Recognition of the Majority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. President, I expect there will be a lot of amendments today on a lot of topics. So I want to take just a minute to focus in on the essence of the bill that we are on that we will be considering and voting on today. It is a simple bill. It will do nothing more than fund Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the next 3 years.
And why are we doing this bill? Why are we doing appropriations for these Department of Homeland Security Agencies separately and for 3 years instead of the usual 1? Because Democrats have refused to fund border security or immigration law enforcement.
They originally agreed to fund them, of course. Back in January, Democrats in both Houses, House and Senate, signed off on an appropriations bill that included multiple reforms. But shortly before passage, after the events in Minneapolis, Democrats reneged. They wanted more reforms, they claimed. And Republicans agreed to reopen negotiations.
The White House implemented a number of reforms on its own. And then the White House repeatedly--repeatedly--offered Democrats a robust package of legislative reforms.
The Democrats would not agree to anything. And eventually they walked away altogether, presumably, because they thought that it would serve them better to have an issue for November, although I would say it remains to be seen how well ``defund law enforcement'' and ``eliminate border security officers'' play for Democrats this fall because, let's be very clear, that is what Democrats have opted for: no--zero--no officers at our Nation's borders and no officers to remove dangerous criminal illegal immigrants from our country.
If it weren't for Republicans, our Nation's borders might currently be thrown wide open to drug traffickers, cartel members, terrorists, criminals, human smugglers, and other dangerous individuals. And dangerous criminal illegal aliens could be living freely in our country. That is what no funding for border security and immigration enforcement means, and I can't emphasize that enough.
If Democrats had their way, our Nation's borders would be completely--completely--unprotected and criminal illegal immigrants would be allowed to remain in our country and endanger Americans. Democrats' position is not just breathtakingly irresponsible, it is a betrayal of their obligations as members of our government. This is a national security issue, and Democrats have completely abdicated their national security responsibility.
As I said, I expect there will be a lot of amendments today. Many will be intended to distract from Democrats' ``defund law enforcement'' position.
Some may even echo the reforms the White House offered to Democrats-- that Democrats rejected, but which they will now attempt to use to score political points.
When all of the political statements have been made, we will pass the underlying bill and be one step closer to funding border security and immigration law enforcement for the next 3 years. For the next 3 years--this is what Democrats have forced us to do.
I am grateful for the law enforcement officers who have helped secure our Nation's border over the past 16 months and take criminal illegal immigrants off of our streets.
And I am grateful to Secretary Mullin and border czar Tom Homan for their leadership and their work to refocus things at DHS and ensure that both Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are fully focused on their core mission of protecting our country.
And Republicans are going to continue to ensure that these Agencies have the funding that they need to fulfill their national security responsibilities.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. President, anyone--anyone--who still believes that Trump has any intention of stopping his effort to steal Americans' tax dollars to enrich himself, his family, and MAGA loyalists ought to listen to Trump's comments yesterday.
Yesterday, Trump not only refused to commit ending his $2 billion taxpayer-funded MAGA slush fund permanently, he also said of the slush fund: I love it. I think it's so important. It's a beautiful thing.
I repeat, here is what Trump said about this damn slush fund.
He said: I love it. I think it's so important. It was a beautiful thing.
Do you hear that, America? Do you hear that, Republican Senators? Do you hear it?
Trump loves giving Americans' taxpayer dollars to his billionaire friends.
Trump thinks forcing Americans to fork over their paychecks to line the pockets of his corrupt friends is ``so important.''
Trump says ripping Americans off to give kickbacks to convicted criminals who beat police officers to death on January 6 is a beautiful thing--that is what he said.
Trump's slush fund is anything but beautiful. It is heinous, and it won't die until we permanently ban it by law--not by language, not by verbal promises which can just evaporate, but by law. And we have the chance to do that this morning on the amendment I will offer.
The very first amendment I will offer in vote-arama today will be to outlaw the slush fund forever, so when Trump wakes up a week from now or a month from now and says: Why don't we try that slush fund again?-- he won't be able to. He won't be able to.
With the whole country watching, Republicans will have to choose: either support the slush fund or ban it. They can come up with 10 excuses. It is a yes or no: support the slush fund or ban it. Americans want a big loud voice and vote to ban it permanently--to ban it forever.
We are also going to force Republicans to vote on whether to let Trump keep the immunity he granted himself from audits so he can get out of paying his own taxes. This is what he put in the bill. This is what our Republican friends are putting in the bill. Donald Trump has a get-out-of-jail-free card. No audit ever of him and how he is evading taxes. And he has already tried do that a whole bunch of times. There have been court cases about it. Let him do it? Let this level of corruption rise so it is going to drown all of us? Throw away those good old American values that have served this country well for 250 years because Donald Trump wants to take this money in a corrupt fund and scare you into voting yes? Come on. You Republicans are better than that, I hope.
Donald Trump is less trustworthy than a snake oil salesman, than a back-alley bookie, than the Nigerian prince in your email spam folder.
Are Republicans blind? Are they so far removed from the American people? Do they not even know what corruption is anymore? That is what I think is happening over on that side of the aisle. Donald Trump has immersed so much of America in so much corruption you don't even get it.
But that is what America--you are taking the great values of America on our 250th year and flushing them down the toilet because you are afraid of Donald Trump.
And, listen, another point: Are Republicans really going to take Todd Blanche--a known liar--at his word?
Do we believe that Donald Trump, who has lied to us day in and day out--do we believe that he will able to resist getting his sticky fingers in the slush fund when it would benefit himself and his family? No way. No way.
Mr. President, on vote-arama, which is part of this bill, rather than let Republicans try to force through their radical reconciliation bill under the current cover of night, Democrats have made sure today's vote-arama happens in broad daylight because Americans deserve to see what Republicans are prioritizing instead of lowering their costs.
Democrats will force Republicans to vote on Trump's MAGA slush fund, his lifetime tax exemption, his billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded ballroom--but that is not all.
Amendment after amendment, vote after vote, Republicans are going to have to answer to the American people on tariffs, on skyrocketing costs, on the disastrous war with Iran, on the violence Trump's masked agents have unleashed on our streets. All of that they are going to have to vote on.
Will Republicans vote for more affordable housing? Will Republicans require Trump's masked agents to wear
Democrats will ensure that every failed Republican policy--every failed Trump policy--that has driven up costs, unleashed chaos, and aided Trump's corruption will face a vote on the Senate floor today.
And Democrats are going to show just how terrible this bill is from start to finish.
Apparently, Republicans think we cannot afford a single penny to help Americans cover the skyrocketing costs of gasoline, of healthcare, of housing, of food, of energy--you name it--but somehow we can afford to give another $70 billion to Trump's rogue Agencies even though ICE and Border Patrol already have $100 billion cash on hand.
Do you hear that, driver? When you pull up to the gas pump, and it is $4.50, or even higher in many places, ask yourself: Why don't Republicans vote to lower those prices instead of giving ICE and Border Patrol, already discredited, more money when they have $100 billion sitting there?
Let's take stock of what we could buy with the $170 billion Trump's personal police force would have at its disposal if this bill passed.
Instead of shooting Americans dead in the street, the Federal Government could cut a $1,300 check to every household in America to lower gas prices that have been raised so by Trump's unending, it seems, war.
Instead of masked agents breaking down your door in the middle of the night without a warrant, we could fund programs that help Americans keep the heat on in the winter and the AC on in the summer 40 times over.
Instead of dragging law-abiding parents and children into unmarked vehicles, that $170 billion could fund food stamps for nearly 2 years or Head Start for 14 years or childcare assistance for two decades-- things America wants.
America, the contrast is clear: Democrats are fighting for you-- Republicans are kowtowing to Trump and his corruption.
I urge Republicans to vote like the American people are watching-- because they are.
Mr. President, on the Todd Blanche nomination, last night Donald Trump said--do you hear this, everybody?--he will nominate Todd Blanche to be the permanent Attorney General. Yech.
Trump picked Blanche because he is loyal to the President alone--not to the Constitution, not to the rule of law, and certainly not to the American people--and not to the values this country has had for 250 years. It is people like Blanche and Trump who have ripped those values up of honesty and of fairness and of decency that have been the hallmark of America that we are seeing them try to wipe away.
For years, Blanche has been Trump's personal lawyer and attack dog, and that didn't stop when Blanche joined the Department of Justice. Blanche orchestrated Trump's self-dealing MAGA slush fund and granted his boss the audit immunity that gives the President free rein to commit tax fraud.
Blanche has blocked the release of more than half the Epstein files, withholding 3 million--3 million--pages from the public. Maybe Epstein's friend Donald Trump could tell us why Blanche went to such lengths to cover up the files. Blanche also lied to Congress under oath when he claimed he had met with the Epstein survivors--something they said never happened.
Blanche not only shields Trump from the law, he uses the justice system to go after his boss' political enemies, bringing baseless charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center, Jim Comey, and others.
Trump and Blanche are cut from the same crooked cloth.
Democrats are going to oppose Blanche's confirmation as vehemently as we have opposed the slush fund and every other corrupt act Trump and his top fixer have committed. Unless Republicans want to remain complicit in Trump's corruption, they ought to oppose Blanche as well.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator withdraw his request?
I withdraw my request for a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
(Mr. SHEEHY assumed the Chair.)
Mr. President, Americans are pressed to the wall. I have been holding townhalls throughout Oregon. I have held 36 this year--1 in every single county. Most of my Oregon counties are what you would call very red counties. But regardless of whether I am in a blue county or a red county, folks are pretty upset. They are not happy that gas is over 5 bucks a gallon and diesel is over 6 bucks a gallon. They are not pleased that grocery prices are going way up. They are disturbed that rent and housing costs are higher and higher. And we are seeing the impact, with March home foreclosures reaching the highest rate in 6 years. They are aggravated about inflation hitting the highest rate in 3 years at 3.8 percent, and they are downright angry over healthcare costs. They are wondering why the hell the Senate went along and spearheaded an effort to wipe out the tax credits that made healthcare affordable for middle-class families. At the same time, they are hearing about how that Big Beautiful Bill from last year gave massive tax breaks to the richest Americans.
So gas up and diesel up and fertilizer up and groceries up and housing up, and the business of this Chamber under the leadership across the aisle is to give tax breaks to billionaires? What the hell is going on here? That is just crazy. That is not government by and for the people; that is government by and for the powerful.
What does this current reconciliation bill do for those families? Not a damn thing. Not one penny. Not one penny. Not one dime in the couch cushion. Nothing. What does it do? Groceries, gas, housing, healthcare--a big zero--zero like in zilch; zilch like in nothing. Like you all don't matter across America; we only care about the billionaires.
Then it hands another $70 billion to ICE and CBP. ICE and CBP are sitting on $100 billion of unobligated funds. That is like the dragon sitting on the huge mound of diamonds and rubies and gold, guarding it. And we are going to give them more? They are sitting on a 4-year supply of funds right now. And we can't do anything for middle-class families, but we are going to give ICE and CBP more money to sit on. How does that possibly serve America?
Are we doing reforms--reforms that address the secret police practices that they have been executing, terrorizing our communities across the country? Not a single reform is in this bill. Stunning.
If that wasn't bad enough, my Republican colleagues are all in on corruption, all in on taxpayers footing the bill for Trump's gold- plated, billion-dollar ballroom boondoggle, a massive Louis XIV-style building so large it turns the White House into this little, tiny auxiliary dwelling unit next to Trump's massive, self-serving, ego- creating-and-fostering monument to himself.
And the ballroom isn't all. Shouldn't we be doing an anti-corruption bill on the floor right now? We are celebrating America's 250th anniversary--250 years in which Presidents served the people, not themselves--and yet we are having this year be the one where we are seeing corruption on a scale America has never witnessed before.
Remember the big corruption scandals we heard about growing up? Teapot Dome. Remember that Teapot Dome was the name of an area in Wyoming where an Interior Secretary gave noncompete oil and gas leases in exchange for bribes of about $400,000. Well, $400,000--what is that compared to the President giving himself--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators are reminded that rule XIX, paragraph 2, provides that ``No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.''
I thank the Presiding Officer for the reminder, but I think every Senator here has an interest in taking on the corruption infecting America, and I would welcome the partnership of all 100 Senators in this.
What about other corruption scandals we grew up with? How about Jack Abramoff, the man who was characterized as the man who bought Washington--lavish golf trips and lavish gifts and free dinners and exclusive
Well, golf trips? How does that compare to $2 billion--a President giving himself control of $2 billion in a cash-for-cronies scheme? Many people believe the President was going to use that money to help foster disruption of the November election. That is how concerned Americans are about the integrity of the upcoming November election.
But think how small Jack Abramoff's corruption is compared to giving yourself $2 billion.
How about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepting dozens of gifts from folks with issues before the Court, accepting vacations and private jet flights and stays at luxury resorts and a rolling bus that he got a subsidized loan for--a loan that was forgiven in the largest part.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. President, excuse me? What is that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. President, can I ask for 1 more minute to complete my comments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
It boils down to this, folks: We should be helping the people of America, not adding $170 billion more when ICE and CBP are sitting on the money. We should be reforming ICE and CBP. We should be helping Americans with the issues of the cost of gas and groceries and healthcare. We should be taking on this vast corruption, defending the integrity of the United States. That would be a great way--each of these--to celebrate our 250th anniversary, but that is not what we are doing today.
So let's dump this bill where it belongs: in the trash heap.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. President, we will be starting the process here soon.
I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote in relation to Calendar No. 417, S. 2.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, let me tell you sort of why we are here. We are trying to dig out of a hole created by our colleagues on the other side during the Biden administration that was a nightmare for America's national security, for our economic well-being. And the wake of open borders and irrational and irresponsible Biden immigration policy is wide and it is deep.
What have we been able to achieve in less than 2 years? During the Biden years, we had 5,110 people come across illegally every day-- apprehended. That is the ones we apprehended. Where are we at today? Zero. Pretty good.
So what do you get for your money? You go from 5,110 people to zero. What do you get for your money if you are a taxpayer out there about ``is there anything in this for you''? Yes. You are less likely to be a victim of crime that results from out-of-control illegal immigration.
Just in my State alone, in April 2026, a 12-year-old boy and a 9- year-old boy from Spartanburg were killed by an illegal immigrant in a drunk-driving car crash; 156 pounds of fentanyl that originated in Mexico smuggled across the southern border--the largest seizure in South Carolina history and enough to kill 36 million people. Hopefully, that will be harder to do in the future.
In June 2025, 72 illegal aliens at a Charleston nightclub run by a member of a cartel were arrested.
A University of South Carolina student, 21-year-old Nathaniel Baker-- a student--was killed in a hit-and-run crash by an illegal alien.
A mother of two was murdered in Rock Hill by a group of six illegal immigrants.
In February 2025, the DEA arrested four suspects from Sumter involved in money laundering for two Mexican cartels.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
What are we doing here? We are going to be spending $69.5 billion to accomplish two things: to fully fund the Border Patrol and ICE through the end of President Trump's term.
Why are we here? Through the normal appropriations process, Democrats would not give the Border Patrol or ICE one dime. We had reforms, we had agreement, and it just didn't work. We tried to reach common ground through Senator Britt and Senator Collins--pretty well known for trying to reach a deal.
We were unable to get a deal because you rejected reforms. You are more worried about the lunatic base than you are protecting people from rampant crime and drugs pouring into our country.
So most Americans are with us, not with you. Most Americans want to stop the madness. Most Americans want a secure border and want an immigration system that is rational. They want ICE to go after people that shouldn't be here illegally. And can we reform ICE? Yes.
So you are going to get $38.6 billion to ICE so they can do their job, train new agents, and have $108.5 million allocated to a fund for child exploitation investigations. One of the great crimes associated with illegal immigration is that kids are smuggled into this country for child sex rings. And we are going to have $108 million to beef that up; $22 billion for the Customs and Border Patrol to hire new people, to modernize the system; $3.5 billion for improvements to border security, including air and marine operations, efforts to combat trafficking; $5 billion for DHS to ensure the Agency has sufficient funding to carry out its needs.
What you get is a secure border versus a broken border. What you get is ICE being able to do its job instead of being closed for business.
To my Democratic colleagues, you are on the wrong side of this issue. You will find out in November.
What we are doing has to be done. I hate that we are having to use reconciliation to do this, but we have no other choice. Plenty of us were willing to work with the appropriations process to reform Border Patrol and ICE, but that didn't work.
So we are left with the task of doing nothing or doing something. Through reconciliation, we can do something, and we are going to do it.
We are going to fund the Border Patrol and ICE at $69.5 billion. That will get us what we need to finish out President Trump's term. So this is one less thing America has to worry about it.
If you don't see threats that stream to our national security increasing, you are deaf, dumb, and blind. The threats to our country are going up exponentially, not down.
Is now really the time to shut down the Border Patrol, given what is coming out of the Middle East? Is now really the time to shut down the Border Patrol to let more drugs into our country?
Is now really the time to close ICE for business and have nobody out there rounding up some of the bad guys that need to be rounded up and taken out of our country?
Really, we are having to fix a problem that has been created because our Democratic colleagues have lost their way, in my view, as to what it takes to make America secure.
It takes controlling one's border. It takes having law enforcement Agencies that can function to control illegal immigration to have a sovereign nation.
If we don't do what we are doing today, then the Border Patrol and ICE would continue to go without money.
People are being laid off. Systems to protect us from Ebola and other pandemics coming to our country will be shut down.
Is now the time--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Is now the time to shut down your border? No. Now is the time to give the money they need to finish the job that is so important to the rest of us. I look forward to this debate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all debate time is expired.
The minority leader.
Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The motion to commit is as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes for debate equally divided.
The minority leader.
Mr. President, my very first amendment offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump's $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks by outlawing this criminal, crony, cash-back program permanently?
America has never seen a more clear-cut case of corruption. America has never seen a more clear-cut case of corruption than Donald Trump's slush fund: Trump sues Trump. Trump settles with Trump. Trump gives Trump Americans' taxpayer dollars.
Trump won't give Americans a penny to help offset the skyrocketing costs he brought on our country, but he is more than happy to charge them nearly $2 billion to line the pockets of his family, his billionaire friends, and the criminals who mauled police officers on January 6.
If Republicans truly oppose this corruption, then prove it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Support my amendment and ban the slush fund permanently by law.
Instead, Republicans are trusting the word of Todd Blanche, who built a career on lying--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER.--that the administration will just drop the slush fund.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Trump hasn't even pretended to promise that the slush fund is done. Instead, Trump said of the slush fund:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. President, you know, honestly, I didn't hear a word of what the minority leader said because I didn't hear him address what we are here to do. We are here to complete our oath of office, which is to provide security and safety for the American people.
I want to speak directly to the Border Patrol agents and the people who work in law enforcement that wake up every day to protect us: We will do our jobs today. We will fund your paychecks.
They refuse to do it. They are going to play so many games over the next 8, 9, 10 hours. Bring it on, because what we will do today is we will make certain that communities are safe in this country.
We are going to fund immigration enforcement and Border Patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
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.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed an additional 30 seconds to conclude my remarks, which we traditionally always give that courtesy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I know my colleagues are afraid to hear the truth and that is why they objected, when it is almost never--there is never an objection when the leaders speak.
But let me finish my remarks.
Republicans are trusting the word of Todd Blanche, who built a career on lying, that the administration will just drop the slush fund.
Trump hasn't even pretended to promise that the slush fund is done. Instead, here is what Trump said of the slush fund:
Republican Senators need to stop playing dumb. They need to listen to the truth and stop trusting these fools, like Todd Blanche, who lies to the American people repeatedly.
Do we believe--do any of us believe--that Donald Trump, who has lied to us day in and day out, will be able to resist getting his sticky fingers in the slush fund, when it would benefit himself and his family? No way.
For something as corrupt as this slush fund, toothless guardrails, meek reforms, and empty promises won't cut it. We need to outlaw it permanently.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the Schumer motion to commit.
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.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5452 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 amendment is as follows:
Mr. President, this amendment prohibits Federal funds from being used to establish, administer, defend, or pay claims to the so-called anti-weaponization fund.
We heard over the last 48 hours that the Acting Attorney General said that this fund is not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is. And rather than allow those funds to be directed toward settlement-related payments, the amendment redirects resources to the Fraud Division for DOJ to the amount of about $1.7 billion.
Ladies and gentlemen, understand that every single person in the United States today who feels like they have been the victim of vindictive prosecution already has statutory methods for getting restitution.
This bill is unpopular. This administration has said they are not moving forward with it. This is an opportunity for us to put it to bed and to also fund the Fraud Division, which I think is very important, and I ask for support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, I applaud my colleague from North Carolina and other Members on the other side of the aisle who wish to end the massive corruption of the so-called anti-weaponization fund, better known as cash for--well, folks who are--``cash for cronies'' would be a good name for it.
But, listen, taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under the control of the Attorney General is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.
We have already seen how the administration has an enemies list, how inclined this Attorney General is to use his resources and his offices to go after those enemies, and this is money that lets him do it on a massive scale.
So no cash for cronies and no slush fund to have the President and his Attorney General go after their political enemies.
Please oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. President, before I make a point of order, I want to let every American know that if you believe you were the victim of a weaponization of the government and your life was turned upside down, there is a process available to you called the Federal Tort Claims Act. And I may use it myself because I feel like I am in your boat. I did nothing wrong but had my life turned upside down.
As to this amendment, the pending amendment would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the Judiciary Committee section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority or outlays. Therefore, I raise a point of order under the measure pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive all points of order for the purposes of the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive.
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.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 15, nays 84, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 15, the nays are 54.
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.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments or motions be the next in order: Merkley No. 5512 and Reed No. 5514.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5512 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative executive read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
Mr. President, colleagues, Americans love our iconic monuments, from the Lincoln Monument to the White House. And major changes to these beloved places are done in accordance with a congressional authorization. They are not done without one.
And, yet, we now have a situation where there is a plan to construct a billion-dollar ballroom, gold-plated, without any action by Congress to authorize it.
So some may love that ballroom, and some--including myself--well, we think it is a terrible idea to overshadow the White House with a monument appropriate to Louis XIV. But that is not the point right now. The point is there is no congressional authorization.
So this amendment is very simple. It says that congressional authorization is needed to proceed. All of us here have a responsibility to follow the power-of-the-purse responsibility in the Constitution. Let's all support the idea that it must proceed--if it is to proceed--with a congressional authorization.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. President, there is no money in this bill for a ballroom. In addition, the pending amendment contains matters not within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and is therefore a poison pill that would prevent the Senate from funding border security.
Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)1(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, because it is so important that we exercise our constitutional power of the purse, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. MERKLEY.--and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive the point of order for the purposes of the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 46.
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 Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, on rollcall vote 139, I voted nay, my intention was to vote yea; therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5514 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 amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide funding for the HOME Investment Partnerships
Mr. President, I offer amendment No. 5514, which would build and preserve 2.1 million homes nationwide.
The Trump administration wants to give ICE and DHS another blank check--no reforms after the shootings of two Americans, no accountability for frittering away taxpayer money; just more money and no questions.
There are so many better things we can do with this money. One of them is to build affordable housing in every State in the country.
My amendment would take $62 billion that ICE and DHS don't even need and put it toward the production and rehabilitation of 2.1 million units of new housing for American families across this country.
We must do this. Housing affects every State in this Union. We can do something positive because we need more housing for the American people.
I would ask for the yeas and nays and a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The bill before us is not about funding housing programs at HUD. The bill, unlike amendment No. 5514, is about funding our ICE agents and Border Patrol. You wouldn't know it based on what the other side is talking about.
Democrats are desperate--desperate--to distract Americans from the fact that they have, once again, become the party of ``defunding the police and border security.''
The American people see right through this. Democrats are making our communities less safe and our homeland less secure. Enough is enough you-all.
Because of Democrats' obstruction, we will fully fund ICE and Border Patrol without them.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. And, by the way, the pending amendment contains a matter that is within the Banking jurisdiction and thus extraneous; therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Just say no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive all points of order for the purposes of the pending measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 53.
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 majority leader.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments or motions be the next in order: Ossoff motion to commit, Hassan 5535, and Warner 5556.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The motion is as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. President, instead of slush funds for criminals and corrupt ballrooms, let's do something useful. Let's ban insurance companies from denying or delaying medically necessary healthcare to Americans.
My constituent Ellen lives in Atlanta, and a few years ago, she was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a rare form of blood cancer. But not only did Ellen have to battle cancer, she had to battle her insurance company too.
Ms. Ellen told me ``for a corporation to have a finger on the button of your life is ridiculous. They have their minds on profit margins, I just want to be healthy and alive.''
Thankfully, Ellen's cancer is now in remission, but across America insurance companies continue to deny and delay medically necessary healthcare. A vote against this motion is a vote to allow insurance companies to continue denying needed healthcare to the American people.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, Senator Ossoff's motion to commit would require an amendment to the False Claims Act.
In 1986, I authored the False Claims Act, and for decades, I have worked to successfully strengthen the law. The Ossoff issue is an issue worthy of review; however, a motion to commit isn't the right way to do it.
The False Claims Act is implicated when a company charges the government for healthcare it didn't render.
The plain text of the motion doesn't appear to cover that scope. The Justice Department already performs investigations into healthcare insurance fraud.
The Senate also confirmed a new Assistant Attorney General to fight fraud. Further, sending the reconciliation bill back to the Judiciary Committee would essentially kill it.
Remember, the False Claims Act has brought $87 billion of ill-gotten money back into the Federal Treasury, and I am going to do all I can to protect it.
So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Ossoff motion.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time remaining.
The question occurs on agreeing to the Ossoff motion to commit.
Mr. President, 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.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``nay.''
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5535 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
Mr. President, as families struggle with high costs, we should be focused on making life more affordable for American families, starting with housing.
My amendment is straightforward. It does not take funding from other programs; it simply expands the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, sending more money to all 50 States to help build 7 million new, high- quality homes nationwide. That means 25,000 new homes in my home State of New Hampshire, 60,000 new homes in Iowa, and 135,000 in Colorado. Building these homes will help address our housing shortage and help make housing more affordable for all Americans.
Now is the time to listen to the American people and lower costs for families.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The bill before us is not about housing programs at HUD; the bill, unlike amendment No. 5535, is about funding our ICE agents and our Border Patrol and keeping our country safe.
Democrats are desperate to distract Americans from the fact that they have once again become the party of defunding the police and border security. The American people see right through it. Democrats are making our communities less safe and our homeland less secure. Enough is enough. Because of Democrats' obstruction, we will fully fund ICE and Border Patrol without their help.
The pending amendment contains matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee and thus extraneous; therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. President, this amendment does not take any funding away from any other Department or Agency. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution disciplines that apply, I move to waive all points of order for the purposes of the pending measure.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
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 bill clerk called the roll.
The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst).
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5556 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
On page S2553, June 4, 2026, third column, the following appears: The Senator from Virginia [ Mr. WARNER] proposes an amendment numbered 5556.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The Senator from Virginia [ Mr. WARNER] proposes an amendment numbered 5556 to amendment No. 5453.
The amendment is as follows:
On page S2554, June 4, 2026, first column, the following appears: (Purpose: To prohibit an individual from acting as Director of National Intelligence if such individual is simultaneously service as the head of any other Federal department or agency.)
The online Record has been corrected to read: (Purpose: To prohibit an individual from acting as Director of National Intelligence if such individual is simultaneously serving as the head of any other Federal department or agency.)
Mr. President, earlier this week, President Trump chose, not as mortgage lender but as the Nation's top intelligence official, an individual who, even in the mortgage job, has shown a willingness to pursue political retribution.
Now, giving him the keys to the 18 intelligence Agencies that the Director of National Intelligence oversees would be a disaster.
Let's be clear, the statute creating the DNI's position is clear: This individual ``shall have extensive national security expertise.''
Mr. Pulte has no national security expertise--none. We are not even sure if he has got a basic security clearance.
And the President is saying: As a matter of fact, this guy can do his job at the FHFA and do his job as Director of National Intelligence.
Now, I am going to ask my friends to help me on this. I do want to compliment my friend from Arkansas because we have been working very successfully together on section 702.
My amendment is simple: An individual who heads another Department or Agency should not also be Acting DNI.
This role is too important to be filled by a part-time, unqualified individual. And if only half of the Republicans who have expressed private concerns on this will vote, we will get way over 60.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. President, let me say that I respect the vice chairman, and I appreciate our work together on the Intelligence Committee. In particular, I thank the vice chairman for his cooperation on last year's Intelligence Authorization Act to reduce the sprawling bureaucracy at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
We have more to come in this year's bill too. The end result will be an intelligence community that is less bureaucratic, more nimble, and more focused on protecting our Nation, not pushing paper.
But this legislation has nothing to do with intelligence. Today, we are putting an end to the minority leader's unprecedented obstruction, securing our border, and enforcing our immigration laws.
The Democrats have pursued their ``defund the police'' ambitions for nearly a year, starving our immigration officers of badly needed support. So we are not just funding those brave officers for the end of this year but the end of the President's term.
It is time to protect our borders, enforce our laws, and get on to other business. This amendment would only further delay matters, and it contains matter that is within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee and is thus extraneous.
Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive all points of order for the purpose of the pending measure and ask only half my Republican friends who are concerned about this to vote with me.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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.
The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst).
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
The Senator from South Carolina.
(Purpose: To ensure only citizens are registered to vote in elections for Federal office, and to require voters to provide photo identification, and for other purposes.)
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5779, and I ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. President, if you have heard of the SAVE America Act, we are about to vote on it.
Senator Schmitt and Senator Lee, this is your idea, blessed by President Trump.
The Senate is going to vote in a minute on several things.
We say you should have a photo ID before you vote to make sure we have voter integrity. We say, over here, you have to be a citizen before you vote. We say, over here, biological males should not be playing girls' sports. We say, over here, that a minor should not be allowed to transition their sex. If you can't smoke as a minor, that makes sense to me.
So, to the medical community, you should not be performing sex changes on minors. They should wait until they are old enough to make that decision.
That is what we say. All you-all are going to oppose it.
If you don't want a photo ID, you are probably into cheating. There is no other reason to say you don't have to have an ID. It just makes cheating easier. Who wants a noncitizen voting in our elections? If you are against that, that makes me wonder.
Biological males playing girls' sports is not good for anybody, and a minor should not be allowed to transition their sex. That is the biggest change you could make in your entire life. You shouldn't be allowed to do that as a minor.
This is what we say.
What do you say?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, yes, I rise in opposition to this Graham amendment.
I will remind us, colleagues, that just over a month ago, a similar proposal was defeated on a bipartisan basis.
I will repeat for the umpteenth time: Every study, every audit, every report shows that there is no massive voter fraud across America. Current safeguards are working--and, yes, it is already unlawful for noncitizens to vote in the United States.
What this amendment does is to smear earlier attempts to put through the President's priorities to try to take over elections and to ban vote by mail.
While we are at it--while they are at it--attacking trans folks during Pride Month? That is pretty damned offensive.
So, for all of the same reasons we killed prior legislative efforts, I say we vote down this amendment.
Mr. President, in so doing, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates the Byrd rule, section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. President, my friends are about to vote down four very commonsense ideas, and we will talk about this in November during the election.
Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution disciplines that apply, I move to waive all points of order for the purpose of the pending measure.
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.
The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst).
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:
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 majority leader.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments or motions be the next in order: Hickenlooper, 5501; Kim, 5545.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5501 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 amendment is as follows:
Mr. President, this week, former Colorado county clerk Tina Peters was released from prison after serving less than a quarter of her sentence for her role in trying to illegally corrupt Colorado's free and fair elections. I don't believe she deserved clemency, but wherever you stand on her release, taxpayers should never be forced to pay people who illegally undermine our elections.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what this administration's slush fund is for. They believe people like Tina Peters and the January 6 rioters should get cash payouts while American families struggle to afford groceries, housing, and healthcare. The administration now says the fund is dead. We should not believe them.
My amendment prohibits the Federal Government from distributing taxpayer dollars to any individual convicted of election-related crimes. This vote should be 100 to zip because those who attack our democracy are not victims; they are criminals. Election criminals like Tina Peters do not deserve pardons, and they absolutely sure as damnation don't deserve a dime of your taxpayer dollars.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. President, we have gone 110 days with Border Patrol and ICE being defunded by the Democrats. The question I ask is, What do they want? Do they want to see more deaths?
In 2025 alone, in my home State, 41 Tennesseans died at the hands of illegal immigrants.
More fentanyl overdoses, is that what you want? I took a call from a father whose son didn't wake up on Thanksgiving morning because he got fentanyl into his system. I don't want to ever take a call like that again.
And do you want more national security risks? Think about it. Under the Biden administration, 1,500 Iranians were apprehended at the southern border, and 700 of them were admitted into the United States. We don't know where they are. And 24,000 Chinese nationals in 1 year were encountered at the southern border under Joe Biden. Is that what you want?
No. Here is what they want: They want to distract us from the fact that every Democrat is about to go out and vote to defund ICE, to defund law enforcement, and to keep our border unsecured.
Therefore, the pending amendment contains matters not within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and thus is extraneous. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. President, I encourage everyone to vote yes for this. We are trying to make sure slush fund dollars and taxpayer money don't go to people who break the law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution disciplines that apply, I move to waive all points of order for the purposes of the pending measure.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
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 bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst).
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 47.
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 New Jersey.
Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 5545 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
Madam President, I met a man at Delaney Hall ICE detention facility. I found him in the medical isolation room. He was in a wheelchair due to a serious medical condition that causes real pain from skeletomuscular breakdown.
He should have been in a hospital, but, instead, he was isolated in that cramped room for 5 months. Only after he and other detainees protested and got the Nation's attention was he able to get released this week from Delaney.
I wish I could tell you that his case was isolated. I wish I could tell you that there were no other problems, but there are many of these types of stories at Delaney Hall.
This amendment would have an audit of conditions at Delaney and require the for-profit company GEO Group, which is getting nearly a billion-dollar contract for that facility, to fix the problems or risk not getting any taxpayer dollars.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Madam President, the DHS funding bill that we just passed in April included $20 million in funding for defense facilities' inspections.
For months, Republicans have negotiated with Democrats to fund border security and immigration enforcement. Democrats walked away from these negotiations. Now they want to insist on terms for a bill they will not vote for.
Republicans are doing the responsible thing. We are funding our law enforcement officers and making sure our border remains secure. This amendment is a distraction from paying our Border Patrol and a poison pill to the bill.
The pending amendment would cause the underlying bill to exceed the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority or outlays.
Therefore, I raise a point of order against this amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution disciplines that apply, I move to waive all points of order for the purpose of the pending measure. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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.
I announce that the Sentor from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
(Mr. BUDD assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 53.
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 majority leader.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments or motions be the next in order: Warnock, a motion to commit, and Sanders No. 5451.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent for Members to have an opportunity to speak here to acknowledge a very important landmark here in the U.S. Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Madam President, 10,000 votes. Not only that--10,000 consecutive votes. That is the milestone Maine Senator Susan Collins will hit today--10,000 consecutive votes here in the U.S. Senate.
For nearly 30 years, Susan Collins has shown up for Mainers, has ensured that they are represented in every single vote the Senate takes, no matter what--not just the headline-making votes, every vote without fail.
Susan takes pride in the milestones she has achieved not because of any desire to have her name in the history books but because to her these votes are a tangible marker of the goal she has set for herself since she came to the U.S. Senate, and that is ensuring that Mainers always have a voice. In her own words:
Well, she has delivered on that commitment--30 years of serving the people of Maine, and Susan Collins has never missed a chance to represent them.
So, Susan, congratulations on this incredible milestone and thank you--thank you--for your example of service.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
I will join my colleague and all of my colleagues in congratulating Susan Collins, who will cast her 10,000th consecutive rollcall vote in a few moments.
No matter what has been going on in the world or in her life, Senator Collins has never--never--missed a vote in her entire Senate career. This is truly a remarkable milestone. Many of us try hard to make every vote; Senator Collins has actually done it 10,000 times in a row.
Senator Collins and I belong to different parties and do not always see eye to eye, but 10,000 consecutive rollcall votes is an extraordinary streak by any measure, and I congratulate her on reaching it.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Madam President, I want to join in extending my heartfelt congratulations to my colleague and friend Senator Collins as she marks this incredible milestone--the first Senator in America's history to have cast 10,000 consecutive votes in the U.S. Senate.
It is an impressive demonstration of endurance and determination, and I salute you for it.
We came to the Senate the same day, and so I asked my staff to check how many votes I had cast. It turns out, somewhere along the way, I have been denied over 100 opportunities to vote that Senator Collins had. I call on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to look into this. I can't imagine what happened here.
But this much I am sure: This is a true record, and it is one that reflects her commitment to public service and, in my case, friendship. We have worked together in many different capacities.
I remember the days after 9/11 when your extraordinary leadership with Senator Lieberman, if I am not mistaken, led to the complete reform of the intelligence Agencies in our Nation. It was a dynamic legislative achievement, and I have talked to you about it many times.
Over the years, we have worked together on many issues. We invited one another to our home States for town meetings. I don't know what a nor'easter is, but I can tell you that it was the damnedest rainstorm I have ever been through when I went to Maine. I won't forget it.
But our friendship is sound, and my admiration for your achievement is one that is on the Record for all to witness.
Congratulations.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Madam President, I want to rise to also congratulate my colleague on a truly remarkable achievement that reflects her character and dedication to the people of this country.
I have to tell a very short story. She and I were together at a presentation once in Maine, sitting next to one another, and I got my report of how many times I had voted that session. It was 99.2. And I very proudly turned to Senator Collins and said:
Her response was:
And what she has achieved by this record is really remarkable. Our State is not one where the weather is always favorable and it is always easy to get here. And to have maneuvered through bad storms, snowstorms, nor'easters, and to be here for every single vote since the first day she set foot in this Chamber is a truly remarkable achievement. And I want to add my voice to those that have congratulated her and recognized her tonight for this.
Thank you. Thank you, Senator Collins.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Madam President, I just want to thank my colleagues for their kind comments and for being on the floor on an occasion which means so much to me.
Growing up in northern Maine in Aroostook County, I learned the values of hard work, perseverance, and keeping your commitments. Mainers are known for their work ethic, and I have strived to bring those values here to my work representing them in the U.S. Senate. It is such an honor, and I am so grateful for the support of my colleagues. Thank you so much.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Madam President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:
Madam President, my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to falsely argue that their last reconciliation bill did not cut Medicaid. But now, nearly 1 year after this monstrosity passed--I call it the ``One Big Ugly Bill''--millions of Americans, including children, are losing health insurance as they ram through another partisan bill that does nothing to make healthcare more affordable.
Just a few weeks ago, a report found that 1.75 million fewer kids were enrolled in Medicaid this year compared to last year. And earlier this week, the Trump administration released cruel guidance to States on how to implement the new Medicaid redtape requirements. In a word, they are making it harder for sick and disabled Americans to access healthcare.
Since Republicans refuse to reverse these harmful cuts, my amendment simply asks for transparency; that is it--the release of basic information on how this new redtape will restrict access to healthcare. If my colleagues have nothing to hide, they should have no problem with transparency to reveal the scale of coverage lost.
We have disagreements on this issue, but at least we ought to have the facts. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Madam President, the motion is right here. You know what words are not in here? Immigration enforcement and border protection.
We have been sitting here for almost 12 hours listening to nonsense after nonsense. You have refused to fund basic law enforcement for months. I was just in Latin America where vetted units have not gotten paid since February. Our entire immigration system in Latin America that goes after drug traffickers is collapsing because of unprecedented obstruction by Democrats.
I have had enough. It is time to vote to fund Border Patrol and ICE. This motion has nothing to do with that. I urge all my colleagues to vote no and send a message. And we will stay here so that Susan Collins can get to 20,000 votes if it takes it to fund ICE and Border Patrol.
So you guys go for it. I am ready to lock in. Let's go.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. President, could we have some order in the Chamber, please.
I call up my amendment No. 5451 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
On page S2558, June 4, 2026, second column, the following appears: The Senator from Vermont [Mr. SANDERS] proposes an amendment numbered 5451.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The Senator from Vermont [Mr. SANDERS] proposes an amendment numbered 5451 to amendment No. 5453.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To place reasonable limits on contributions to Super PACs
Mr. President, the American campaign finance system is not only broken, it is corrupt.
It allows billionaires to undermine our democracy and buy elections through their super PACs, and the American people want that to change.
Why are we the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to all? Why do we have an economy in which the top 1 percent gets richer and richer while 60 percent of our people live paycheck to paycheck? Why do we have a tax system in which billionaires are often paying an effective tax rate lower than truckdrivers or nurses?
And I think we all know the answer. When Members of Congress stand up for working families and take on oligarchs, they will face millions and millions of dollars of ugly 30-second ads from billionaire-funded super PACs, from the AI industry, from crypto, from AIPAC, from the military industrial complex, and from other special interests.
Let's get billionaire-funded super PACs out of our elections.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Let's support democracy and pass this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. President, once again, Democrats have an amendment that does not mention the words ``border security,'' that has nothing to do with the topic on the floor today, but there is also an old adage that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.
The largest super PAC in America in 2024 was Future Forward. That was Kamala Harris' super PAC. Right behind that, you have the Senate Majority PAC. That is the PAC--Kamala Harris' had $559 million, and the Senate Majority PAC helping elect Senate
I will also note, at every Congress, I have introduced a bill called the SuperPAC Elimination Act that allows unlimited individual contributions directly to campaigns and requires immediate 24-hour disclosure. Not a single Democrat has ever been willing to join with me in that.
The pending amendment No. 5451 contains matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee and, thus, is extraneous. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution disciplines that apply, I move to waive all points of order for purposes of the pending measure.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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 bill clerk called the roll.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 53, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are 53.
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 majority whip.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments or motions be next in order: Baldwin No. 5485, then Booker No. 5803, Lee No. 5804, Durbin No. 5806.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 5485, 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 amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To redirect funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to the Child Care and Development Block Grant program)
Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that will actually help millions of families just trying to make ends meet.
We all know the childcare crisis doesn't see State or political lines. In rural, urban, and suburban communities, I hear from families making hard choices just to ensure their kids have a safe place to be when they are at work.
And it is not just families who are hurting. I hear from businesses whose employees are leaving because someone has to stay home with the kids. When childcare is not accessible, our entire economy suffers.
While my colleagues work to cut a $70 billion check for ICE and Border Patrol, my amendment would redirect just some of that funding to ensure millions of American families have childcare.
Instead of giving a blank check to rogue ICE agents who have killed two American citizens, this would lower costs for families and give more children a strong start.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. President, it has been a long day. I think it is important for us to maybe take a step back at what we are here to do.
The Senator, my colleague on the Democrat side, mentioned dead Americans, so I thought it would be appropriate to mention some dead Americans: Laken Riley killed while jogging by an illegal from Venezuela; Rachel Morin, a mother of five from Maryland killed and raped by an El Salvadoran here illegally; Jocelyn Nungaray sexual assaulted and strangled by two Venezuelan men that were here illegally; Kayla Hamilton murdered by an MS-13 gang member; Ivory Smith.
I could go on. The names are endless. What we are here to do is fund ICE and Border Patrol to make certain that not another American citizen dies at the hands of an illegal.
And the pending amendment contains a matter which is not even within the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee; therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time is remaining, Senator.
Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive all points of order for the purposes of the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
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 executive clerk called the roll.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 53.
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 New Jersey.
I call up my amendment No. 5803 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that would fund the independent Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman. I trust independent offices to provide oversight.
The Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman would conduct random inspections of detention facilities, receive and investigate complaints from detainees, and make recommendations for improvement.
The office was funded by us in a bipartisan appropriations bill each year since 2019, but it was unilaterally shut down by Donald Trump. My amendment would reopen the office, giving it full funding, and give it teeth to provide oversight of private corporations like the GEO Group which taxpayers are giving over a billion dollars to run our immigration system.
I believe it needs oversight and accountability; that is the job of Congress. In Newark, NJ, right now what is happening at Delaney Hall, an immigration detention center owned by GEO Group, is a moral stain on our Nation. They are providing inadequate access to medical care, substandard food, no ability to communicate with their families. There should be independent eyes looking at that and investigating it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Thank you very much. I urge my colleagues to vote for independence, oversight, and accountability.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. President, the DHS funding bill we passed in April included $257 million for the inspector general and $20 million specifically for detention facility inspections.
Republicans are doing the responsible thing today; we are funding our law enforcement officers and making sure our borders remain secure.
This amendment will cause the underlying bill to exceed the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority for ICE and is a poison pill for this bill.
Therefore, I raise a point of order against this amendment, pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Mr. President, it might surprise you, despite the words of my colleague, that pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution discipline, everything that applies, I move to waive all my good colleague's points of order for the purposes of the pending measure.
And I ask for the yeas and nays.
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 legislative clerk called the roll.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
(Purpose: To ensure only citizens are registered to vote in elections for Federal office, and to require voters to provide photo identification.)
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5804 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. President, our elections need to be characterized by two things: We need to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. And we need to do that by making sure that people establish their citizenship and, therefore, their eligibility to vote when they register and that they show who they are when they show up on election day.
This isn't hard. This isn't unusual. Every country in the entire world--countries you are familiar with, countries you are not; countries as wide ranging as Mexico, Brazil, India, Argentina, Peru, Botswana, Burundi--
We do not want to leave this amount of power sitting on the table so that foreign powers can send forth people who are not eligible to vote in this country and vote anyway.
We need to do this. The House of Representatives has passed the SAVE America Act. We now have the opportunity to vote on that same bill, the SAVE America Act, here.
This bill will disenfranchise no one. It will make us all more free. It will protect the sanctity, the dignity of your vote. When we allow people who are not allowed to vote to vote we rob Americans of their vote.
Let's make it easy to vote, hard to cheat. Let's pass this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, it is a deja vu all over again. Not only did this Senate, on a bipartisan basis, reject similar measures legislatively just a few weeks ago, but just a few hours ago, this Senate rejected a similar amendment on a bipartisan basis.
The Senator from Utah suggested we ought to be making it easier to vote and harder to cheat. We do make it harder to cheat. It is unlawful for noncitizens to vote in our elections. Every study, every audit, every report shows that voter fraud is exceedingly rare. There is simply no evidence of massive voter fraud.
But this measure doesn't make it easier to vote. You know, this and other measures that would eliminate vote-by-mail and make voter registration drives unlawful are not enabling civic participation. It is making it harder. It is wrong-headed.
We defeated it before. We should defeat it again. Please vote no on this measure.
And, therefore, Mr. 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 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. President, first of all, the Department of Homeland Security has found tens of thousands of registered noncitizens in the United States.
Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all provisions of the applicable budget resolutions. I move to waive all applicable sections of the act and all applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment.
And I ask for the yeas and nays.
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.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, and 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.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5806 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 amendment is as follows:
applications and related employment authorization documents and to
prohibit the use of funds to arrest, detain, deport, or remove DACA
Mr. President, this amendment addresses a group of people that we are all familiar with: the DACA recipients. We will all recall that the DACA recipients came to the United States as infants, toddlers, and children.
To qualify for DACA, they have to register every 2 years and pay a $600 fee, go through a complete criminal background check before they can be approved. If they violate the terms of the background check at any time, they are disqualified from DACA.
What they are looking for is a job, to legally work in the United States and not be deported and to pay taxes. They get no special benefits for being on DACA--no special government benefits.
This language basically says the DACA recipients will be protected from arrest and detention and removal. That is what the amendment does.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. President, first of all, this amendment, as you know, has no budgetary impact. You know that. You know it doesn't produce a change in outlays and revenues. Yet why do you guys continue to put up amendment after amendment when you know we are here to fund ICE and Border Patrol?
If you want to talk about Hispanic children, let's talk about Hispanic children. I am one. Do you know how many thousands of Hispanic children died during the Biden years trying to get to the U.S. border? Thousands. Do you know how many Hispanic children Biden lost track of? Three hundred-plus thousand. So don't give me the crocodile tears about what you guys want to do. You are making this country more dangerous by sitting here for 14 hours now not funding ICE and Border Patrol. Let's get to the business at hand and end this charade.
I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against section 204(b) of the amendment--for the 19th time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 seconds.
Mr. President, I would just say, remember, these DACA children who were brought here as children to the United States have gone through a criminal background check, paid their fees, and done everything they have been asked to do. To categorize them as dangerous to this country is to ignore the obvious.
Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive all points of order for the purposes of the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
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 bill clerk called the roll.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 51.
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 provision is stricken.
The Senator from Illinois.
And I would ask he be allowed to speak without interruption, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 5806) was withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following amendments and motions be the next in order: Wyden motion to commit, Hirono 5506.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, I ask further reading of the motion be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:
Mr. President, there is nothing in this budget bill that is as important as holding down prescription drug costs for Americans. Meanwhile, Donald Trump says that he signed a deal with 17 pharmaceutical companies to get, and I quote here ``the lowest priced drugs in the world.''
Now, Trump wants Congress to put his deals into black letter law sight unseen.
My amendment requires the administration to publicly disclose the details on these Trump deals, and to find out what the savings are, and also to protect trade secrets and confidential information.
The Trump prescription drug deals are shrouded in secrecy. If they are what Donald Trump claims, there should be nothing to hide. This amendment gives Congress and the public the specifics on these drug deals once and for all. Patients, families, and taxpayers deserve nothing less.
I urge Senators to vote for this proposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. President, this proposal has nothing to do with what we are discussing here this evening. For months, the Democrats have refused to fund law enforcement activities in this Nation, things we need to keep our borders secure and to keep our communities safe.
They have blocked it month after month after month after month, and in the face of this unprecedented obstruction, Republicans are here tonight past the hour of midnight doing the responsible thing: providing the funding on our own because the Democrats are not able or willing to help in any way.
This amendment is a political ploy that is going to jeopardize the privilege, kill this bill, and leave the brave men and women who protect us without pay, without resources.
I am, therefore, going to vote against and urge my colleagues to vote no on this proposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, very briefly--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
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 roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:
(Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5506, and I ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To transfer amounts for youth mentoring programs of the
Mr. President, rather than handing the administration another blank check for ICE, we should be investing in our future. Youth membership programs help prepare young people for the future while also helping parents of working and middle-class families who rely on these programs--programs provided through organizations like the Boys & Girls Clubs of America and Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America. This is especially true at a time when these families are struggling under the skyrocketing costs due to the President's illegal tariffs and illegal war. The DOJ's youth mentoring programs provided $105 million to support afterschool programs in fiscal year 2026.
My amendment with Senator Van Hollen would double the funding for these programs over the next 4 years, expanding opportunities for at least 18,000 more students between fiscal year 2026 and fiscal year 2029.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and investing in children and families across our country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. President, now here we are. Month after month after month, Democrats have refused to fund law enforcement activities that keep our borders secure and that keep our communities safe. In the face of unbelievable and unprecedented obstruction, Republicans are doing the responsible thing tonight. We are providing the funding on our own.
This amendment that we have just heard introduced is another political ploy, and it is designed to kill the bill. It will leave the brave men and women who protect us without pay and without the resources they need to do their jobs. I am, therefore, going to vote no, and I urge each of my colleagues to do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
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 executive clerk called the roll.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
The amendment (No. 5506) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5763 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 amendment is as follows:
Mr. President, when my Republican colleagues passed President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, last year, they exploded the deficit spending $4 trillion to give tax cuts to billionaires, and there are still billions of dollars from that bill that haven't even been spent, while today my Republican colleagues are trying to spend an additional $70 billion on top of that without any accountability.
This level of unchecked spending is completely irresponsible. Our national debt continues to rise, and, just last month, the size of our debt surpassed the size of our economy.
If we don't take action to address this reckless spending and bring additional revenue, our country will continue barreling down this fiscally unsustainable path to face damaging economic, fiscal, and geopolitical consequences.
This amendment is very simple. It would simply return $30 billion of unspent funds from the One Big Beautiful Bill to the U.S. Treasury to reduce our national deficit.
And I would urge that my colleagues not just talk about reducing the deficit. Let's actually reduce the deficit today and go on the record and vote for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. President, this amendment actually just cuts off funding to ICE and CBP. It all sounds good to say, ``We are going to reduce the deficit,'' but here is how they are reducing the deficit: opening the border, not funding ICE, not funding CBP.
The funding that we are actually trying to get today is the funding just for ICE and CBP for the next 3 years, because we have been in debate for months about just trying to fund Federal law enforcement to be able to fund the border security that we have got or security at our ports of entry.
My colleague knows very well the importance of the Detroit port of entry. That is one of the areas that would be defunded in this. It is CBP at the ports of entry.
We need to have our Customs inspections. We need to have Border Patrol. We need to have ICE actually doing their job.
So I would encourage my colleagues to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of amendment No. 5763.
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.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
The amendment (No. 5763) was rejected.
(Mr. MORENO assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments or motions be next in order: Gallego No. 5813 and Padilla No. 5808.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
I call up my amendment No. 5813 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
Mr. President, it is a very simple amendment. It is simply an amendment that says that we need to recognize that there are many, many of our Dreamers right now that are terribly affected by their status as Dreamers.
They have been in this country. They have been serving their country one way or the other, whether it is as firefighters, as police officers, just as members of society. And under this administration, what used to be a 2-month--2-month--on average process for them to actually get their permits renewed as DACA recipients has now extended to 8 months. In that time period, these families have been exposed to potentially being deported, potentially being separated from their families for no good reason and no good cause. This amendment simply says that we change that.
So I really encourage everyone to join us and protect the tens of thousands of DACA recipients that have now become part of this country, and we can all do this in a manner that we can all agree would be best for this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
In case my Republican colleagues are worried, you are not having a stroke. You are hearing the exact same exact amendment again; it is just 6 hours later after 18 hours of total nonsense.
This evening and the day we have just had is about funding ICE and Border Patrol. We will continue to say it. I don't know how many amendments you want to put up or how many times you want to do the same topic.
It is very simple. Democrats do not want to fund ICE and Border Patrol. Republicans do.
I urge my Republican colleagues to fund ICE and Border Patrol and reject this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of amendment No. 5813.
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.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:
The amendment (No. 5813) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5808, and I ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
Mr. President, my amendment will specify that at least $300 million of the ICE funding in the
The DHS has said that, somehow, they want to implement body cameras but don't have the resources to do it--that is, despite sitting on more than $100 billion of money that they haven't spent already. Therefore, this amendment will give them the specific funding that they claim they need.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. President, after 18 hours of us on the Republican side trying to fund ICE and Border Patrol, you will be shocked to know that now the Democrats are suggesting amendments for things that are already in the bill. We already authorized $20 million in body cameras when we funded all of DHS except for ICE and Border Patrol, and in this bill, we give more money for body cameras for ICE agents.
Can we, please, stop the nonsense and get this over with? Let's fund ICE and Border Patrol. Let's go home, see our families, meet with our constituents, and get this over with.
I urge my colleagues to channel their inner Nancy Reagan and just say no.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
The amendment (No. 5808) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments or motions be the next in order: Coons No. 5457 and Cassidy No. 5812.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader.
I would also ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes be 10 minutes in duration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5457 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 amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit the Department of Justice from using taxpayer
Mr. President, President Trump has previously announced the creation of a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded ``victims of weaponization'' slush fund.
And on May 19, I questioned Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche about this announced anti-weaponization fund: Specifically, would anyone convicted of assaulting police officers in or around our Capitol on January 6 be eligible for a payout from this fund?
The Acting Attorney General would make no such commitments, and so the Senate must.
My amendment is simple. It is one sentence:
It is not complicated.
If the administration won't rule out potentially multimillion-dollar payments to those who assaulted police on these grounds, we must.
I urge my colleagues to take up and pass this amendment alongside me and ensure that taxpayer funds won't be so badly misused in this way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. President, there is a tragic Spanish novel called ``Don Quixote,'' and that is what we are down to here at 3:15 in the morning. Now they have us chasing windmills. They want us to vote about funds that don't exist.
And please don't be like Sancho Panza. It turned out terribly for him.
To my colleagues: Stay focused. We are almost at the finish line. We are going to fund ICE and Border Patrol for the next 3\1/2\ years so that we never have to do this again during the administration of President Trump.
There is no such fund. It is a false flag. It is a windmill. It doesn't exist. And, most importantly, this pending amendment does not produce a change in outlays or revenues, as my colleagues know.
I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the most spoken about act from 1974 in American history, thanks to today.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time remaining.
Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive all points of order for the purposes of the pending measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 45.
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 majority leader.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments and motions be the final in order: Rosen motion to commit; Wyden motion to commit; Cortez Masto, 5463; Van Hollen, 5632; Schiff, 5740; Graham 5453.
I further ask that upon disposition of the amendments and motions, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended; finally, if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I would say one more time: 10-minute votes. Stay here. Let's get this done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5812 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 amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide compensation to law enforcement officers who defended the United States Capitol during the events that occurred at
or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, and for other
Mr. President, even though Attorney General Blanche says that the anti-weaponization fund will not be used, it is still part of an active settlement and absolutely can be used. But the fund is not needed for someone wronged by the Federal Government. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows any citizen wrongly targeted by the government to file a claim.
The one group that cannot are police officers attacked in this Capitol on January 6--the police officers who were protecting the public, the Senators, and the Representatives. Now, this does not threaten the bill's privileged status, but it does help police officers injured while protecting us.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. President, what we have here is a failure to understand what is going on. We have been at it for 18 hours. There is no weaponization fund in this bill. Let me repeat: There is no weaponization fund in this bill.
Ironically, the author of this amendment is the one creating a weaponization fund and directing it to pay his chosen group of people.
This amendment is nothing more than a poison pill that would prevent us from doing what is at hand, and that is securing our border, enforcing our immigration laws.
Democrats and some others refuse to vote for $1 for the border. Republicans have stepped up to do the job Democrats refuse to do. We cannot let them hijack this bill at the last moment with an unrelated issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, this is germane to the bill. It is in the Judiciary section. And by the way, it does not detract from our ability. And there is a fund out there that could be funded to use as an anti-weaponization fund.
We should make the same ability, the same access to redress to the officers who protected us.
I urge passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. President, this amendment would kill the bill. The budgetary effects of the pending amendment are merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the amendment; therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, it does not kill the bill. But pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive all points of order for purposes of the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, and the nays are 47.
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 Senator from Nevada.
Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The motion to commit is as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. President, I rise today to make a motion to send this bill back to committee so that it can be amended to include funding to reimburse law enforcement departments and first responders for increased expenses as a result of Donald Trump's sky-high gas prices.
This will help address the rising cost of gas under Donald Trump and the impact it is having on cash-strapped police departments and fire stations across this country. Let's provide relief to police departments and fire departments and first responder agencies who are being hurt by Trump's reckless policies.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this motion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
It appears the noes have it. The motion is rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The motion to commit is as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, as of a few days ago, every American taxpayer is subject to audit except for Donald Trump and all the members of the Trump family.
No matter what you think about the Trump family finances, no one can deny that this is a double standard: one set of rules for an ultrawealthy individual--the most powerful person in the world--and another set of rules for everybody else.
This is unjustifiable, and all of us here know it. My amendment would send the bill back to committee so that the Senate can wipe out this egregious double standard.
The same tax rules ought to apply to everybody across the board. That is how you maintain fairness in the tax system. That is what my amendment is about.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
It appears the noes have it. The motion is rejected.
On page S2567, June 4, 2026, third column, the following appears: AMENDMENT NO. 5463
The online Record has been corrected to read: AMENDMENT NO. 5463 TO AMENDMENT NO 5453
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5463 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
On page S2567, June 4, 2026, third column, the following appears: The Senator from Nevada [Ms. CORTEZ MASTO] proposes an amendment numbered 5463.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The Senator from Nevada [Ms. CORTEZ MASTO] proposes an amendment numbered 5463 to amendment No. 5453.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To appropriate amounts for local law enforcement hiring
Mr. President, this amendment would take the excessive money Republican leadership is throwing at ICE and redirect it to local law enforcement instead.
Now, Republicans already gave ICE and CBP $150 billion in their Big Beautiful Bill. Federal immigration enforcement has billions of dollars to operate for years to come. ICE doesn't need another $31 billion from this bill on top of that.
We have seen the so-called policing that President Trump's ICE agents are doing, and it is not making our neighborhoods any safer. Americans don't need thousands of Federal agents terrorizing their streets. They need local police they can trust to follow the law they are enforcing. That is why this amendment would take this excessive funding for ICE and redirect it toward the COPS Hiring Program so that we can put over 200,000 local police officers in our States nationwide.
The Republicans today have said that Democrats are trying to defund law enforcement. This couldn't be further from the truth. How my colleagues vote on this amendment will prove that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. President, I have a crazy idea for my colleagues to consider. I am just word-shopping this one out. I think what we should do, instead of figuring out how to hire more police officers and Federal law enforcement--here is a crazy idea: Why don't we pay them?
I think it is decently difficult to hire people when for 6 months our Democratic colleagues refused to pay Federal law enforcement. So why don't we focus our energies on funding Federal law enforcement, Border Patrol, and ICE.
Recruitment will happen naturally when we can put a big sign up that says: We will actually pay you for doing your job.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 53, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
I call up my amendment No. 5632 and ask that it be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. President, President Trump was asked just the other day whether his slush fund was dead, and he said, ``I don't know.'' He said, ``I love it. I think it is important,'' which is why we should have voted tonight to finish off that taxpayer slush fund.
We didn't do it, but what we should do is make sure not a penny from that slush fund goes to individuals who have committed heinous crimes. Take, for example, a man that President Trump pardoned on his first day in office last year Andrew Paul Johnson who was later convicted of molesting two children.
He tried to buy the silence of those children by promising them that they would get some of the slush fund money they were going to get. Now, fortunately, he did not succeed in doing that, but what this amendment would do is make sure that that person or any person who committed a violent crime or assaulted a police officer would not be allowed to receive one penny of this taxpayer slush fund.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Ohio.
If I could just have my colleagues indulge me for just a second, if you could take out your phones, open up your favorite AI app, and type the following: How could a Democrat Senator make an annoying amendment to try and distract from their failure to fund ICE and Border Patrol?
It would say that you would put an amendment forward to force a time- consuming, awkward vote that would shift the media and public focus, create issues, generate sound bites, and portray the original border funding as incorrect.
If you go further, you would actually get the entire text of this amendment. And for that reason, this pending amendment does not produce a change in outlays or revenues.
I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 204(b) of the amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. President, if you ask AI whether it is a good idea to vote for this amendment, they would say yes.
I ask my colleagues, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution disciplines that apply, I move to waive all points of order for the purpose of the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
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.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 46.
Three-fifths of the Senator 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 California.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5740 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for limitations on judgments, awards, and compromise settlements under section 1304 of title 31, United States
Mr. President, Members, this amendment is very brief. Its operative language is a single sentence. It provides:
That is it. It doesn't single out any President in particular--not past, not present, not future. It applies to all.
Does anyone here believe this slush fund is a good idea? If there is anyone here who believes it is a good idea, say so. Speak out. Say so.
Does anyone think this is a good idea? Anyone?
If not, let's do something about it. Support this amendment, and let's put this to rest for good. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. President, there is no slush fund. We have discussed this ad nauseam for hours. But I will ask--I will actually be inspired by my colleague from California.
Does anybody think it is a good idea to fund ICE? Anyone? Do you think it is a good idea to fund our Border Patrol? Do you think it is a good idea to fund Federal law enforcement? Let's do it.
The budgetary effects of the pending amendment are merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the amendment.
Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(D) of the infamous and very well-known and world-renowned Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution disciplines that apply, I move to waive all points of order for the purposes of the pending measure.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
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 executive clerk called the roll.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 48.
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 South Carolina.
Mr. President, almost 19 hours later, we are actually going to talk about the bill and what is in it. There is $69.5 billion that this amendment covers: $38.6 billion for ICE--the training, equipment, and support for ICE; $108.5 million allotted for child exploitation investigations; $22.6 billion for the Border Patrol--the hiring, training, equipment, and personnel; $3.5 billion for improvements in border security; and $5 billion to help DHS through 2029.
What we are about to do is fund the Border Patrol and ICE through the entire Trump term because you wouldn't help us. America will be safer.
I ask for the adoption of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. President, after tonight's vote, it is clear to Americans that Republicans refuse to outlaw Donald Trump's $2 billion slush fund. Now the whole country can see the truth: Republicans fought like hell to please Donald Trump and his slush fund but didn't lift a finger to help working Americans lower their costs.
Think about it: Because Republicans refused to support our amendment, the only thing standing between Donald Trump and $2 billion in American taxpayer money to enrich himself, his billionaire cronies, and his cop- beating insurrectionists is a promise from Todd Blanche that could evaporate in a minute. That is not accountability. That is a permission slip.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5453) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill by title for the third time.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass, as amended?
Mr. President, 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.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:
The bill (S. 2), as amended, was passed, as follows:
TITLE I--COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
TITLE I--COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
