Appropriations
Mr. President, if it were up to Republicans, we would have finished the appropriations process months ago. We made a lot of progress on restoring the appropriations process this past year.
We had, for the first time in years, actually moved 11 of the 12 appropriations bills across the finish line under regular order, something that literally hadn't been done in years. And I think if you go back to when the last time we did all 12, it might have been 30-some years ago. But that progress was disrupted.
It was disrupted, first, when Democrats shut down the entire Federal Government in the fall. It was disrupted again when Democrats refused to fund the Department of Homeland Security in February. And it was disrupted, yet again, when Democrats walked away from bipartisan talks because they refused to fund law enforcement and border security.
For 67 days now, Democrats have refused to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. That is unacceptable, and it is why Republicans are going to move forward this week with a budget resolution that will allow us to take up a funding bill for the law enforcement and border security components of DHS.
And to prevent another reckless attempt by Democrats to defund law enforcement when we next take up appropriations, Republicans will fund law enforcement and border security for the next 3 years.
Now, I say ``reckless'' about the Democrats because that is exactly what they are. Democrats are refusing to fund the Agency that protects our Nation's borders. Think about that for a minute. Let that sink in. Democrats are refusing to fund the Agency that protects our Nation's borders.
These are the people who not only stop people attempting to enter our country illegally but defend our Nation against a number of threats. In fiscal year 2025, Border Patrol agents apprehended 460 gang members trying to enter our country illegally. They apprehended 73 known or suspected terrorists--terrorists--illegally crossing our borders. They seized almost 80,000 pounds of illegal drugs.
They are the ones capturing the human smugglers, the drug traffickers, and the criminals engaged in human trafficking, not to mention that they are the ones conducting rescue operations when illegal immigrants are drowning in the Rio Grande or dying of dehydration in the desert.
And Democrats want to defund--defund--this Agency. They want to leave our borders completely unprotected. I would say they want to go back to the days of the Biden border crisis, when you had literally tens and often hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants flooding across our southern border every month. But it seems Democrats may be looking for something even worse.
Democrats are also refusing to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and that is the Agency that removes criminal illegal immigrants from our country like criminals who are in our country because of the open border policies of the Biden administration.
Do Democrats really want to go back to the days when criminal illegal immigrants were often allowed to live freely in our country? We owe it to the families of Laken Riley and too many others to keep our communities safe, and that is what ICE is doing.
The American people support that mission. Democrats apparently don't.
I expect we are going to hear Democrats this week talk about reforming ICE operations. Here is what I don't think they are going to talk about: The White House reformed how ICE operates on its own months ago. On top of that, the White House repeatedly offered Democrats a robust package of legislative reforms, but nothing was ever enough for Democrats. They kept moving the goalpost, and eventually they just walked away.
Democrats may have decided to abdicate their responsibility to fund crucial government Agencies, but Republicans will not do the same. As I said, the budget resolution before us this week will unlock funding for law enforcement and border security at DHS for the next 3 years.
For the past year, Republicans have operated in good faith to fund the Federal Government with--with--Democrats. We made considerable progress and, as I said, passed 11 out of the 12 appropriations bills. And we were on track to pass a bipartisan Department of Homeland Security funding bill until Democrats walked away.
I suspect our Democrat colleagues will cry ``partisanship''--we heard it from the Democrat leader this morning--throughout this process. The Democrat leader had the gall last week and this to accuse Republicans of embarking on a ``partisan circus'' to fund law enforcement and border security. And it would be funny if those words were not so hypocritical.
Democrats--and Democrats alone--alone--have made this process partisan. Republicans bent over backward to work with them, but it was never enough. And we have run out of time to play the Democrats' games. We have a job to do, and Republicans are going to get it done.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Mr. President, remember the rallies? President Trump would stand up at the rallies and say: We are going to get rid of the ``worst of the worst'' criminals who managed to sneak into the United States in violation of our immigration laws--the rapists, the murderers, the terrorists, the criminally insane, those who are exploiting our children. That was his goal, stated over and over again.
But let's look at the record. Earlier this month, in the midst of President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign, members of my staff traveled to Southwest Texas to conduct oversight of ICE's Dilley family detention facility. ICE allowed my staff 2 hours--just 2 hours--for the entire visit and notified them of the limitation when they were en route to the facility.
What is ICE and this administration trying to conceal?
My staff's visit uncovered serious issues. Let me tell you some of their findings.
If the Dilley detention facility sounds familiar, that is because that is where ICE held 5-year-old Liam Ramos, the boy in the blue bunny hat and the Spiderman backpack, whose image symbolizes this administration's inhumane detention agenda as part of their gross deportation effort.
After public outcry and a Federal court order, 5-year-old Liam was released after 10 days, but that is not the outcome for many children being held at the Dilley ICE facility.
Hayam El Gamal and her five children--ranging in age from 5 to 18-- have been held for nearly a year. That is believed to be the longest anyone has been detained during Trump's second term.
Hayam's husband faces serious State charges for a violent attack in Boulder, CO, last June. There is no question that he should face the full weight of the law. But the FBI and an immigration judge found Hayam and her children engaged in no wrongdoing and had no prior knowledge of their father's horrific actions. Should they be punished for his crime too?
Just yesterday, a magistrate judge recommended the family's habeas petition be granted. The judge found the family had been detained in violation of their due process rights and recommended they be released after being held for nearly 1 year.
The judge ruled:
If, despite the judge's recommendations, the Department of Homeland Security still objects to the release of an innocent woman and her five children, we know exactly why that is the case. It is not because they present any danger to the community or a flight risk. It is because they are immigrants--Arab Muslim immigrants at that.
Earlier this year, through their attorney, the El Gamal family submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee letters and drawings describing their life inside the Dilley detention facility in Texas.
In one letter, their 9-year-old child wrote:
In another, the 16-year-old wrote:
These are children in a facility run under Federal contract, paid for by you and me, the American taxpayers.
The mother has experienced despair and a recent medical emergency. Only 1 hour after my staff left the facilities, this mother was rushed to the emergency room in pain. The doctor recommended she receive an ultrasound. ICE denied it. Hayam has a history of cancer. She was denied a recommended diagnostic procedure. ICE is allowing this medical neglect, even when so many people are dying in immigration detention.
The El Gamal family's case is an extreme one, but, unfortunately, their experiences in detention are not uncommon, as there are widespread reports of inhumane conditions at ICE facilities across the country.
Earlier this month, the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Medical Association published a 22-year study of deaths in ICE custody. Its finding: The death rate in fiscal year 2026 is the highest in the entire study period--higher than any year on record, higher even than during the COVID outbreak.
And this year alone, 17 people have already died in immigration detention. They are people who died in American custody, many of them from treatable conditions, such as cardiovascular disease and infections.
This is happening inside a detention system that congressional Republicans injected with $45 billion in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and now the Republicans want to use the partisan budget reconciliation process to pour even more money into this system. It is a system where about 90 percent of detention beds are run by private corporations for profit--not care standards but profits--and they hit record highs last year.
In February, I sent a letter to Secretary Kristi Noem, sounding the alarm on the dramatic increase in deaths in ICE detention. While she was shown the door--and thank goodness for that--problems at these facilities and at ICE persist.
The El Gamal family has been at Dilley for nearly a year. Hayam is a mother. Her youngest children are 5-year-old twins. They have done nothing wrong. It is time for the Federal Government to heed the recommendations of the magistrate judge and release them.
As the partial government shutdown of DHS continues, House Republicans refuse to even consider the bipartisan Senate-passed bill to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP. Democrats will not fund cruelty without accountability. We will continue to demand the reforms ICE and CBP require, including the end of roving patrols, requiring a judicial warrant to enter someone's home and conduct searches, a uniform code of conduct to restore trust--one similar to those followed by police departments in every corner of this country--and clear identification and the removal of masks to improve accountability.
As they prepare to turn to the partisan budget reconciliation process to fund ICE, Republicans in Congress have a choice: Demand accountability for every dollar we give this Agency or keep signing checks to a slush fund while people are detained by ICE.
Remember what the President said? We are going after the ``worst of the worst''--the terrorists, rapists, murderers, the criminally insane, those who are exploiting our children.
Does it sound like this family, which has been waiting in detention for 1 year with no charges, fits into that category? Of course not.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Setting Forth the Congressional Budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2026 and Setting Forth the Appropriate Budgetary Levels for Fiscal Years 2027 Through 2035
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. President, I defer to Senator Graham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.
I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of the S. Con. Res. 33, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2026, the majority and the Democratic managers of the resolution, while seated or standing at the managers' desk, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text displayed on wireless personal assistant devices and tablet devices.
I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of the
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. President, more than 2 months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs that President Trump had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, were unlawful. That means that more than $166 billion in taxes--or tariffs--under IEEPA were illegally collected, and they are owed back to the importers who paid them.
Now, this wasn't a shocking outcome because the law that the President tried to use for these tariffs--IEEPA--had never been used to impose tariffs. It does not even mention the words ``tariff'' or ``duty'' once, anywhere, in that law.
And so 15 months ago, a number of us introduced legislation to clarify that IEEPA cannot be used for tariffs.
Congress then submitted three amicus briefs, arguing that these tariffs were unlawful. The lower courts agreed. And on February 20, the Supreme Court blocked the tariffs and said that they should be repaid.
Now, 2 months later, here we are. No refunds have been paid, and the administration says it could take another 60 to 90 days before any refunds will be paid out.
Yesterday, some businesses were finally able to apply for refunds in the Customs and Border Protection's new system, but that system didn't allow businesses to even apply for refunds they have been waiting the longest for. This new system, which is called CAPE, disadvantages small businesses who may not know they need to file to receive refunds.
Those who don't have large legal teams to pursue these claims and have to take time away from their businesses just to give Customs information that it already has, they are not going to be able to comply with these requirements.
It also makes small businesses more likely to sell their refund claims to Wall Street banks like the one run by the Secretary of Commerce's sons and to sell those claims for a significant discount.
This administration was ready to reimpose a 10-percent tax on everything Americans import on the same day the Supreme Court ruled, but it took 2 months to roll out a partial refund system. That has real costs.
It hurts small businesses who are already struggling with high prices and shouldn't have to wait months to get refunds for unlawful taxes. It hurts our economy, with businesses unsure when or even if they will be able to reinvest this money. And it hurts taxpayers because these refunds have to be paid with interest.
That means that every day of delay adds $22 million to the bill for these unlawful and damaging tariffs. That is $1.3 billion more just since the Supreme Court ruled with billions more to come. Those are added costs because this administration failed to prepare for the obvious outcome.
So let's be clear on what is happening. President Trump's tariffs raise prices across the board, and now he is slow-walking getting out the refunds that Americans are entitled to. There is a better answer. That is the Speedy Tariff Refund Act, legislation that Senators Markey and Wyden and I have been working on. It is a bill that would require that Customs pay refunds automatically within 30 days, that it use the information it already has, and that all of these refunds be paid now.
The bill prioritizes refunds to small businesses rather than putting them at a disadvantage to big companies. Those businesses have already had to deal with added costs they can't easily absorb and constantly shifting tariffs that make it impossible to plan.
So this is not complicated. The Court said these tariffs were unlawful. The money was collected. It should be returned promptly and in full. It is time to pass our bill. It is time to return the $166 billion to the American people because every day we delay adds another $22 million to the tab.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, I rise today to request unanimous consent to pass the Speedy Tariff Refund Act.
The bill forces the Trump administration to immediately return the money it has stolen from American businesses under Donald Trump's illegal tariffs. Nothing illustrates the hostility that Donald Trump has shown toward helping Americans seek refunds better than his comments to CNBC this morning.
Donald Trump said this morning that it would be ``brilliant'' if companies do not seek refunds and that he will remember those who don't. That sounds like a threat to me. The President of the United States basically said he will remember those who don't seek a refund or come forward.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's so-called ``emergency'' IEEPA tariffs. The Court's ruling was clear: the tariffs were illegal, and the administration must refund the money to the American importers that paid the tariffs. It has now been 2 months since the Supreme Court's decision. Not a single penny has been paid back.
The Trump administration is deliberately delaying these refunds, even after Trump's own lawyers claimed that they would be issued.
While Donald Trump funnels money to his vanity projects and illegal war, his administration is doing everything it can to avoid returning the money it stole from American companies. That is why I quoted the President's threat this morning.
I have heard from countless small business owners who paid the tariffs but still have no idea when or if they will ever get their money back. This leaves businesses and workers on a financial rollercoaster, questioning if they are going to be able to keep their doors open.
Yesterday, Customs and Border Protection began accepting refund requests through yet another online system, which is already riddled with glitches and errors. But instead of paying refunds automatically, Customs and Border Protection is requiring businesses in America to file yet another round of paperwork to get a refund. This is just more bureaucratic red tape, making it harder for Americans to get their money back.
Customs and Border Protection is even excluding whole categories of imports from the refund system for now, and they are doing it despite the Court of International Trade's order to pay refunds of all IEEPA tariffs.
It is as clear as Crater Lake that Oregonians can't rely on this administration to return their money, so Congress needs to step up. My bill requires the administration to pay tariff refunds, with interest, within 30 days. It applies to every importer who paid IEEPA tariffs, not just certain imports, and it makes it clear that CBP must pay the refunds automatically without requiring additional paperwork.
I am sure my Republican colleagues are also hearing from small businesses in their States that are desperate to get a tariff refund. I urge them to join me, Senator Markey, Senator Shaheen, and to do it today. The Senate can act today to put money back in the pockets of small businesses and ensure Donald Trump no longer keeps scamming Americans out of the tariff refunds they are owed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4364, the Speedy Tariff Refund Act; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise to speak in opposition to the Speedy Tariff Refund Act of 2026.
I share my colleagues' support for ensuring that any administrative processes are efficient and easy to navigate, especially for small businesses, but this legislation is unnecessary. The bill would require the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to swiftly refund tariffs collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The CBP is already in the process of doing just that. In fact, yesterday, CBP launched its new portal through which importers of all sizes may file declarations requesting refunds. The portal is called the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries--the CAPE-- portal. This portal will help CBP manage the expected high volume of submissions to ensure that importers can track the refund process.
CBP is committed to helping the public navigate this portal. In fact, it released written guidance and is holding public webinars, including one held earlier today.
As CBP demonstrated to the satisfaction of the U.S. Court of International Trade, this is a necessary process given the complexities of tariff refund calculations. By all accounts, CBP is now expeditiously complying with the court's order.
For these reasons, I object.
I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Just very briefly, as I know Senator Merkley is waiting to speak, we are talking about CBP. If we really want to know what they are in the process of doing, they are in the process of playing more stall ball, making it tough for small businesses to get access to these tariff refunds.
As I said, it is all summed up by what Donald Trump said to CNBC. I interpret that as, point blank, a threat to people who go out and try to advance their rights, and I think it is wrong for the President to do it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, I rise today because our Republican colleagues have introduced a new budget resolution to yet again utilize a special process called reconciliation. We just voted a short while ago on a motion to proceed. That motion to proceed succeeded along purely party lines, and that takes us into the realm of this special device called reconciliation.
Just 10 months ago, we already had a reconciliation bill that is sometimes called H.R. 1. President Trump called it the One Big Beautiful Bill, but much of America has a different name for it. They call it the Big Ugly Betrayal. Why? Because it betrayed families in America to fund tax breaks for billionaires, and in the process, it added to our national debt. It slashed $1 trillion from healthcare programs for families. It kicked 15 million Americans off of their health insurance. It took food off the plates of more than 3 million families with children. Why? To give away the Treasury to the richest Americans. What other phrase could possibly describe this other than ``families lose, and billionaires win''?
But it isn't just today's families who lose from that bill; it is the families of the next generation because that bill added, according to the Congressional Budget Office's independent, nonpartisan estimate, $30 trillion to our national debt over 30 years, and that is only if their inflation or interest rates are accurate. They note that, in general, their assumption was that interest would not go above 4 percent, but at 1 percent higher, that $30 trillion in debt for the next generation, which essentially doubles our national debt, would instead be adding an additional $50 trillion.
I am sharing this because this bill--this second reconciliation bill during the Trump administration--builds on the foundation of the first. The first one was ``families lose, and billionaires win,'' but could this bill possibly be different? Not only is this bill not different, but its entire existence involves a betrayal of this Senate Chamber because the bill is based on a provision in budget law from 1974, the Budget and Impoundment Control Act.
Every single Senator who voted on that bill voted in favor of it-- Democrats and Republicans together--because the complete agreement was that it would be used only to decrease the deficit, and every single Member thought we needed to have an instrument to control the deficit.
OK. Fine. Well and good. That was in 1974. But in 1996, Republicans decided they wanted to give away even more treasure to the richest Americans, so they said: The problem is we can't do that because it increases the deficit rather than decreases the deficit. There isn't a pathway to do it because we know we can't get 60 votes to close debate on giving away the Treasury to the richest Americans.
So the then-leader, Robert Dole of Kansas, proceeded to appoint a Parliamentarian who had worked for him and who had also been around in 1974 and understood that the entire reconciliation was about reducing the deficit, and the result was a ruling that that core premise could be stood on its head. You could use reconciliation not to decrease deficits but to increase them. It meant you could do a massive tax bill giveaway to the richest Americans. That is at the foundation for both of the Bush tax cuts--or tax giveaways to the rich, maybe, to more accurately describe it--and to a similar bill that was done last year and to a similar bill that was done in the first Trump administration.
So here we are. In addition to impacting tax legislation, this change saying that this special device that everyone agreed was only for decreasing the deficit could be used to increase the deficit meant that it could also be used in the fashion that it is being presented by my Republican colleagues today.
So the pillars of that initial act are all being violated--the pillar that in the first 10 years, there could be no net deficit; that after the first 10 years, there could be no deficit in any individual account in any individual year; that the budget had to be based on real numbers, not phony numbers; and that the real numbers would come from an independent Agency set up by the bill at the Congressional Budget Office. But that bill last year, the ``Big Ugly Betrayal'' bill, toppled all of those pillars--immediate deficits, long-term deficits and long-term debt, using fake numbers on the analysis, all of it--so there is no foundation for accountability left.
That is the background for what brings us to today and to the vote that was just held in which the majority party said: We are again going to present a bill that increases the deficit and increases debt.
Wow. I must say this is not the way I would like to be celebrating our 250th anniversary. Wouldn't it be great if, on a bipartisan basis, we restored accountability to our national budget? Wouldn't that be a way to celebrate this anniversary and help create a foundation for the next generation to thrive rather than shortchanging the children of today, who will be adults in the near future, and shortchanging the children of the children of today? But there we are. Instead, the majority party has decided to celebrate our 250th anniversary by--well, by expanding secret police in America, because that is what the bill is all about that they have presented.
We know what the foundations are for families to thrive. It is healthcare. It is housing. It is education. It is good-paying jobs. We know that you also need investments in infrastructure in order to make all of that happen.
So will this bill that the majority just presented address the issues families are facing?
Will it be designed to bring down the cost of groceries? No, it will not.
Will it be designed to bring down the cost of healthcare, perhaps by restoring the tax credits that their last bill took away from millions of families? No, it will not.
Will it be designed to bring down gas prices, which are more than $1 higher than before the war was launched on Iran? In my State of Oregon, a gallon of gas is over $5 and a gallon of diesel is over $6. This is the Bush tax on ordinary families. Was it designed to bring that down? No.
How about to expand nutrition assistance--nutrition that was savaged in the ``Big Ugly Bill'' 10 months ago? Does this bill remedy that to help the children of America get enough to eat so they can actually study when they are in school? No, it does not.
Does it address the mass shortage in housing that has resulted in really high rents? No, it doesn't help that either.
How about investing in first-time home ownership to help restore the dream of home ownership because that dream has been dying? No, it doesn't address that either.
How about helping the United States prepare for unexpected disasters--wildfires? floods? hurricanes? No, it doesn't do that.
Does it, perhaps, reduce our debt? No, quite the opposite. It is unpaid for, and it increases our debt.
So nothing to help working families; nothing to improve affordability--a major crisis across this country; nothing to reduce the deficit and debt.
Instead, this bill is ICE and CBP--Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection--up to $140 billion. There is a set of instructions being sent to committee, and each committee is being told: You can spend up to $70 billion. Two committees. Seventy billion. That is up to $140 billion.
But when I say that this bill is all about funding ICE and CBP, you might say: Wait, didn't we do that 10 months ago? Didn't Republicans, on party line, pass a bill to give massive amounts of money to ICE and CBP just 10 months ago? And your memory would be correct.
This is the budget for ICE, and you can see that it increased modestly from 2017 to 2024, but look at this--an additional $75 billion, roughly equal to seven times its normal annual appropriation.
So it funded also CBP in a very similar fashion--only gave an extra 65 billion to CBP. So 75 billion to ICE; 65 billion to Customs and Border Protection. Massive, mega increase in expanding Agencies that have been empowered by this administration to operate like secret police.
So instead of this bill being used to address the concerns of families across America, this bill is being used to expand the operations of Trump's secret police. That is what this bill is.
Now, of this massive amount of money that was provided 10 months ago, how much has been spent? Now, you would assume, because Republicans are coming back and saying: This is a top priority in America, that that money--that extra 75 billion for ICE and 65 billion for Customs and Border Protection--must have been spent.
Well, now, the Office of Management and Budget, which is in the executive branch--it is run by Mr. Russell Vought, who was the chief architect of Project 2025 aimed at creating an authoritarian state-- they issue a report monthly. It is called monthly Report on Budget Execution. And the forms, for those of you who want the details, are called SF-133.
We looked at those forms for this last month, and what those forms say is that 63 billion of the ICE spending has not been obligated yet. It is not even under contract. It isn't that it hasn't gone out the door; it is not even under contract. And of the 65 billion for CBP, 40 billion is not yet obligated.
That means $103 billion of the money that Republicans gave to expand ICE and CBP is still available. So why the hell is the top priority in America getting another $70 to $140 billion for these two Agencies, as opposed to addressing all the significant national challenges that we have--all of the challenges that families have as they are pressed to the wall by the cost of fuel and the cost of healthcare and the cost of housing and the cost of medicine? Why isn't this bill addressing any of that? And instead it is providing $70 to $140 billion more for two Agencies that still are sitting on top of over $100 billion from last year's bill.
I noted that the goal of this bill is to expand the secret police in America. Those are strong words because ICE and CBP were not secret police before this administration, but this administration changed their conduct.
They turned them into a force that operates in secret and is terrorizing communities across this country--operating in secret wearing masks, operating in secret in uniforms without identification, operating in secret in vehicles that are unmarked and sometimes have had their license plates removed to make them as untraceable as possible, operating without warrants and crashing through people's doors, stopping citizens without cause--pulling their weapons, bashing out their windows, and dragging people out of their cars.
These are the tactics of secret police around the world, and they are happening right here in America, right now.
And in that cultivated manner of thuggery, they are not just pulling out their weapons; they are pulling the triggers. Ruben Ray Martinez-- shot dead. Renee Nicole Good--shot dead. Alex Pretti--shot dead.
The day after Renee and Alex were shot dead in Minnesota, two individuals were shot sitting in their car just blocks from my house in Oregon. We didn't know that they were mortally injured because the administration wouldn't release any information.
Thankfully, they did not die. The woman, on that occasion, was shot through the chest. The man was shot through the arm--sitting in their car just one day after Renee and Alex were shot in their car.
It is certainly clear that what these two Agencies need is not more money. They are sitting on $100 billion-plus in unobligated funds. What they need is more accountability. That bill should be on the Senate floor--the one that says no face masks, no uniforms without ID, no vans without license plates or ID, no breaking down doors without warrants, no invading sensitive places like hospitals and churches and synagogues and mosques and daycares. That is the bill.
What we need now is not more money. It is more accountability-- standard practices for the way public officials operate in a democratic republic. Instead, we now have standard practice of this administration for how secret police operate under an authoritarian organization.
My colleagues across the aisle have said: Well, we need to fund these organizations because they aren't funded. Well, clearly, if they still have $100 billion sitting in the bank, sitting in their accounts with the government, they are funded.
And as for the rest of Homeland Security, that is not funded because the House of Representatives killed the bill. In that case, I can thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who came together and said: Homeland Security isn't just about ICE and CBP. It is also about FEMA-- emergency management. It is also about TSA that provides support to get us through the airport. It is also about Cybersecurity, which is important. It is also about the Coast Guard. And the Coast Guard is so beloved in my home State of Oregon, as it is, I imagine, in every coastal city.
And so every single Senator said: Yes, fund those four Agencies while we continue to debate both ICE and Customs and Border Protection. We all agreed. In fact, the Speaker of the House agreed and said send the bill over. And then it got over there, and he got cold feet.
He got cold feet because he didn't have the support of President Trump, and he didn't have support of some Members of the most right- leaning wing of the Republican Party. That was the moment that Trump could have instantly made one phone call and that bill would have passed.
So if they are not funded, it is because the President chose to keep them unfunded, and the House of Representatives chose to keep those additional Agencies--FEMA, TSA, Cybersecurity, and Coast Guard-- unfunded.
In addition, this bill doesn't just provide 1 year of funding. It says: Fund them--that is, ICE and CBP--this additional funding on top of the $100 billion they still have--fund them for another 3 years.
Now, I would like to just remind my colleagues how extraordinary this is. Reconciliation was never supposed to be about spending money. It was supposed to be about deficit reduction, but now, we are taking a bill that was in the regular appropriations process and funding two Agencies for 3 years--that is their plan. And that is simply wrong because it means we are saying that in this--the start of the second year of the Trump administration--they are going to fund these Agencies through Trump's entire administration.
You know where this leads. There will be another administration in the future, and they will say in the first year of the administration: Fund all 4 years. Hell, fund 5 years--1 year into my successor--fund that. What does that strip away? It strips away the accountability involved in the budget process.
Further, going down the road, we are creating a vortex of unaccountable
This vision of families lose and billionaires win began with Trump's inaugural speech. He didn't line up the champions for families behind him. There was no healthcare champion. There was no housing champion. There was no education champion. There was no champion for infrastructure in America. But there was a line of billionaires standing right behind the President. That is what this administration has been about: families lose and billionaires win.
Well, there is a better vision for our Nation, and that better vision is families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share. That is a vision--in a government by and for the people--that all 100 Senators should be supporting: Families thrive, and the rich and well-off pay their fair share.
Let's work toward that vision--not just in this year or in the year to come but for the next generation and the generation that follows.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
