering the price of housing. We have already done it. I urge all my
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Amendment No. 5235

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the
amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]

YEAS--46

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
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--52

Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
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

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The amendment (No. 5235) was rejected.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 5159

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 5159 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an
amendment numbered 5159.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To reduce the price of prescription drugs in the United
States by more than 50 percent by adopting Most Favored Nation drug
pricing so that the American people pay no more for prescription drugs
than Europeans or Canadians)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO REDUCING
THE PRICE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, WHICH SHALL
INCLUDE MOST FAVORED NATION DRUG PRICING.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask for order. Could we have order?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Order in the Chamber, please.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the American people pay by far the
highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. As a result, one
out of four Americans cannot afford the prescriptions that their
doctors write, and thousands die every year as a result, and many
become sicker than they should.
During his State of the Union Address, President Trump asked us to
codify a most-favored-nation drug policy to ensure that the American
people pay no more for prescription drugs than people in other
countries.
Well, the amendment that I am offering now calls on Congress to do
exactly that. This amendment is very simple. It would prevent
pharmaceutical companies from charging more for prescription drugs in
the United States than they do in Canada, the UK, Germany, France, and
Japan.
Researchers at Yale University estimate that this bill would cut the
cost of prescription drugs in America by half--a 50-percent reduction--
so we are not paying the highest prices in the world.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.

[[Page S1916]]

Mr. SANDERS. Let's stand with the American people, not with the
pharmaceutical industry.
Please vote yes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.

Point of Order

MR. CRAPO. Mr. President, the focused budget blueprint before us
today is necessary to quickly fund ICE, Border Patrol agents, and
support staff.
Since the Finance Committee is not instructed in this budget
resolution, this is not a tax, trade, or healthcare reform bill. The
budget makes that clear.
Adding a deficit-neutral reserve fund in the Finance jurisdiction is
nongermane, as it expands the scope of the budget resolution.
Therefore, under the provisions of section 305(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I raise a point of order that the
amendment offered is not germane.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.

Motion to Waive

Mr. SANDERS. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, I move to waive the point of order, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.

Vote on Motion

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--49

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote the yeas are 49, the
nays are 49.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.

Amendment No. 4855

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4855 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mr. Padilla] proposes an
amendment numbered 4855.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against reconciliation legislation
that would provide funding to Federal agencies that have unobligated
funds from previous reconciliation bills)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION
THAT WOULD PROVIDE FUNDING TO FEDERAL AGENCIES
THAT HAVE UNOBLIGATED FUNDS FROM PREVIOUS
RECONCILIATION BILLS.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider a bill or joint resolution reported pursuant to
section 2002, or an amendment to, conference report on, or
amendment between the Houses in relation to such a bill or
joint resolution, that would provide funding to a Federal
agency that has unobligated funds made available to the
Federal agency under 1 or more previous reconciliation bills.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, my amendment would create a point of
order against reconciliation bills that would provide funding for
Federal Agencies that still have unobligated funds left over from
previous reconciliation bills.
Now, as I have described this amendment, many people are thinking:
Well, that is pretty common sense. Why is this even necessary?
Well, let me remind us that ICE and CBP still have a combined total
of $103 billion in unspent funds from last year's ``Big Anything But
Beautiful Bill.'' You heard me right: $103 billion. Let that sink in.
Let that sink in.
ICE is still sitting on $63.2 billion of its funding. That is 84
percent of the funding from that bill. The CBP is sitting on $40
billion. That is 62 percent of the funding from last year's bill. So
what are we even doing here? There is $103 billion that is unspent, and
you are trying to give them another $140 billion.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. PADILLA. This doesn't make sense.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. PADILLA. So, colleagues, I urge you to vote yes on amendment No.
4855.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the Republicans are committed to a safe
and secure America. That is what this debate is about tonight.
All night long, Democrats have ignored this very important issue.
Democrats would rather protect illegal immigrant criminals than protect
law-abiding American citizens. They want to defund ICE. They want to
defund the Border Patrol. They want to go back to the days of 10
million illegal immigrants flooding into our country--the criminals,
drug dealers, gang members--all of it. The Republicans are getting law
enforcement the resources they need to keep our communities safe.

Point of Order

Mr. President, under the provisions of section 305(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I raise a point of order that the
amendment offered is not germane.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.

Motion to Waive

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the point of order,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

YEAS--46

[[Page S1917]]

NAYS--52

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the
nays are 52.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 5336

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5336 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment
by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment
numbered 5336.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
requiring the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a
study related to economic consequences of private or confidential drug
pricing agreements struck by any Federal department, agency, or office
with any pharmaceutical manufacturer)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
DUTIES OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the amendment would require that the
Government Accountability Office analyze Donald Trump's agreement with
the pharmaceutical companies. He claims that he signed deals with 16
pharmaceutical companies to get Americans the lowest prescription drug
prices in the world, but the details of these so-called deals are
completely shrouded in secrecy.
Donald Trump wants Congress to put these deals into black letter law,
sight unseen. So my amendment would require the Government
Accountability Office to analyze the deals and provide a clear analysis
of the savings, if any, to taxpayers and to patients.
And for any of my Senate colleagues who are concerned about
disclosing trade secrets, this amendment protects all confidential
information.
If these Trump deals are so great, there should be nothing to hide.
This amendment would give Congress and the public the specifics for the
first time on these Trump pharmaceutical deals. I strongly urge my
colleagues to vote yes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, we just voted briefly, a few moments ago,
against the Sanders MFN amendment. This is a similar amendment. It is
outside the purpose of the budget resolution.
I encourage Senators to vote no and support the focused budget
blueprint before us and quickly fund ICE and Border Patrol agents and
support staff.

Vote on Amendment No. 5336

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now occurs on the
adoption of the amendment.
Mr. SCHATZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]

YEAS--48

NAYS--50

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The amendment (No. 5336) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from California.

Amendment No. 5333

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5333 and request
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mr. Schiff] proposes an
amendment numbered 5333.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
requiring the obligation of amounts appropriated to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to carry out the public assistance and
hazard mitigation programs)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO RELEASING
THE FEMA PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND HAZARD
MITIGATION FUNDS PENDING OBLIGATION.

Mr. SCHIFF. Right now, my colleagues, FEMA is holding up more than $3
billion in disaster relief funding for California--funds that could be
used to help families impacted by fires, floods, and other disasters
that have hit the Golden State in recent years.
More than a half a billion of that funding, in particular, is to help
communities in Los Angeles County affected by the devastating wildfires
that began at the very start of this Congress. People are suffering,
wanting to move back into their homes and neighborhoods, still waiting
on Congress to act.
But as we debate this budget resolution, I know our State of
California is not alone. North Carolina is waiting on millions in
relief designated for Hurricane Helene in 2024. Kentucky saw

[[Page S1918]]

landslides and flooding just weeks after Los Angeles County burned.
Florida and the gulf coast have also been battered. Texas communities
under siege from last year's floods have still not seen the Federal
relief their communities need and deserve.
My amendment would require outstanding FEMA funds that American
communities are counting on to be obligated--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
Mr. SCHIFF.--so that we are, at the very least, helping these
families get the support they need.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, my colleagues that are here, we voted as
a body to be able to get those funds to California. We agree this is an
issue that needs to be funded, that needs to be taken care of--whether
it is North Carolina or whether it is California or whether it is
flooding or tornadoes that have happened across the Midwest. We
completely agree.
Our challenge has been that we have been in a government shutdown in
DHS, now for 2 months--2 months. We have got to be able to get those
funds released. That means we have got to get DHS funding completely
done for all of DHS.
We have FEMA employees that are being paid, but they don't have
program dollars that they can actually release. So we need the full
funding to actually be complete on this.
This particular bill, what we are debating tonight, is just ICE and
CBP. It is just that narrow area. This body has already passed the rest
of DHS funding. We have got to be able to finish the ICE and CBP
portion.
So I would encourage my colleagues to be able to vote no because this
bill is not about FEMA, though we, as a body, have already voted to
say, ``Yes, this needs to be funded,'' and have already agreed with
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LANKFORD. So let's keep it narrow to ICE and CBP. So I would vote
no.

Vote on Amendment No. 5333

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of
amendment No. 5333.
Ms. HASSAN. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Moody
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--49

Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moran
Moreno
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The amendment (No. 5333) was rejected.

S. CON. RES. 33

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President. I would like to thank the Democratic
staff of the Senate Budget Committee for all their hard work on this
resolution, both through extensive preparation and diligent staff work
during floor consideration. Staff includes: Ben Ward, Mike Jones, Jill
Harrelson, Josh Smith, Tyler Evilsizer, Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, Misha
Rafiq, Brian Lyons, Anna Barnes, Connor Jennings, Ethan Rosenkranz,
Andrew Cobian, Anirudh Srirangam, Fiona Forrester, Lauran Pauley,
Hilary Gelfond-Gross, Madilyn Shirley, John Bratton, and Mina
Shahinfar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I know of no further amendments on the
concurrent resolution.

Vote on S. Con. Res. 33

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the concurrent
resolution, S. Con. Res. 33, as amended.
Mr. THUNE. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--48

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
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Grassley
Warner

The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 33), as amended, was agreed
to, as follows:

S. Con. Res. 33

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring),

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2026.

(a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2026
and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
concurrent resolution is as follows:

Section. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2026.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Subtitle A--Budgetary Levels in Both Houses

Sec. 1101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 1102. Major functional categories.

Subtitle B--Levels and Amounts in the Senate

Sec. 1201. Social Security in the Senate.
Sec. 1202. Postal Service discretionary administrative expenses in the
Senate.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 2001. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 2002. Reconciliation in the Senate.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 3001. Reserve fund for reconciliation legislation.
Sec. 3002. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforms undertaken by the
President following Operation Metro Surge.
Sec. 3003. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension
and deportation of adult illegal aliens convicted of
rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally
entering the United States.

[[Page S1919]]

TITLE IV--OTHER MATTERS

Sec. 4101. Enforcement filing.
Sec. 4102. Budgetary treatment of administrative expenses.
Sec. 4103. Application and effect of changes in allocations,
aggregates, and other budgetary levels.
Sec. 4104. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 4105. Adjustment for changes in the baseline.
Sec. 4106. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
Sec. 4107. Extension of enforcement of budgetary points of order in the
Senate.
Sec. 4108. Emergency requirements in the House of Representatives.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Subtitle A--Budgetary Levels in Both Houses

SEC. 1101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2026 through 2035:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2026: $4,242,825,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $4,476,744,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $4,606,277,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $4,799,819,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $5,013,902,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $5,227,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $5,427,567,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $5,627,231,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $5,841,187,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035: $6,078,202,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2026: $0.
Fiscal year 2027: $0.
Fiscal year 2028: $0.
Fiscal year 2029: $0.
Fiscal year 2030: $0.
Fiscal year 2031: $0.
Fiscal year 2032: $0.
Fiscal year 2033: $0.
Fiscal year 2034: $0.
Fiscal year 2035: $0.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2026: $5,401,583,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $5,507,288,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $5,511,423,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $5,379,533,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $5,708,120,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $5,945,773,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $6,171,467,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $6,524,285,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $6,647,584,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035: $6,770,543,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2026: $5,507,841,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $5,591,820,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $5,676,362,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $5,446,241,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $5,780,039,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $5,988,070,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $6,178,039,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $6,549,172,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $6,618,169,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035: $6,679,898,000,000.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 2026: $1,265,016,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $1,115,076,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $1,070,085,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $646,422,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $766,137,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $760,352,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $750,472,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $921,941,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $776,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035: $601,696,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(a)(5)), the
appropriate levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2026: $39,164,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $40,456,036,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $41,731,126,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $42,563,432,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $43,484,184,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $44,389,587,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $45,422,961,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $46,962,682,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $48,437,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035: $49,860,557,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2026: $31,677,998,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $33,032,486,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $34,377,969,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $35,325,105,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $36,422,758,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $37,550,279,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $38,715,101,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $40,076,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $41,321,152,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035: $42,425,652,000,000.

SEC. 1102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2026 through 2035 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $934,139,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $967,086,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $1,187,967,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,122,479,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $1,191,483,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,178,068,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $1,194,198,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,179,606,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $1,193,592,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,185,831,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $1,193,930,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,184,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $1,196,068,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,179,816,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $1,198,601,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,189,352,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $1,199,559,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,182,020,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $1,200,433,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,172,233,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $46,750,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,911,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $50,472,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,877,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $52,923,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,393,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $55,918,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,003,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $57,099,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,511,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $58,342,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,179,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $59,628,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,701,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $60,908,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,521,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $62,232,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,352,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $63,547,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,270,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $40,763,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,222,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $41,654,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,346,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $42,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,130,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $43,554,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,584,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $44,474,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,213,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $45,437,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,234,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $46,413,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,017,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $47,384,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,963,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $48,391,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,938,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $49,413,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,938,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $21,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,530,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $10,695,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,388,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $7,681,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,253,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $7,284,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,576,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $6,119,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,948,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $5,677,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,079,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $7,195,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,906,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $7,203,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $7,263,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,527,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $7,621,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,546,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $66,459,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,714,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $44,840,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,452,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $45,522,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,651,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:

[[Page S1920]]

(A) New budget authority, $45,858,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,318,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $45,638,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,554,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $46,321,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,333,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $46,978,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,547,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $48,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,281,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $49,686,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,491,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $50,009,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,553,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $38,206,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,583,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $41,842,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,184,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $41,595,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,870,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $41,493,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,822,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $39,249,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,748,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $39,261,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,057,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $39,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,470,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $40,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,511,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $40,864,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,243,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $41,262,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,035,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $18,198,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$12,289,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $25,793,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,153,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, -$56,941,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$81,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $27,877,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,795,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $26,793,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,866,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $26,695,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,805,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $26,716,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,270,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $20,680,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,286,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $29,516,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $29,923,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$516,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $161,239,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $150,430,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $129,719,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $164,258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $132,266,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $171,502,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $133,335,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $169,349,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $131,790,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $161,642,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $133,105,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $157,322,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $137,586,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $156,456,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $139,101,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $154,688,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $140,639,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $153,279,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $142,119,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $152,990,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $43,421,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,084,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $19,954,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,891,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $20,211,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,222,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $20,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,823,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $21,073,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,689,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $21,487,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,165,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $21,879,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,188,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $22,239,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,521,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $22,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,064,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $23,129,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,206,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $145,239,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $149,211,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $135,812,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $139,155,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $137,760,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $135,636,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $140,396,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $137,561,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $143,110,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $139,892,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $145,952,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $142,542,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $149,139,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $145,536,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $152,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $148,606,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $155,260,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $151,478,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $158,185,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $154,351,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $990,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $991,249,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $1,021,896,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $994,047,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $1,018,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,011,439,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $1,044,155,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,026,701,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $1,068,648,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,056,499,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $1,091,193,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,087,840,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $1,134,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,125,944,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $1,181,006,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,169,396,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $1,226,722,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,213,258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $1,276,294,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,261,576,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $1,074,395,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,073,511,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $1,152,403,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,151,373,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $1,295,249,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,294,732,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $1,213,815,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,213,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $1,366,056,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,365,415,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $1,447,337,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,446,672,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $1,537,154,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,536,425,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $1,753,601,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,752,829,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $1,770,796,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,770,034,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $1,744,777,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,743,981,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $714,131,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $713,457,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $722,109,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $715,873,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $735,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $735,003,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $735,892,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $720,691,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $755,373,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $745,807,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $770,541,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $759,531,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $789,028,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $777,179,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $811,004,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $806,212,000,000.

[[Page S1921]]

Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $822,005,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $810,217,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $830,340,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $808,740,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $66,568,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,568,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $71,135,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $71,135,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $74,970,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,970,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $82,084,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,084,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $87,394,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,394,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $91,336,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,336,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $95,906,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,906,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $101,080,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $101,080,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $106,598,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $106,598,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $112,559,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $112,559,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $437,048,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $435,498,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $450,026,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $449,840,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $472,729,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $494,955,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $495,351,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $468,176,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $516,490,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $513,230,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $533,555,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $529,785,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $554,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $550,972,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $576,778,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $601,751,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $600,111,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $598,973,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $624,549,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $589,870,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $82,318,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,284,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $91,162,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $111,572,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $90,859,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $118,596,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $92,925,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $119,639,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $95,419,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $120,966,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $97,236,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $114,270,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $103,366,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $114,318,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $106,977,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $107,943,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $109,158,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $108,427,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $111,890,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $109,164,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $18,914,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,143,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $31,421,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,085,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $32,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,744,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $33,587,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,127,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $34,907,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,406,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $35,745,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,348,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $36,910,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,901,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $37,705,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,559,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $38,516,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,045,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $39,381,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,850,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $1,099,727,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,099,727,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $1,140,430,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,140,430,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $1,225,023,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,225,023,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $1,292,226,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,292,226,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $1,351,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,351,427,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $1,418,821,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,418,821,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $1,483,482,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,483,482,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $1,551,318,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,551,318,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $1,620,644,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,620,644,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $1,681,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,681,151,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, -$463,232,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$413,640,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, -$723,712,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$663,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, -$905,716,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$860,593,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,168,391,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,127,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,111,985,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,073,453,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,080,561,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,044,473,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,110,467,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,072,687,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,147,854,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,108,678,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,223,072,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,182,078,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,236,638,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,194,198,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, -$135,160,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$135,438,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, -$138,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$138,108,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, -$143,553,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$143,497,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, -$152,671,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$152,671,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, -$164,546,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$164,546,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, -$175,637,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$175,637,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, -$184,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$184,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, -$184,776,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$184,776,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, -$179,951,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$179,951,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, -$179,401,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$179,401,000,000.

Subtitle B--Levels and Amounts in the Senate

SEC. 1201. SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE SENATE.

(a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633 and 642), the amounts of
revenues of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2026: $1,350,445,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $1,403,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $1,457,620,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $1,515,748,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $1,576,167,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $1,637,881,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $1,699,568,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $1,762,211,000,000.

[[Page S1922]]

Fiscal year 2034: $1,826,009,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035: $1,892,147,000,000.
(b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633 and 642), the amounts of
outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2026: $1,509,338,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $1,613,963,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $1,717,385,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $1,819,101,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $1,924,297,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $2,034,773,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $2,151,750,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $2,253,309,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $2,354,460,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035: $2,456,557,000,000.
(c) Social Security Administrative Expenses.--In the
Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and budget
outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for
administrative expenses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $6,377,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,303,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $6,249,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,225,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $6,443,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,372,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $6,630,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,511,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $6,817,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,683,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $7,014,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,877,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $7,213,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,071,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $7,416,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,271,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $7,626,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,477,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $7,841,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,689,000,000.

SEC. 1202. POSTAL SERVICE DISCRETIONARY ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES IN THE SENATE.

In the Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and
budget outlays of the Postal Service for discretionary
administrative expenses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $274,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $274,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $285,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $285,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $295,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $295,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $305,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $305,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $315,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $315,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $326,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $326,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $337,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $337,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $348,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $348,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $359,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $359,000,000.
Fiscal year 2035:
(A) New budget authority, $371,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $371,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 2001. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submissions.--In the House of Representatives, not
later than May 15, 2026, the committees named in subsection
(b) shall submit their recommendations on changes in laws
within their jurisdictions to the Committee on the Budget of
the House of Representatives to carry out this section.
(b) Instructions.--
(1) Committee on homeland security.--The Committee on
Homeland Security shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$70,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2026 through
2035.
(2) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$70,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2026 through
2035.

SEC. 2002. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.

(a) Submissions.--In the Senate, not later than May 15,
2026, the committees named in subsection (b) shall submit
their recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate. Upon receiving all such recommendations, the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall report to the
Senate a reconciliation bill carrying out all such
recommendations without any substantive revision.
(b) Instructions.--
(1) Committee on homeland security and governmental
affairs.--The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$70,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2026 through
2035.
(2) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$70,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2026 through
2035.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 3001. RESERVE FUND FOR RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION.

(a) House of Representatives.--
(1) In general.--In the House of Representatives, the chair
of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations of
a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill or joint resolution
considered pursuant to section 2001 containing the
recommendations of one or more committees, or for one or more
amendments to, a conference report on, or an amendment
between the Houses in relation to such a bill or joint
resolution, by the amounts necessary to accommodate the
budgetary effects of the legislation, if the budgetary
effects of the legislation comply with the reconciliation
instructions under this concurrent resolution.
(2) Determination of compliance.--For purposes of this
subsection, compliance with the reconciliation instructions
under this concurrent resolution shall be determined by the
chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House of
Representatives.
(b) Senate.--
(1) In general.--In the Senate, the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and
other appropriate levels in this resolution, and make
adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for any bill or
joint resolution considered pursuant to section 2002
containing the recommendations of one or more committees, or
for one or more amendments to, a conference report on, or an
amendment between the Houses in relation to such a bill or
joint resolution, by the amounts necessary to accommodate the
budgetary effects of the legislation, if the budgetary
effects of the legislation comply with the reconciliation
instructions under this concurrent resolution.
(2) Determination of compliance.--For purposes of this
subsection, compliance with the reconciliation instructions
under this concurrent resolution shall be determined by the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.
(3) Exceptions for legislation.--
(A) Short-term.--Section 404 of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2010, as amended by section 3201(b)(2) of S. Con. Res.
11 (114th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2016, shall not apply to legislation for
which the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate has exercised the authority under paragraph (1).
(B) Long-term.--Section 3101 of S. Con. Res. 11 (114th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2016, shall not apply to legislation for which the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate has
exercised the authority under paragraph (1).

SEC. 3002. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REFORMS
UNDERTAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT FOLLOWING OPERATION
METRO SURGE.

[[Page S1923]]

period of the total of fiscal years 2026 through 2035.

TITLE IV--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. 4101. ENFORCEMENT FILING.

(a) In the House of Representatives.--In the House of
Representatives, if a concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2026 is adopted without the appointment of a
committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses with respect to this concurrent resolution on the
budget, for the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) and applicable rules and
requirements set forth in the concurrent resolution on the
budget, the allocations provided for in this subsection shall
apply in the House of Representatives in the same manner as
if such allocations were in a joint explanatory statement
accompanying a conference report on the budget for fiscal
year 2026. The chair of the Committee on the Budget of the
House of Representatives shall submit a statement for
publication in the Congressional Record containing--
(1) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee
allocations for fiscal year 2026 consistent with title I for
the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633); and
(2) for all committees other than the Committee on
Appropriations, committee allocations consistent with title I
for fiscal year 2026 and for the period of fiscal years 2026
through 2035 for the purpose of enforcing 302 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633).
(b) In the Senate.--If this concurrent resolution on the
budget is agreed to by the Senate and House of
Representatives without the appointment of a committee of
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may
submit a statement for publication in the Congressional
Record containing--
(1) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee
allocations for fiscal year 2026 consistent with the levels
in title I for the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633); and
(2) for all committees other than the Committee on
Appropriations, committee allocations for fiscal years 2026,
2026 through 2030, and 2026 through 2035 consistent with the
levels in title I for the purpose of enforcing section 302 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633).

SEC. 4102. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

(a) Senate.--
(1) In general.--In the Senate, notwithstanding section
302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
633(a)(1)), section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of
1990 (2 U.S.C. 632 note), and section 2009a of title 39,
United States Code, the report or the joint explanatory
statement accompanying this concurrent resolution on the
budget or the statement filed pursuant to section 4101(b), as
applicable, shall include in an allocation under section
302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
633(a)) to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate of
amounts for the discretionary administrative expenses of the
Social Security Administration and the United States Postal
Service.
(2) Special rule.--In the Senate, for purposes of enforcing
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 633(f)), estimates of the level of total new budget
authority and total outlays provided by a measure shall
include any discretionary amounts described in paragraph (1).
(b) House of Representatives.--
(1) In general.--In the House of Representatives,
notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)(1)), section 13301 of the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 632 note), and section
2009a of title 39, United States Code, the report or the
joint explanatory statement accompanying this concurrent
resolution on the budget or the statement filed pursuant to
section 4101(a), as applicable, shall include in an
allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)) to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives of amounts for
the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social
Security Administration and the United States Postal Service.
(2) Special rule.--In the House of Representatives, for
purposes of enforcing section 302(f) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(f)), estimates of the level
of total new budget authority and total outlays provided by a
measure shall include any discretionary amounts described in
paragraph (1).

SEC. 4103. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS,
AGGREGATES, AND OTHER BUDGETARY LEVELS.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations,
aggregates, and other budgetary levels made pursuant to this
concurrent resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations, Aggregates, and Other
Budgetary Levels.--Revised allocations, aggregates, and other
budgetary levels resulting from these adjustments shall be
considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) as the allocations,
aggregates, and other budgetary levels contained in this
concurrent resolution.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
concurrent resolution, the levels of new budget authority,
outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority,
revenues, deficits, and surpluses for a fiscal year or period
of fiscal years shall be determined on the basis of estimates
made by the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the
applicable House of Congress.
(d) Aggregates, Allocations and Application.--In the House
of Representatives, for purposes of this concurrent
resolution and budget enforcement, the consideration of any
bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference
report thereon, for which the chair of the Committee on the
Budget makes adjustments or revisions in the allocations,
aggregates, and other budgetary levels of this concurrent
resolution shall not be subject to the point of order set
forth in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.

SEC. 4104. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.

(a) House of Representatives.--In the House of
Representatives, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
adjust the appropriate aggregates, allocations, and other
budgetary levels in this concurrent resolution for any change
in budgetary concepts and definitions consistent with section
251(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(1)).
(b) Senate.--In the Senate, upon the enactment of a bill or
joint resolution providing for a change in concepts or
definitions, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of
the Senate may make adjustments to the levels and allocations
in this concurrent resolution in accordance with section
251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)).

SEC. 4105. ADJUSTMENT FOR CHANGES IN THE BASELINE.

The chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House of
Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may adjust the allocations, aggregates,
and other appropriate budgetary levels in this concurrent
resolution to reflect changes resulting from the
Congressional Budget Office's updates to its baseline for
fiscal years 2026 through 2035, including the effects of
legislation enacted before the date on which this concurrent
resolution is agreed to.

SEC. 4106. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such
they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House
or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such
rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that
they are inconsistent with such other rules; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either the Senate or the House of Representatives to change
those rules (insofar as they relate to that House) at any
time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as is the
case of any other rule of the Senate or House of
Representatives.

SEC. 4107. EXTENSION OF ENFORCEMENT OF BUDGETARY POINTS OF
ORDER IN THE SENATE.

Notwithstanding any provision of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), subsections (c)(2) and
(d)(3) of section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(2 U.S.C. 621 note) shall remain permanently in effect for
purposes of Senate enforcement.

SEC. 4108. EMERGENCY REQUIREMENTS IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) In General.--In the House of Representatives, if a
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report
making appropriations for discretionary amounts contains a
provision providing new budget authority and outlays, and a
designation of such provision as an emergency requirement,
the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House of
Representatives shall not count the budgetary effects of such
provision for any purpose in the House of Representatives.
(b) Application.--
(1) Exclusion.--A proposal to strike a designation under
subsection (a) shall be excluded from an evaluation of
budgetary effects for any purpose in the House of
Representatives.
(2) Amendment.--An amendment offered under subsection (a)
that also proposes to reduce each amount appropriated or
otherwise made available by the pending measure that is not
required to be appropriated or otherwise made available shall
be in order at any point in the reading of the pending
measure in the House of Representatives.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions apply:
(1) Emergency.--The term ``emergency'' means a situation
that--
(A) requires new budget authority and outlays (or new
budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom) for the
prevention or mitigation of, or response to, loss of life or
property, or a threat to national security; and
(B) is unanticipated.
(2) Unanticipated.--The term ``unanticipated'' means that
the underlying situation is--
(A) sudden, which means quickly coming into being or not
building up over time;

[[Page S1924]]

(B) urgent, which means a pressing and compelling need
requiring immediate action;
(C) unforeseen, which means not predicted or anticipated as
an emerging need; and
(D) temporary, which means not of a permanent duration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.

Reconciliation

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, tonight, Senate Republicans showed the
American people where they stand, not for families struggling with the
high cost of childcare, groceries, gasoline, electricity but for
pumping $140 billion toward rogue Agencies.
All night long, we gave the Republicans a chance to do the right
thing by voting for our amendments. We gave Republicans a chance to
vote for an amendment to lower out-of-pocket healthcare costs.
They said: No.
We gave Republicans a chance to lower childcare costs.
They said: No.
We gave Republicans a chance to stop insurance company delays, to
protect school meals, to give people a hand at the grocery store.
And Republicans said: No, no, and no, again.
What kind of bubble are they living in? How apart are they from
people's real needs? And, instead, take that money, which should have
gone to lowering people's costs, and give it to an Agency that everyone
knows needs reform.
Republicans can rest assured that when reconciliation comes back up
in a few weeks, they are going to have to face these votes again.
Democrats will make sure that they do. We will continue to force vote
after vote on the most pressing issue facing Americans today: their
high, high, all-too-high costs.
Democrats are going to hold Republicans' feet to the fire because the
American people demand it. The American people are hurting right now
because of the soaring cost of living, and that is why it is so
important that Democrats continue to force Republicans to take these
votes and go on record about their disastrous agenda.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Tribute to Tony Hanagan

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before we leave and finish this evening, I
would like to take a moment to recognize a departing member of the
Republican cloakroom staff Tony Hanagan. He is leaving this Friday
after 12 years in the cloakroom and his 12th vote-arama.
Tony, I know a lot of those occurred here in the last 15 months, and
I am hoping we didn't push you out the door by forcing you to go
through another one. But, seriously, it is hard for me to think of the
Republican cloakroom without Tony.
When you become leader, you realize all over again just how
indispensable our cloakroom staff are. The command of Senate procedure
and the institutional knowledge they bring is as essential to passing
legislation as is the votes of our Members.
Since I became leader, I have relied on Tony's expertise on a daily
basis, whether we are adopting a UC or I am delivering the wrapup. Tony
isn't just smart and knowledgeable; he is also invariably positive,
hard-working, and deeply committed to the team--our team here in the
Senate--and the sports teams at his beloved Gonzaga College High School
here in Washington, DC.
Tony, you have played an indispensable role in the victories we have
won for the American people, and I am very grateful for the 12 years
you have dedicated to the cloakroom and to this institution. I want to
wish you the very best of everything in your future ventures. Wherever
you go, I am confident you will excel.

Motion to Reconsider

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________