Prevent Government Shutdowns Act of 2025

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes telling you about why I held the vote-arama tonight on reconciliation. Our leader is going to make it to happen a lot quicker than I am. He has got the patience of Job.

My Democratic friends--and they are my friends; I don't hate anybody--agreed to a budget for the Department of Homeland Security as part of our normal budgetary process.

They changed their mind, as is their right. But it caused the Department of

Homeland Security to be shut down, and it hurt a lot of people needlessly. It didn't hurt us. It didn't hurt us. We are still getting paid. We are still going home. But it hurt a lot of people.

And our leader decided that he was going to negotiate with my friend, Minority Leader Schumer, and Senator Schumer was going to meet us halfway and figure out a way to get the Agency open.

He and my Democrat colleagues did agree to open everything but ICE and, I believe, border security. They will never agree to fund ICE-- never, not in your natural lifetime, not in mine. They won't do it.

My friend Senator Schumer did the right thing last March, when we were shut down. He agreed to release some of his Members to let us open the government back up. The loon wing of his party--that is what I call them; if you disagree with me, you can tell me why--beat him bloody. They hit him so hard--now when they hit him, they are just working on scar tissue--for doing the right thing.

Now, I don't consider all of my Democratic friends to believe in defunding ICE. The people in control do. They know it. I know it. We know it. They will never vote to fund ICE. This is the same group of people that wanted to defund the police, and we know how that vampire movie turned out.

Now, they will deny it, and that is their right. But it is the truth, and everybody in this body knows that.

But, nonetheless, our leader said we can work it out.

We didn't work it out. They never agreed to fund ICE, and they never will.

Now, about--I don't know; time runs together up here when you are having fun--a month ago, 6 weeks ago, 2 months ago, we started talking about reconciliation and doing it without Democratic votes, even though the Democrats would be welcome to join us.

I want to give full credit. Ted Cruz, I believe, was the first one to do it. I was second. And Ted went first only because he beat me to it but also because Ted pointed out, in President Trump's first term, that we shouldn't leave efforts to do reconciliation on the table. He was right then. He is right now.

The leader said OK, finally, after doing everything he could, except standing on one leg and barking like a dog. Senator Thune did everything but stand on one leg and bark like a dog to get Chuck to agree. It was his right. Chuck wouldn't agree. And for all I know, John did stand on one leg and bark like a dog. It didn't work. So we finally said: OK, let's do the reconciliation.

Now, once we started talking about reconciliation, which Senator Cruz and I and others pushed, I said I wanted to try to use--well, I said, first, I refuse to believe that Democrats in the Senate and the House cannot adult hard enough to come up with a couple of issues that we can agree to do, in addition to funding ICE and border security, in reconciliation. I didn't believe that then, and I don't believe that now.

Some people said I am naive. Maybe so, but I still believe it. And I still think we ought to try. Why? Because there is not going to be a third reconciliation bill. I am not seeing--I am not saying anybody is lying. They are not. People probably intend to do a third reconciliation bill, but you are not looking at Bambi's baby brother here. There won't be a third reconciliation bill.

You know it, and I know it. This is it. This is the last train leaving the station. Maybe we will do some other bills. I don't know. I am labor, not management. That is above my pay grade. But this will be the last one where we can add stuff to it.

And I would like to see us come up with one or two issues that will help the American people with the cost of living and other things that I know Republicans can agree to. And my Democratic friends, like Senator Durbin, whom we are going to miss--and I mean that--are welcome to come aboard if they want to.

One of the things I also said I wanted to try to do in reconciliation was the SAVE Act. Here is what I want to do, and I am willing for all of us to put our heads together to figure out how to do it.

The American people no longer have confidence in our elections. You can debate whether that is justified or not, but it is just a natural fact. I think that we can restore confidence in our Federal elections if we do three things: if we come up with a way to make sure that everybody who is registered to vote is an American citizen. I think we can restore confidence in our elections if, No. 2, we pass a rule for Federal elections that says you have to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote. And, No. 3, I would like to see us--I consider this part of the SAVE America Act, but it is not traditionally a part. I think we ought to go back to having an election day and not an election month. I know some votes come in late. I get that. We are smart enough to figure out a way to accommodate that. But this election month stuff is just undermining the people's confidence, both Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. That is what I mean when I say the SAVE Act.

And I have said that I am going to try to put the SAVE Act on the reconciliation bill, and I want to keep my word. Where I come from, your word is your bond.

Now, Senator Thune, our leader, came to me earlier--and so did Whip Barrasso--and said: Some Senators want to do the vote-arama tonight, and they have got to get home for various reasons.

And I have been there.

And if you insist on going tomorrow--because, frankly, I am. I am worried about the health of some of our Members--not that they are in bad health, but it is hard to stay up all night. It was hard to stay up all night when I did it in college. I was studying, of course.

But, anyway, I said: No, I would rather go tomorrow. I am going to object.

And John explained to me, and others did as well: The majority wants to go.

So I said: OK. I will pull my hold.

I didn't realize it then. This is my fault. I thought everybody knew I wanted to offer amendments. I didn't realize then that there was a way, procedurally, for me to be blocked from offering my amendments. That is my fault. I just didn't know the rules.

Do you want me to talk again about our rules, Tony? I won't get off on that tangent.

Did I mention they were put together by a heroin addict with a socket wrench? If I didn't, that is how I feel about rules. But, anyway, that was my fault.

So I called Senator Thune back and I called Senator Barrasso back and said: Guys, my bad. I was ignorant. I am redoing my hold because you all have the right to block me from offering amendments, but I have the right to exercise my procedural rights and start this thing tomorrow and leave more time to debate. And I apologize to every one of my colleagues. I have been there. I am sorry. But I will tell them I am sorry.

So I put together my amendments. I have got five of them, and I showed them to Senator Graham and Senator Barrasso and Senator Thune. I just left their office.

So if what we talked about leaked, I am not going to leak it. You will know it was one of those three. They promised me they wouldn't leak it.

Here is what I want to offer. And they can stop me, but I can stop us from voting tonight, which is going to hurt some of my colleagues, and I don't like to do that.

I think that we should instruct the appropriate committee--I will get into it, if you want to; it is the Banking Committee--to come up with a bill to prevent medical debt from being reported to the credit rating agencies and ruin the credit of all these people who are too poor to be sick, including middle-class Americans, because their credit gets screwed up, and it makes it harder to get the money to pay off the debt.

Now, the hospitals and others, they are foaming at the mouth right now and having a grand mal seizure. But I am sorry. That is the way to effect the cost of living in America that every mom and dad is worried about at night. I wanted to do that. I still want to do that.

I wanted to instruct the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to provide that, before the United States of America agrees with the United Kingdom to give away our military base in Diego

Garcia, two-thirds of the Members of the U.S. Senate have to vote to do that.

What Prime Minister Starmer is doing right now is deep-dish stupid. He says he is going to stop, but he may be back.

I wanted to offer an amendment to instruct the Finance Committee to put together a bill that would eliminate Federal income taxes and State income taxes, if our colleagues would go on with it, for our poll workers. They don't make but $50 or something. Why do we make them pay taxes?

To allow the American people to buy insurance across State lines--now the insurance commissioners are having grand mal seizures too, but we ought to talk about it.

The bill would also increase the minimum distribution age of retirement--the required minimum distributions from retirement accounts--to 76. Right now, it is 75, and you have got to take it. And they tax the living bejesus out of you. Some people need it; others don't.

I was going to ask the Finance Committee to come up with a bill to allow every American who has suffered a casualty loss to be able to deduct it below the line on their income taxes. That will help with affordability.

I wanted to ask them to put together a bill so that when you sell your home--I think you get--$500,000 of the sale is subject to capital gains. I am sorry. I am kind of tired. I may be wrong on that, but, anyway, you get a specialty tax break. Hell, we set that limit in 1997.

I would like them to talk about increasing it. If the Finance Committee thinks it is a bad idea to increase it, I would like to ask them to at least index that figure, that special treatment, to inflation.

I have some other things, but we have got a good Finance Committee, and they can come up with a bill that will help our people deal with the cost of living because if you think that the American people--moms and dads--when they lie down to sleep at night and can't, they are worried about the cost of living, you will never own your own home. Everybody here knows that.

I have another amendment to instruct the Senate Rules Committee to put together a bill that tracks my rule that I can't get brought to the floor. So I am going to turn it into a bill to withhold pay from Senators during a shutdown. They can get their money back after the shutdown is over. I know that hurts some Senators more than others because some of them have houses that are bigger than a Costco. I get that. I am not one of them. But we have a lot of people in the TSA and other people in the DHS who have various levels of income and wealth. So it just seems to me there ought to be some shared sacrifice.

I have another amendment to--oh, I have another amendment that would--I am sorry to take so long.

I think my Democratic friends--gosh, I hope I am wrong, but I think my Democratic friends are going to shut down the government right before the midterms. I hope I am wrong. If I am, please make me wrong. I will come to this floor and apologize to every one of them by name if I need to, but I am scared they are going to shut down the government and create chaos. So my other amendment would be to instruct the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, which already has been instructed--it is germane--to take Senator Lankford's Prevent Government Shutdowns Act, which is S. 2721, and Senator Ron Johnson's Shutdown Fairness Act, which is S. 3012--you won't find two smarter people in the Congress than James Lankford and Ron Johnson--and marry those bills so we will be ready in case anybody tries to do a shutdown on us.

And I am sorry to pick on my Democratic friends. Hell, we have got some Republicans who could try to shut it down too. That has been known to happen. But, anyway, it will stop it. Whatever knobhead wants to shut down the government before the elections, this will stop it, and that is one of these things I wanted to do with my amendments.

Finally, I have an amendment to implement my version of the SAVE Act. You have got to prove you are an American citizen. This would instruct the Rules Committee. Prove you are an American citizen. Prove you are who you say you are to vote, and let's go back to having an election day and not an election month. I have got a lot of confidence in the Rules Committee. They are really smart Republicans, and they are really smart Democrats. They can do it, and I want to instruct them to do that.

Now, they can stop me, but I can stop us from voting tonight. I don't want to do that; it is going to hurt some of my colleagues. I was going to stop us from voting tonight to try to prove my point because what you allow is what will continue around here. I am pulling my objection except for my right to offer the SAVE Act--my version of the SAVE America Act. If you don't want to vote for it, don't. All I ask of you is to think about it, to trust our Rules Committee, and to follow your heart but take your brain with you because the American people-- Democrats and Republicans and Independents--are questioning our elections.

This isn't about any one person--everybody is entitled to their opinion--but I am telling you whoever loses in the next round of elections--in the next round of elections, if we go back to an election month, they are going to go: We got it stolen. It has got to stop. That only happens in a country whose Powerball jackpot is 287 chickens and a goat. That is not America, and we can stop it with this.

Anyway, that is where I am. So I appreciate your patience. I am going to release my hold. I have been told I will be able to offer the SAVE Act. Do whatever the hell you want on it. Vote for it. Vote against it. Just follow your heart. Take your brain with you. Give the Rules Committee a chance. And that is where I am. My work here is done.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in my prior remarks, in one respect, they were not exactly a model of clarity, so I want to be clear. I don't want to do anything to hurt the reconciliation bill. I like my amendments that I talked about. I don't know whether they will pass. If they don't pass, I will tell you how I will sleep tonight--with a fan on, because I think they are good amendments. But I am going to pull them down, except for the SAVE Act, because I don't want to do anything to keep ICE and Border Patrol from being funded. And I am pulling them down.

I think Lindsey could stop me anyway. He says he doesn't know how. But remember when I said Thune is going straight to Heaven? Lindsey is going to have to be persuasive. But I know he can stop me. But rather than make him do that and, if it gets on, jeopardizing this resolution, I am going to pull them all down but the SAVE Act.

I am coming with the SAVE Act. Do what you want. Follow your heart. Take your brain with you. If you don't vote for it, that is cool. I am still going to sleep with the fan on and sleep well. I would appreciate if you would consider voting for it.

Have a little confidence in our Rules Committee. I haven't met a dummy yet who is on the Rules Committee.

And I am done. What am I supposed to do now?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask with respect that there be order in the Senate and conversations be taken off the floor.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 5414 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, this amendment would instruct our Rules Committee to come up with an elections bill. It is my version of the SAVE America Act, but you can call it what you want.

It would ask the Rules Committee to do two things: require that in Federal elections you have to be an American citizen to vote and provide for the provisions to enforce that.

No. 2, it would require that in Federal elections you have to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote, and it would provide provisions to enforce that.

No. 3, under this, it further instructs the Rules Committee that we are going to go back to having an election day and not an election month, and it instructs the Rules Committee to provide the provisions to enforce that.

Now, I did not just pull this bill yesterday out of my rectum, though I will concede sometimes I do my best thinking there.

I have been talking about this bill for a month, so it should come as no surprise. Now, some say it can't be done under the Budget Act and under the Byrd rule and reconciliation, and you know what? They may be right.

But you know what else? They can't predict the future. They are not clairvoyant. They have to wait on the future like the rest of us.

I hope you won't vote against this bill just because President Trump has talked about it, this amendment, rather. If you think this is just a Republican issue, then you are not revolving in the same direction as planet Earth.

There are plenty of Democrats and plenty of Independents that are worried about the integrity of our elections, and this would allow the Rules Committee to try to resolve some of their concerns.

I trust the Rules Committee; there is not a dummy on there. There are plenty of Republicans and plenty of Democrats. There are a lot of smart lawyers in the U.S. Senate, but they are not the only smart lawyers in America. And, in fact, believe it or not, there are some lawyers not in the Senate who are smarter than we are, and I trust the Rules Committee to go find them and try to craft a bill to fit within reconciliation, working with our esteemed Parliamentarian.

Last two points: If this amendment passes, and I hope it will, the Rules Committee is going to have to saddle up and ride. I am asking them to do it within weeks, days, if possible. That is probably too ambitious. If they have to work weekends, I will stay here with them. Fine, do what you think is right. Don't vote against this just because President Trump has talked about it. Follow your heart. Take your brain with you.

I respect everybody in this body. Everybody. If you vote against this bill, I

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

I yield back.

Madam President, we will never know until we try.

Pursuant to section 904, with respect to my colleague, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, we are here tonight because our Republican colleagues have introduced a budget resolution. It is a budget resolution that unlocks the reconciliation process.

But before we examine this next reconciliation bill, let's recognize that it has been just 10 months since we passed the last one. That was the one that was known as H.R. 1, or in Trump lingo: One Big Beautiful Bill. Of course, most of the Nation called it ``One Big Ugly Betrayal'' because that was a more accurate describer of what it did to families across our Nation.

It slashed a trillion dollars from healthcare programs--a trillion dollars from healthcare programs--for families. It kicked 15 million Americans off health insurance. That certainly doesn't help American families.

It took food off the plates of more than 3 million families with kids. You know, kids can't really do well in school if they are hungry; making them deliberately hungry--what were you thinking?

What were you thinking in destroying healthcare by a trillion dollars for 15 million Americans, taking food off the plates of 3 million families with kids, and to do it to fund tax breaks for billionaires? Wow. That is all about government by and for the powerful.

But you know why I love this country? Because it is all about government by and for the people. That is the vision our Nation was founded on. That is the beauty of a democratic republic.

But what did we get last year? We got the opposite. We got the opposite--the type of policy that comes out of a strongman state, the type of policy that comes out when the powerful exercise tyranny over the people--the type of tyranny our Founders revolted against when they created our Nation. That is what we saw 10 months ago: families lose and billionaires won.

And that is not all that bill did. It also gave 65 billion to Customs and Border Protection and 75 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE. And that amount of money was about seven times a normal annual appropriation.

We can see here in this chart 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, all less than 10 billion; 2025, and there we are. So much more. The annual appropriation, plus this extra for ICE of an additional $75 billion.

And anyone looking at the chart goes: Wow. They already prefunded, for multiple years, ICE. They did exactly the same thing for Customs and Border Protection--CBP.

So we heard a few moments ago from my colleague at the head of the Budget Committee that ICE is out of money. Oh, really? Not true. That CBP is out of money. Not true.

In fact, the President's Office of Management and Budget puts out a monthly report, so go look it up yourself. They are sitting on $103 billion of unobligated funds.

So they already have funds for this year and next year and the year after. So the entire premise of this bill is completely false-- completely false. They don't need more money. What they do need are reforms about their conduct across America because they have been terrorizing our communities across our country because this administration said: No longer will you use

the standard practices of ordinary enforcement that have been the standard in our Republic and democratic republics across the land. Instead, we are going to start violating those standards. We are going to put on face masks. We are going to rip the ID off the uniform so you can't tell who we are. We are going to use vans that have no label on them, and we are going to sometimes even strip the license plate off in order to disguise who we are, not because we are under cover but because we don't want people to be able to say: Can you believe what happened when those CBP agents came to town or those ICE agents came to town? Hard to say that when they are not identified.

But those standards exist because there is accountability to the citizens of the country. Again, government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful.

There are things called civil rights that this administration has forgotten about. They proceeded to say: We don't need warrants to break into people's homes. Are you kidding me? Every sixth grader in America has heard about the Bill of Rights and that we have the sanctity of our homes, and the government can't break in without a warrant. But this majority party, led by Trump, said: Yes, you can. Forget the Bill of Rights. Forget the Fourth Amendment.

And then when we detain people, you have another right, and that is to contact a lawyer. But we are going to detain you and not let you contact a lawyer. We are going to detain you and not let you contact family.

And when family says: Where did my family member go that you-all swept off the street? We are going say: We don't know. We moved them. We don't know where. That is not conduct acceptable in a democratic republic with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.

Well, since ICE and CBP have already been prefunded, since they are sitting on $103 billion of unobligated funds, what is this all about? It is about the majority saying: We want to drive home the point that we are just fine with the way ICE is conducting themselves. We are so fine that we won't reform any of those violations of civil rights or constitutional rights in order to have a normal budget process regarding CBP or regarding ICE.

Well, if we are going to have a special reconciliation process when ICE and CBP have already been prefunded, how about we actually address issues that America cares about because that extra money isn't going to help with the border because they are already funded.

It isn't going to help improve security because they are already funded.

But you know what is not adequately funded? Healthcare is not adequately funded. There isn't a dime in this bill for healthcare. That is important to the American people.

There is not a dime in this bill to help with the rising grocery prices that have gone up, up, up under Trump's stewardship--a whole lot of it impacted by his tariffs, which were themselves unconstitutional.

There is not a dime in this bill to address the gas prices, which are over $5 a gallon in my State, and diesel is over $6 a gallon. Go talk to a farmer across America and see if they are happy and ask yourselves: If we are doing a special budget process, why not address some help to our farmers who are impacted not just by the high cost of diesel for their tractors, they are being extraordinarily impacted by the tariffs as well. Why not help them?

Why not reduce the debt? This bill increases the debt. It is unpaid for just like the Republican war in Afghanistan was unpaid for, the Republican war in Iraq, going after nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, was unpaid for. They launched wars that undermine our security and cost the American Treasury $8 trillion of debt because they wouldn't pay for it, and now that debt is coming home to roost. And it means more interest payments, and it means paying higher interest. It means less money for those fundamentals for families, like healthcare and housing and education--the foundations for families to thrive.

So there is not a dime for working families, not a dime to improve affordability, not a dime to reduce a deficit or the debt; but there is, in this bill, the instructions to two committees to spend up to $70 billion apiece.

Now, my colleague clarified that they are not really going to ask for $140 billion but, more likely, $70 billion. OK. Well, $70 billion, that is a lot of money. What could $70 billion buy for America's families? Well, it could, every year for 3 years, pay the entire salary of 330,000 teachers across America. Wow. What an impact that would have on classroom size in our Nation--a real investment in our children for the next generation. Or that same $70 billion could hire 200,000 police officers every year for 3 years. What an investment in public safety for communities across this Nation. Or--we have been watching the dream of home ownership die. Back in 2020, the median age for buying a first home was about 33 years of age. Six years later, the median age for buying a home: 40 years. In 5 years, the median age has gone up 7 years because nobody is able to buy a home in America--in part because private equity is buying up all the houses and driving up the prices, and because our economy for the rich billionaires is not providing the type of wages for middle-class America it provided before.

So how about downpayment assistance to help people become homeowners? That same $70 billion, that would provide 7 million American families with a $10,000 downpayment grant to help them become a homeowner.

So 330,000 teachers a year for 3 years, 200,000 police officers a year for 3 years, 7 million families getting $10,000 downpayment grants. I make these examples to point out how large this sum is and how much need there is in America for us actually to invest in families--not tax breaks for billionaires but in families, in housing, in healthcare, in public safety, in education.

That bill 10 months ago--that bill was families lose, billionaires win. Families lost healthcare. They lost nutrition. Billionaires got massive tax breaks. And to help fund those tax breaks for the billionaires, their bill added--get this--$30 trillion to the national debt over the next 30 years. And if interest rates are 1 percent higher than the interest rate used in the Congressional Budget Office's model, it is $50 trillion in additional debt over the next 30 years.

So bankrupting America, failing to invest in families, going through this charade for two organizations that are already sitting on $103 billion and obviously pre-funded, that is not about building a better America. That is about families lose and billionaires win. That is about undermining the future for the next generation rather than building a better future for the next generation.

There is a better vision for America than families lose and billionaires win. It is families thrive; and billionaires, they pay their fair share. Families thrive; billionaires pay their fair share. Investing in education helps families thrive. Investing in healthcare helps families thrive. Investing in housing and home ownership helps families thrive. Investing in infrastructure helps build the physical infrastructure for the next generation.

But this bill says to hell with all of that; we are going to, instead, create this false story about unfunded Agencies that are already sitting on $103 billion.

Let's reject this vision that is designed for families lose and billionaires win and instead adopt the vision of families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, time to get this show on the road, so I yield back all remaining time on the Democratic side.

Mr. President, my colleague from Kentucky is right that this bill is unfunded, that it adds to the deficit and adds to the debt. And maybe the best way to address that is not to send $70 billion to two Agencies that are sitting on top of $103 billion right now of unobligated funds. They couldn't even get started spending that massive amount from H.R. 1 last year.

But blindly slashing away at scientific research when China is producing four times the patents that we are producing each year, blindly slashing away at Pell grants, which, under this proposal, would be equal to 2 million individual students losing their Pell grants-- that is the type of detailed work that needs to be done in the authorizing committees and in the Appropriations Committee. This slash- and-hack strategy is way off base.

Mr. President, the bill cuts $16 billion from education. It doesn't say specifically where, but that is a good example of the type of thing that could happen.

Vote on Amendment No. 5378

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5235 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, in the State of the Union, President Trump has told the story of Rachel Wiggins who had lost out to private equity 20 times in trying to buy a house.

After all, it is very hard to compete against an all-cash offer, fast closing, no inspection. The President said: I am asking Congress to act because we want homes for people, not corporations.

And the Senate did act, and they included in a bill--the ROAD to Housing Act--an element--and my compliments to my colleague from Ohio and my colleague from Massachusetts who worked together to get the element into that bill.

But right now down the hall, private equity is lobbying like hell to make sure that element never passes. We have an opportunity tonight to send a message that we agree with the President, that we have a challenge in home ownership because home ownership is dying, and one of the factors is private equity buying up the homes.

Mr. President, let's pass this amendment and restore home ownership.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Amendment No. 5235

Mr. President. I would like to thank the Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee for all their hard work on this resolution, both through extensive preparation and diligent staff work during floor consideration. Staff includes: Ben Ward, Mike Jones, Jill Harrelson, Josh Smith, Tyler Evilsizer, Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, Misha Rafiq, Brian Lyons, Anna Barnes, Connor Jennings, Ethan Rosenkranz, Andrew Cobian, Anirudh Srirangam, Fiona Forrester, Lauran Pauley, Hilary Gelfond-Gross, Madilyn Shirley, John Bratton, and Mina Shahinfar.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, well, let me be very clear: The Democrats are ready. Republicans wanted this vote-arama. Republicans picked this fight. If Republicans want to slog this out on the floor, so be it.

But imagine, America, this is what the Republicans are fighting for-- to maintain two unchecked, rogue Agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your healthcare costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs. Can you believe it? Can you believe it?

When America is crying out for real relief on the skyrocketing cost of living, Republicans are spending another $140 billion on Trump's private militia--on these two rogue Agencies--that have no restraint and ignore people's real needs.

If you ever wanted to know what a bubble these Republican Senators are in, look right here. Look right here. They are tying the Senate in a knot, holding back, moving forward--all so they can fund with no restraint Agencies that have been discredited widely in America.

Are you Republicans kidding us? Are you kidding the American people? That is your priority--not lowering costs but billions for ICE; not helping families but billions for masked agents--while America is forking up $4 a gallon at the pump while families are set back thousands more a year because of inflation. Where the heck are you? Where the heck are you? Republicans think the best thing to do right now is to cut another $140 billion check for unaccountable rogue agents.

Democrats are ready to go. We will go to bat for the American people anytime, anyplace, against anyone. America will see even more clearly tonight where the Republicans are--not on the side of lowering costs but on the side of masked agents occupying our streets.

Where the heck are you?

America is crying out for relief from high costs, and you are here, adding $140 billion to an Agency--two groups, Border Patrol and ICE-- that nobody respects in this country.

On a whole series of amendments now, we are going to contrast where we are--we Democrats--and where the Republicans are. The Republicans will either side with the American people on high costs or bow to Donald Trump and

Stephen Miller and tell the American people to take a hike. ``We don't give a damn about you.'' This will be a reconciliation of contrasts. The contrasts are stark. They are damning. Republicans are bending the knee to Donald Trump and to Stephen Miller. Democrats are standing up for the American people. Republicans are fighting with each other because they know the box they are in--all kinds of dissension--but you brought it on yourselves and have no one else--no one else--to blame.

So Democrats are united and strong, focused like a laser on reducing costs. This will be a reconciliation of reckoning for Senate Republicans who will continue to pay the price for their actions tonight.

This reconciliation, this budget act, will show who is on whose side, and clearly, if Republicans vote against our amendments, they are not on the side of the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4799 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, Republicans say they want to lower healthcare costs. Well, here is a chance. Here is a chance for you, a chance for Republicans to join Senate Democrats to start doing something about it once and for all.

Tonight, with the very first amendment of the evening, I am offering Republicans an exceedingly simple option: We should not consider any reconciliation bill that does not lower out-of-pocket healthcare costs for the American people.

Republicans slashed $1 trillion from our healthcare system as part of their ``Big Ugly Bill.'' Since then, premiums have soared by thousands of dollars a month for millions of people, prescription drugs are up by 600 percent, and out-of-pocket costs have gone up for people with Medicare, Medicaid, ACA.

Instead of pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into ICE and Border Patrol, Republicans should be working with Democrats to lower out-of-pocket costs.

Republicans, listen to the American people. They are crying out for you to lower their healthcare costs, not play these ridiculous, ridiculous, games--

--by adding so much more to ICE and CBP.

So, Republicans, listen to the American people, say no to billions more for unrestrained, rogue agents, and say yes to lower premiums, lower healthcare costs.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, tonight, Senate Republicans showed the American people where they stand, not for families struggling with the high cost of childcare, groceries, gasoline, electricity but for pumping $140 billion toward rogue Agencies.

All night long, we gave the Republicans a chance to do the right thing by voting for our amendments. We gave Republicans a chance to vote for an amendment to lower out-of-pocket healthcare costs.

They said: No.

We gave Republicans a chance to lower childcare costs.

They said: No.

We gave Republicans a chance to stop insurance company delays, to protect school meals, to give people a hand at the grocery store.

And Republicans said: No, no, and no, again.

What kind of bubble are they living in? How apart are they from people's real needs? And, instead, take that money, which should have gone to lowering people's costs, and give it to an Agency that everyone knows needs reform.

Republicans can rest assured that when reconciliation comes back up in a few weeks, they are going to have to face these votes again. Democrats will make sure that they do. We will continue to force vote after vote on the most pressing issue facing Americans today: their high, high, all-too-high costs.

Democrats are going to hold Republicans' feet to the fire because the American people demand it. The American people are hurting right now because of the soaring cost of living, and that is why it is so important that Democrats continue to force Republicans to take these votes and go on record about their disastrous agenda.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, of all the serious issues facing this country, including but not limited to the affordability challenges that so many working families are struggling with, I can't believe we are back here debating a partisan attempt to rush through what I referred to as a solution in search of a problem.

As we all know, and particularly the voters of Virginia will remind us, voting is already underway this election year. And instead of working to keep our elections safe and secure by making it more accessible for eligible Americans to cast their ballot in our elections, we have back before us a measure that would make it harder for eligible citizens to register to vote, to stay registered to vote, to cast their ballot, and make it tougher for election administrators and volunteers to administer our democracy, as is so fundamental to our country.

We have already gone down this road for several weeks and weeks and weeks now. We have debated the so-called SAVE America Act, but I think, despite how you talked about the SAVE America Act, which has certainly not passed the Senate, even my Republican colleagues who have seen the measure suggested by our colleague from Louisiana, it is an even more extreme version.

Let me begin by saying, we already know that you have to be a citizen to vote in our elections. That is nothing new. That is already existing law. And despite the President's claims, there is zero evidence of massive voter fraud across the country, which is the premise of these proposals. So not only is it a solution in search of a problem, to paraphrase a wise man, this measure is all foam and no beer.

This amendment seeks to eliminate or, at a minimum, restrict early voting opportunities which 47 States in the country offer for eligible citizens, 47 States. Why we would want to take away opportunities for citizens to participate in our democracy, I don't know.

This proposal also suggests that all ballots be counted within 36 hours of the election. That may sound good, and it may be very doable in States with smaller populations and smaller numbers of registered voters, but in the larger States, yes, it takes more time to count more ballots. And I know we can all agree that we want to do it securely to maintain election integrity, things to ensure that if a ballot comes in on election day, that that voter hasn't already voted by mail. It takes a minute to cross-reference those records.

Or a ballot that is received on time by mail that you conduct a signature verification to help confirm that the person submitting that ballot is indeed the voter. You need more than 36 hours when you have more than 20 million voters like we have in my home State of California.

So what is this proposed amendment really about? It is about holding on to power because the President knows that his agenda has failed, and it is not just extremely unpopular but has done damage to families across the country.

Just look at his most recent executive order seeking to ban vote-by- mail--changes to the rules when the primary season is already underway. But the language has these changes go into immediate effect, just adding to the rising costs, just adding to the rising chaos, just adding to the rising corruption.

And it is unfortunate that the election administration has been turned into a partisan issue.

I actually ask our colleagues to protect the early voters, not just in my State but in yours. Protect vote-by-mail opportunities, not just in my State but in yours. Let's protect women who are married and change their name and their right to vote, not just in my State but in yours.

Colleagues, I urge a ``no'' vote on amendment No. 5414.

Point of Order

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

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4855 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, my amendment would create a point of order against reconciliation bills that would provide funding for Federal Agencies that still have unobligated funds left over from previous reconciliation bills.

Now, as I have described this amendment, many people are thinking: Well, that is pretty common sense. Why is this even necessary?

Well, let me remind us that ICE and CBP still have a combined total of $103 billion in unspent funds from last year's ``Big Anything But Beautiful Bill.'' You heard me right: $103 billion. Let that sink in.

Let that sink in.

ICE is still sitting on $63.2 billion of its funding. That is 84 percent of the funding from that bill. The CBP is sitting on $40 billion. That is 62 percent of the funding from last year's bill. So what are we even doing here? There is $103 billion that is unspent, and you are trying to give them another $140 billion.

This doesn't make sense.

So, colleagues, I urge you to vote yes on amendment No. 4855.

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

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the remaining amendment votes related to S. Con. Res. 33 be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the next amendments in order: Graham, No. 5281; Hirono, No. 4884; and Hickenlooper, No. 4956.

Mr. President, we have four more amendments in this tranche that we are doing right now, but if we could start to compress this time for votes even more. We are still running close to 20 minutes, and it is a 10-minute vote, so let's try to do it in 10 minutes.

Mr. President, we have a finite list of five amendments. So if everybody could stay in their seats, and we will try and knock them off quickly and do legit 10-minute votes.

Mr. President, I know of no further amendments on the concurrent resolution.

Vote on S. Con. Res. 33

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, before we leave and finish this evening, I would like to take a moment to recognize a departing member of the Republican cloakroom staff Tony Hanagan. He is leaving this Friday after 12 years in the cloakroom and his 12th vote-arama.

Tony, I know a lot of those occurred here in the last 15 months, and I am hoping we didn't push you out the door by forcing you to go through another one. But, seriously, it is hard for me to think of the Republican cloakroom without Tony.

When you become leader, you realize all over again just how indispensable our cloakroom staff are. The command of Senate procedure and the institutional knowledge they bring is as essential to passing legislation as is the votes of our Members.

Since I became leader, I have relied on Tony's expertise on a daily basis, whether we are adopting a UC or I am delivering the wrapup. Tony isn't just smart and knowledgeable; he is also invariably positive, hard-working, and deeply committed to the team--our team here in the Senate--and the sports teams at his beloved Gonzaga College High School here in Washington, DC.

Tony, you have played an indispensable role in the victories we have won for the American people, and I am very grateful for the 12 years you have dedicated to the cloakroom and to this institution. I want to wish you the very best of everything in your future ventures. Wherever you go, I am confident you will excel.

Motion to Reconsider

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.