A resolution withholding the pay of Senators if a Government shutdown occurs.

Mr. President, I want to point out these are just texts that allow us to do certain motions here, and I don't need this for the moment.

I want to speak to you--honestly, speak to my Democrat colleagues-- from the heart. We have a situation in America today in which 260,000 families are without a paycheck. This fiscal year, they have been without a paycheck for more than half of this year.

Now, in the private sector you look at it and say: Well, why would you not pay somebody? Typically, it is because they didn't do a good job, they didn't show up for work, they didn't punch in properly--and all of those things are very litigated, by the way, meaning, in a private business, if you don't pay somebody what they are entitled to make, you have something called a wage-and-hour lawsuit against you.

And yet, the third time in 6 months this body--this body--that is charged with a simple job, which is the power of the purse to appropriate money to fund the government, we have failed. And I get the political posturing: That side of the aisle would say it is our fault; this side of the aisle will say it is your fault.

I can tell you who, unequivocally, it is not their fault, and that is the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security who wake up every day and go to work; they do their job.

And by the way--you have been there, Mr. President, in your State of Missouri, St. Louis, you have seen them firsthand. Members of Border Patrol, Customs, immigration enforcement, CISA--you have seen them.

We see their work. What should we, as the body here, tell those families? In fact, there is an expression that says: Explain it to me like I am a 5-year-old. And there are lots of 5-year-olds affected-- grandkids, kids, siblings--that are wondering why they can't go to camp because their mom or dad wasn't able to write a check. I don't know what I would say if I were a dad.

You are a dad. You are a great dad, actually. I have seen you with your daughter. What do you say to her if you didn't have money to pay the bills, but you did everything right?

One thing I think would help bring us to the negotiation table is for us to get together and say: Look--I will use the same expression that I used the other day--let's eat our own dog food. If we are OK and we find it acceptable for 260,000 American families to go without pay, then isn't it reasonable for us to say that this body--and this body alone, the U.S. Senate, who makes four, five times as much as they do-- for us to go without pay, that our pay be withheld?

Now, I will be honest. I think our pay should be docked, honestly, because that is what would happen in a private sector. We are not going to do that. I am just saying: Hold our pay.

By the way, this is not a bill that I am proposing; it is not a law; it is just a proclamation that says: Every Senator here, all 100 of us, can go to the clerk's office and say: You know what? We can blame whomever we want to blame, but do you know what? I am going to be in shared pain here. Hold my paycheck until we do our job.

What does doing our job mean?

And I look at the minority whip, I have gotten to know. I didn't know you before I came to DC. I think you are a good man, actually. I have had a chance to interact with you in different ways. I think this is a guy who is a serious guy, and he cares, and I know you deeply care about this immigration issue. I remember you telling the story about how you have your dad--I think it was your dad's--naturalization paper in your office. And that resonated with me because I have my naturalization paper in my office. So I know you care. You are a man of good integrity.

And what I am asking that we do is just be able to look ourselves in the mirror every morning when we comply with Senate rules--put on a jacket, put on a tie--come to work and say: Just hold our checks.

Because you know what we should do? Why don't we just get in a room and hash this out?

The way this negotiation has happened is nothing like I have ever experienced in my life. There is a conversation here, a conversation there, a conversation there, a conversation all over the place from 17 different places. Why don't we just get together and deputize one or two people on your side, deputize one or two people on our side, and let's just get this done? I think all of us--I hope, I hope, I actually hope--that we have the moral character in our heart to say: It is just wrong not to pay 260,000 people.

And, look, let me just say this. If Renee Good or Alex Pretti were my children, I would be horrified. What happened was a terrible, terrible tragedy that two Americans lost their lives, but it is not the fault of the 260,000 people who are just following orders, the vast majority of the people who weren't even there. There are families that have never even been to Minnesota.

Again, explain it to me like I am a 5-year-old.

You go through Customs. I have been to your airport, by the way, at O'Hare--oh my gosh, that is an airport; that is a big one--and you are a TSA worker there or you are a Customs person there because there is lots of international flights. They go home and say: Dad, did you get your paycheck yet? Deposit is due for Disney World. Been planning this trip my whole life.

No, son. The U.S. Senate hasn't done that yet.

That is not right. It is just not right.

So I will make my first motion, and I don't know how persuasive I am. I am going to guess that I wasn't very persuasive.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 296, S. Res. 526; further, that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

And what this means is that our checks get held back. We will get the money eventually, like DHS employees do, until we come to a resolution of this national disaster.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

But I do believe it.

Would you consider modifying the resolution to take that piece out, just to make it clear, the paychecks while we are here, whatever the wording--that you and I sit down and we technically fix that wording so it basically says: During this period of time while DHS is not being funded? Can we just make that amendment and technical fix?

This is not my bill. It is Senator Kennedy's bill. But would we be willing to do that because I don't want this to fall on a technicality?

I appreciate the Senator from Illinois and his point of view. I will ask Senator Kennedy to make those modifications, and we will come back out and fix it, but I appreciate, again, your willingness to engage in this conversation.

So let me offer another proposal, just a little bit different proposal. I think we can all agree that our job is--since we are getting paid, we should do it--is to work hard here and stay through whatever it takes, by the way. I would be willing to stay this weekend. I was here all last weekend. I will stay through Easter. I will stay through Fourth of July, whatever period of time it takes until we release the paychecks of 260,000 Americans.

So what I would like my Democrat colleagues to consider is to fund all of DHS, every single part of it, for 2 weeks--just 2 weeks.

We don't leave for Easter break. We spend every single moment together since we don't have planned meetings Friday, Saturday, Sunday for the next 2 weeks. Maybe we have codels and trips and family vacations, but I have a great and understanding wife. I am sure Democrat colleagues have the same thing, an understanding family--you have to, to do this job. And we stay here until we just get together and say: Hey, look. In a 2-week period of time, we can get there.

And I think there has been some negotiations that said: Hey, maybe we can address this. The White House has come to the table unlike any time I have ever seen. They have offered to codify tactics.

And I know, Mr. President, you personally are concerned about that because you know a lot about law enforcement. You were the attorney general of your State, and you know that if you put tactics into legislation, there is a lot of unintended consequences. You could have law enforcement breaking the law when, in reality, any of us would say: Oh, actually, they are doing the right thing. There is a judgment call. You can't be that granular. Things have to be reasonable.

So I think we can work out that language; it is just 2 weeks.

But here is what this resolution does, if my Democrat colleagues, all they have to do is stay silent. Think about the power. If my Democrat colleagues do not say a word. I don't know how long the Parliamentarian will wait--maybe 7 seconds. If she hears nothing for 7 seconds, for 7 seconds--think about this, for 7 seconds, silence--260,000 people get to go home tonight and tell their kids, their spouses, their brothers and sisters, their mom or dad: I am getting paid. They are retroactively paying me. They get paid for the next 2 weeks.

Nothing is--the world will still be here in 2 weeks. Politics will still exist in 2 weeks. We can beat the you-know-what out of each other for the next 2 weeks, but we have got 260,000 families that get to go home and just--have you ever been in a situation, Mr. President, where you just (inhale/exhale) and you feel like the world is better again-- 260,000 people, for 7 seconds or less--maybe, say, 3 seconds--just silence.

I hope that we can get there. And by the way, just to be crystal clear, because what I heard from the minority whip was that my colleague from Oregon was going to offer to fund TSA--this does that. This does that. This will fund every single TSA worker in America. Three seconds of silence gets every TSA worker paid, gets every Coast Guard person paid, gets every CISA person paid, gets every FEMA person paid, gets every Customs person, gets every Border Patrol person paid-- 3 seconds of silence.

Two weeks. Put the burden on us. You won't take away our paychecks. The Senator didn't agree to that. Will the Senator agree to not object, to just say: Let's pay TSA workers right now?

By the way, I think, if there is a chance that C-SPAN2 is on live at the airports and they saw you, Mr. President, say: Hearing no objection, done, Americans would cheer at airports all over America right now. St. Louis, Portland, Cleveland, Miami, Atlanta, for sure, would cheer. My God, TSA workers are going to get paid. Come back to work. We are so sorry. And we are going to spend 2 weeks--that is it, 2 weeks--not 2 years, not 2 months, 2 weeks--to sit down like grown men and women and do our jobs that pay us $175,000 a year-plus, plus, plus.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 156, H.R. 4553. I further ask that the substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The timing will start now.

Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. President, point of order of the Parliamentarian: I would ask my colleague to remember rule XIX, in which you are analogizing me to a hostage taker. I find that offensive. I think that is in violation of rule XIX.

Madam President, again--again, Madam President--

--you have warned the Senator from Oregon. He has repeated the exact same statement. I believe rule XIX does now allow him to continue speaking if he is violating that standard.

Madam President, the questions I was hoping the Senator would answer, so they would be more fresh in his mind, were: Is the Senator only suggesting right now, just to be crystal clear--crystal clear--a lot of people's lives are at stake here, by the way.

Let me just clarify that a 2-week continuing resolution would pay people retroactively. See, they are owed almost 40 days of pay. So this would pay them back the money we have taken from them for the last 40 days and give us 2 weeks, not 2 weeks of pay.

I just wanted to make sure he understood because maybe I misspoke. I wanted to make sure the Senator from Oregon didn't misunderstand what I said.

I was suggesting that we fund DHS, which retroactively pays 260,000 people; give us 2 weeks to get a solution; and never ever do this to a single American family again.

It is a disgrace that we are doing this, and I am not impugning any-- I am impugning all of us that we never do this--that we never allow a hard-working American to go without a paycheck because of our politics. I just want to make certain that the Senator understood that.

I also want to make certain that I heard the Senator properly because I don't think his speech matched the resolution.

Is the Senator--so this is a simple yes-or-no question. If the Senator doesn't mind, just give me a yes or no, if he wants to. He doesn't have to. I have the floor. But it is up to the Senator if he wants to answer yes or no, but I am going to frame it as a very simple yes-or-no question.

Is the Senator suggesting that we not also fund FEMA?

Madam President, I was yielding for a yes-or-no answer.

Is the Senator suggesting that we not also fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency? Is he suggesting that we not do that; yes or no? What is his response?

Thank you. The Senator answered my question.

No, I have the floor.

Madam President, I have the floor. Thank you for the point of--

Just--I have the floor.

Madam President, would you please instruct the Senator from Oregon who has the floor.

Please, let's maintain decorum here. I think the American people deserve public officials, who are receiving paychecks while they are not, to have a semblance of decorum and class with each other. I hope that I have displayed that thus far.

Here is what is being proposed, just to be crystal--crystal--clear because this gets very fuzzy: I have proposed a 2-week continuing resolution that would retroactively pay every DHS employee and give us 2 weeks to negotiate.

And with my colleague from Oregon, whether intentional or not, what he is proposing in this modification request--in this modification request--I don't have a crystal ball or a time machine. I have no idea what you are going to propose later. God knows what that is. I have no idea.

But in this proposal, it is saying only fund the Transportation Safety Agency. I don't understand why we wouldn't take the opportunity.

So I am going to ask my colleague back: Would the Senator consider, in addition to funding TSA permanently for the rest of the fiscal year--I love that, by the way. Let's do that, absolutely. Can I have an amen? But in addition, fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It seems like a pretty good Agency to fund. These are the men and women that respond to disasters.

You have been there, Madam President, when they have responded to your disasters in your State of Iowa, right? I mean, you probably know these people are unbelievable. Let's fund them. Let's pay them. By the way, let's pay them and say thank you.

Then we look at Cybersecurity, an Agency called CISA. We love acronyms here. The Cybersecurity Agency. What do they do? They make sure that we don't have threats. We are in a major conflict with Iran; 60, 70 percent of them aren't working. Would the Senator also consider funding that? Seems like a good Agency.

Secret Service. Really important Agency. They keep the President of the United States safe. His threat level right now--if you have been to the White House, Madam President, my God, the threat level against the President of the United States right now is at a peak.

We are about to do FIFA, the soccer championship--although, that is also football, which is what we call it in Colombia, but we call it soccer here. We are going to need Secret Service here.

How about Customs? Should we not fund Customs? What is their job? Their job is to inspect packages coming in from other countries, process visitors to your State and my State. Why don't we fund them?

Let's go through here this chart. The Department of Homeland Security USCIS--ugh, another acronym. What do they do? They take people like me who apply to be a U.S. citizen and process my legal immigration status. I love this Agency. I thank them every day because they do a good job-- 3,300 people. Can we also agree to fund them?

How about this group, look at the name of this Agency: The biological and nuclear threat prevention Agency.

Can I have an amen to fund that Agency for the rest of the year and never ever, ever gamble with that threat?

Now, let's talk about this Agency here: Homeland--you can't read that, but Homeland Security Investigations special agents. If you think of the enforcement officers as the police officers, these guys are like the detectives. These are the guys that chase down the worst of the worst criminals--the guys that machete people's heads off, child traffickers, transnational gangs. These guys have gone without a paycheck the last 40 days, and they are still at the job chasing the worst of the worst. Would anybody here do that job? Would any of you like to put this little badge on and go chase Pablo Escobar on steroids? Because that is what they are doing.

And then let's look at this Agency down here. We talked about them: Customs and Border Patrol. I don't know. I am sure--my Senate colleague has been here a lot longer than I have, and that is true about most of the people here. I am sure he is familiar with Customs.

You know, I am a simple guy so, you know, those are the blue uniform guys. You come in from traveling and ``Can I see your passport? Do you have anything to declare,'' right? Do we not want them on the job? We don't want Customs on the job?

And then Border Patrol. I don't just think we should pay Border Patrol for the rest of the fiscal year; I think we should give those guys a massive bonus. They have cut border encounters in this country by 98 percent.

So to my colleague, to summarize it all--we can skip a step; we are going to skip a step--would the Senator be willing to modify his proposal to adopt instead Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, the DHS Collins amendment? It sounds very fancy, doesn't it? It funds all that stuff.

I have listened to speeches for the last 40 days, and my colleagues have come out saying: Fund this Agency; fund this Agency; fund this Agency. I am agreeing with them. I want them to accept yes for an answer. I want them to say: Yes, let's do it; let's fund all of DHS except for the one Agency that is not on there, which is the Enforcement and Removal Operations.

So to my colleague from Oregon who said you want to fund all these things--your words, not mine--for the rest of the fiscal year plus retro pay--would the Senator be willing to change his amendment to my proposal and instead substitute all of this with Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, the DHS Collins amendment?

The Parliamentarian--is he able to respond to that, or do you need me to read the formal text here?

Madam President, I think I have the floor. English is my second language, so I sometimes speak too fast and maybe don't use the right language. So let me just be crystal clear again.

I am suggesting that we fund TSA for the rest of the fiscal year, retroactively pay every worker, and do that for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for CISA, do that for Secret Service, do that for Customs, do that for Border Patrol, do that for Homeland Investigations, do it for USCIS--we love these guys--and do it for-- definitely love these guys--the biological nuclear threat prevention Agency. That is--to be crystal clear--what I am saying.

So to answer your question: Does that include TSA? Yes, it does include TSA. This would fund TSA for the rest of the fiscal year.

Madam President, there is an old movie line that says: I think we have a failure to communicate. So let me try one last swing here to make sure that I make it crystal clear. By the way, I absolutely mean this sincerely, absolutely, with total respect. I know that my Senate colleague from Oregon knows that DHS is more than four Agencies. I know he knows that.

So what I just want to clarify is: In this modification to my modification--yes or no--is the Senator from Oregon including USCIS?

So the Senator does not want to fund USCIS?

Madam President, he answered my question. I was 5 when I learned what a fee was. So the answer to that question is not including USCIS, which is odd because they do have an appropriations line in the appropriations bill, by the way. So the answer to that question is no. So no.

Here is what is ironic. My colleague from Oregon--you can't make this up--wants to not fund the people who are in charge of defending our borders and deporting criminal aliens but does not want to provide funding for the Agency that brings people here legally. Wow. That is a moment.

Let's go to this next one. Will the Senator from Oregon agree to fund the Homeland Investigations unit? In the Senator's proposal, does it include funding for HSI? Yes or no?

Madam President, so just to be crystal clear--because, again, this is getting a little deeply

ambiguous--is the Senator from Oregon suggesting that we fund the entirety of the Department of Homeland Security--everything, everything, everything, the entirety of Homeland Security--with the exception of Customs--the people who inspect packages, the people who greet people at Portland International Airport--and Border Patrol and Homeland Investigations and Enforcement and Removal Operations? Is that correct?

Madam President, I would agree to--we are almost there, but this is actually very important. We are making a lot of progress. And I think the plaque will be there for a long, long time.

So here is where we are at, just for a recap. We used to have 10 commandments in my company, and commandment 11 was: Thou shalt recap. So let's just recap where we are.

The Senator from Oregon, on behalf of the Democrat Party, is saying that he is willing to right now fund the entirety of the Department of Homeland Security--everything, every single Agency of the Department of Homeland Security, but--but--but is carving out the Customs and Border Patrol division and the entirety of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which includes these guys, the guys who chase down bad guys.

So I would ask that the Senator take a look at the Collins amendment, H.R. 7147, Calendar No. 311. Let's include the guys that chase the really bad guys. I will agree to the Senator's proposal if he will include the guys who chase the really bad guys--Homeland Security Investigations--and include the guys who greet people at your airport. What the Senator is suggesting is: Don't pay the guy who screens people who are leaving--you want to pay them--but don't pay the people who are taking care of the people coming back in. This is backwards land. Let's fund everybody at the airport. So why wouldn't we fund Customs? In fact, why wouldn't we fund Customs, the guys in the blue--if you have an issue with Border Patrol, the guys in the green jackets--is that what the Senator is saying? You would agree to fund everybody but Border Patrol and Enforcement and Removal Operations? Because I think we are super close. We can finish this dialogue and bring peace and tranquility to 260,000 families.

Is the Senator willing to do that? Is the Senator willing to modify one little tweak just in between--we are there--saying: Hey, let's include HSI, and let's include the guys patrolling our border; let's include the Customs guys? Or are you saying: No; if we pay people at the airport who receive visitors from foreign countries and the people who guard our border, who are doing an amazing job, and people chasing bad guys--because you won't fund those three things--I am saying: Well, good. We will put Enforcement and Removal Operations on the side. By the way, a $5 billion haircut to this budget, why don't we just do that?

Will the Senator from Oregon accept that? Let's get this done, make the American people very happy, and have glorious news for a lot of American families that are looking--think of the power the Senator has right now, the power you have right now to feed 254,000 American families by the words that are going to come out of your mouth.

I would ask all of us to have the humility to understand how powerful it is, the Senator's next words, because your next words will provide the paycheck for 254,000 American families. Please. I beg you. Please. Please do the compassionate thing, and then we will work on ERO later.

Yes.

Of course.

Madam President, let's just spend 60 more seconds here to recap what we have. So my colleague from Oregon representing the Democrats--who has been given a lot of time to kind to figure out how to come here--has said that what the position of the Democratic Party today is--today's position--different Saturday, by the way; different Sunday. By the way, different than Monday morning in which the minority leader went on Joe Scarborough and said that it was President Trump who objected to the idea to fund all of DHS except for Enforcement and Removal Operations. And then, of course, I think President Trump was maybe a genius there--because maybe by him saying no on Sunday, it made the Democrats say yes. And then he said yes on Monday evening. Then the Democrats had to go back to no. Kind of crazy.

What we are doing is not going to fund for the rest of the fiscal year people who keep our country safe because they want to defund the people whose job it is to keep our borders secure and to deport people who broke into our country illegally, including murderers, rapists, transnational organizations. They do not want to fund those Agencies. I just want that to settle in here and point out to the Presiding Officer that what I proposed today--and the Presiding Officer voted yes--54 Republicans--sorry--53 Republicans and 1 courageous Democrat--54 voted for that.

All it would take is 6 Democrats, and 254,000 people would get their paychecks. It is a sad day. I will mark the time, 5:45 p.m. It is a sad day for the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a resolution that I have talked about before. I want to emphasize that it is not a bill.

Could I ask for order in the Chamber?

I want to emphasize that it is a resolution; it is not a bill. I also want to emphasize, at the outset, that it only applies to the Senate. It only applies to the U.S. Senate.

And here is what my resolution would do: It would change Senate rules to provide that, when we are in a shutdown, Senators cannot be paid, cannot receive their salaries. Their checks would be--think of it this way--locked in a vault. And once the shutdown is over, the Senators could pick them up.

Now, I think everybody in the Congress knows what I am about to say. It is maybe a bit cynical, but it is true. If I were King for a day--I am not, and I don't aspire to be--and I wanted to avoid shutdowns, I would do two things. I would provide that Members of Congress can't be paid during a shutdown, and I would provide that Members of Congress can't leave Washington, DC, during a shutdown.

Now, I can't pass the second part of that, so I am going to try to pass the first part of that.

This resolution--again, it is not a bill--is about shared sacrifice. And I am not doing it to punish anybody. I am not doing it to try to embarrass anybody. I recognize that there are varying degrees of wealth among U.S. Senators and their ability to go without a paycheck.

I know and like every Member of this body, and every Member of this body who has a substantial amount of wealth has achieved that wealth through their own hard work, and most, if not all, of them started with nothing. And do you know what I say? God bless them. More power to them. That is America.

So I want to put that up front because I am sure some are going to point out that some of our Members are wealthier than others, and it is true. I mean, not to single anybody out, but I have seen Senator Rick Scott's house. It is bigger than a Costco, OK? More power to him. He earned that. I have seen Senator Mark Warner's house. It is bigger than a Target. More power to him. He earned that money. He started from nothing. So did Rick.

But this bill isn't about that. It is about shared sacrifice and sending a message. We have about a squillion employees at the Department of Homeland Security that aren't being paid, and there is no prospect of them being paid.

Before I yield to my colleague Senator Moreno, I want to point this out. I said it yesterday, but I am going to say it again. The party line among us is that we are ``that close'' to reaching a deal to get government back open, to which I respond respectfully: Dream weaver. OK? I don't believe it. I hope I am wrong.

I know Mr. Homan is now involved. He is good, but he can't work miracles. I do not believe, because of the faction of my Democratic friends' party that is in control, that my Democratic colleagues can vote for anything--anything--that could be interpreted as helping ICE. I just think that is political and policy reality. This is America; they are entitled to their opinion.

What I think we should do, as I said yesterday--and Senator Cruz has talked about this eloquently. I want to give him full credit. The Democrats have offered to open every part of DHS except ICE. I would gratefully accept their offer. Let's get them open immediately, and then the very next day, we should start a budget resolution. Through reconciliation, we should pass a budget for the rest of ICE--the rest of DHS that is not open.

Now, I would welcome my Democratic friends' involvement with that, but I know they can't vote for it. But we could do this through reconciliation, as we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill. We have two more shots under the rules of reconciliation. It would easily be sustained in a Byrd bath. It would not take 60 votes; it would take 50 votes plus the Vice President. That is how we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill.

So before I call on Mr. Moreno and return to the subject, I really think we ought to surprise ourselves and do something intelligent if we really want to get this government back open. We could have it open within a week. The Democrats, I think, will find that acceptable, and I believe Republicans will find that acceptable if we would just do it.

I would like to yield a few minutes to my good friend Senator Moreno about my resolution.

Of course.

Sure.

Here, Mr. President and my good friend Senator Moreno, is the message that we send if we do not pass this resolution: If it weren't for double standards, we wouldn't have any standards at all. If it weren't for double standards, we wouldn't have any standards at all.

Now, the American people see what is going on. As I have said before, not every American reads Aristotle every day. They are too busy earning a living. They are too busy getting up, going to work, obeying the law, trying to do the right thing by their kids.

As usual, Senator Moreno makes very salient points. He is aware, as am I, that once again, this is a resolution that just affects the Senate. It doesn't affect the House.

Senator Moreno is well aware, as am I and every Member of this body, that this is a bipartisan resolution. To change the Senate rules, I had to go through the Rules Committee. My resolution--our resolution passed the Rules Committee unanimously. Every single Republican and every single Democrat voted for this resolution.

What I hear Senator Moreno saying in a very eloquent way: Yes, there are varying degrees of wealth in this Chamber, but we all make 170 grand a year, and that is a fortune for most Americans.

I am not saying that Senators don't earn that. This bill is not meant to punish anybody. I know some Senators who work so hard that that 170 grand a year is probably equivalent to about $11 an hour. I mean, they are working all the time. This isn't about that.

This is about shared values. This is about sending a message to our colleagues at TSA and elsewhere in DHS that we understand, that we are trying to get government back open. But in the meantime we are going to try in our small way to share your experience.

So I would ask my colleagues, please--I don't like to talk too much about doing the right thing because I think everybody in this body wants to do the right thing. We just disagree sometimes over what the right thing is. But honestly, I don't see how any one of my colleagues can disagree with either the spirit or the letter of this resolution.

So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 296, S. Res. 526, which Senator Moreno and I have just talked

about; further, that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, with respect, I want to give my colleague Senator Schatz more time. He objected and left the Chamber. Is he coming back?

Just one second. Is he ill? What should I do, Mr. President? Should I give him more time?

Mr. President, can we get a ruling? I don't want to be unfair to anybody. My Democratic colleagues, I told them that--

So should we give Senator Schatz more time to come back? Should we give him more time to come back and explain?

I see the Parliamentarian giving some guidance.

Tony, trust me; I know what I am doing.

May I inquire why not?

Can you opine on why my colleague objected and then immediately left and whether he is coming back?

So I just want to be sure, Mr. President. I am not trying to put you on the spot, but I see our Parliamentarian is here, and they can give you able advice. Does that mean I can object to anything, at any time, without being recognized?

I don't even have to get the floor?

So I can walk in, in the middle of a debate, without the floor, right back here, in front of God and country, and say ``I object,'' and it shuts things down? I don't understand that.

Without having the floor?

And, again, with respect, Mr. President, is your ruling that Senator Schatz, who is my friend; I talked to him before I was coming down--that he did not have the floor but he can still object?

But did he have the floor?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but did he have the floor?

Senator Moreno, did you want to say something?

Mr. President, I think the Senator is right. You started out your comments by saying: Where are we? I think we are on Pluto.

I mean, I do not understand how the Chair has ruled that the Senator didn't have recognition but he could still object, and I don't understand how that is possible. I just don't understand how that is possible. In fact, our whole rule about the majority leader having control of the floor, whoever the majority leader is, is centered around the proposition that, at any time, the majority leader can assert his right--it is a custom, not a law--can assert his right to control this floor and that shuts down my recognition. But he has to get recognition.

He just can't come in here and say: Stop talking; I am the majority leader. And I don't understand how a Senator can object--I don't understand how a Senator can do anything in this body without achieving recognition. That is like--that is--I am no expert on the Senate rules like the President is and the Parliamentarian is, but you don't have to be an astrophysicist to understand that is one of our bedrock rules.

Yes, Senator.

Well, I will do that, but I don't want to be unfair to my Democratic colleagues. I don't believe in surprising people. Senator Schatz told me--we had a conversation last night--he said he was going to object. I respect that. And if he has left the building, I don't want to go behind his back.

So I don't want to do that unless you can communicate with him. Is he still here? Mr. President, do we know if Senator Schatz is still here? Because I would like to urge reconsideration, but I don't want to blindside him.

Who should I ask that to? Tuck? Tuck says: Don't bring me into this. Gary? I mean, I would like to urge a reconsideration, but I am not going to do it and blindside Brian.

Can I bring it back later? Could I get a ruling on that? Could I ask that we contact Senator Schatz and tell him I am thinking about reconsidering but I don't want to blindside him, Mr. President?

What if I made a motion? Could I move that we contact Senator Schatz and tell him I would like to move to reconsider but I don't want to blindside him?

I just made it up. You are telling me I can't do that under the rules? Why not? I don't get it. I mean, I could move to reconsider and blindside him, but I don't want to do that. So why can't I move to reconsider subject to us waiting for Brian to get back so he has a full opportunity to be heard? Can I do that?

Sure, there is. I just made it. Are you saying that the motion is out of order? Look, this is a serious matter.

This is a serious matter. Now, we have established that this resolution doesn't affect the House. It just says to the Senators: While we are in a shutdown, no Senator is going to be paid. You don't lose your money. You pick it up after it is over, after the shutdown is lifted.

We have established the fact that this went through the Rules Committee unanimously. Did I mention it went through unanimously, that every single Democrat and every single Republican said: Yes, Kennedy; let's do this.

We have established that even though there are varying degrees of wealth among Members of the Senate--and I say that is great--every single Senator makes at least $170,000 here. They are not going to lose a penny--not one single, solitary penny. Once the shutdown is over, they get their money. We have established that. We have established that there are 260,000--not 2,600, not 26,000--260,000 of our colleagues working in the department of health and hospitals that are not being paid.

And a lot of these people do not have immense wealth, but they are not being paid because of our conduct. And I think we have established that this is a chance to show, in a little bitty way--a minor way, a baby step--that we are going to share their sacrifice.

And there has been an objection. I heard that ruling from the Chair. But for the life of me, I don't know how you can object without seeking recognition, without having recognition. I have never heard that one, OK. We are getting into the foothills of la-la land here as far as I am concerned.

Now, I just made a motion. I want to bring this bill to be reconsidered. And all I am asking--I don't want to blindside my friend Senator Schatz. I don't play that way. I want to give him full opportunity. All I am asking is that somebody call Senator Schatz and let him know that I am going to move to reconsider and I don't want to do it behind his back. That is all I am asking. So I make that motion. Is there an objection?

Well, there you go. My good friend--the Senator didn't have--she didn't have recognition either. How is that possible?

All right. I am coming back, Mr. President. And I am coming back and I am coming back and I am coming back. Did I mention I will be back? And if a Member of this body disagrees with what I am doing, then, by God, they ought to come down here and stand up in front of the U.S. Senate and stand up in front of the American people and stand up in front of God and stand up in front of country and stand up in front of all these people--these good people that aren't being paid--and say: Here is why.

Maybe we need to change the Senate rules, Mr. President. I appreciate your patience.

And I would like to ask, Mr. President--this probably is an improper motion, too--I have got to delve a little bit more on this improper motion stuff.

I want to see the rule that says I can't do what I just tried to do, and I want to see it bigger than Dallas. I don't want to see that it is implied or is a penumbra, and I want to see the rule that says somebody can come into this body without recognition and be heard because I don't believe it, and anybody that believes that--no disrespect-- shouldn't be driving.

Mr. President, I move to have the quorum call be suspended.

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

Mr. President, yesterday, Donald Trump told a reporter: ``I don't think about Americans' financial situations.'' I don't think of anyone.

I repeat: Donald Trump actually said this. He said:

``I don't think about Americans' financial situations.''

Can you believe it? You wouldn't believe it coming from any other President. But, sadly, from this President, it smacks of reality. He says almost anything, and he doesn't care.

Clearly, Donald Trump doesn't care about Americans' financial situations, considering that, just this morning, we saw wholesale inflation skyrocket to 6 percent, the highest it has been since December of 2022--wholesale inflation, 6 percent. As those costs trickle down to Americans, Americans are going to be paying more and more and more, and they hate it.

Now, what is Donald Trump thinking about instead? Himself, especially his new ballroom, at a time when 77 percent--that is 77 percent--of Americans say that Donald Trump's policies have increased their cost of living.

Trump and the Senate GOP try to force through a bill that would spend $1 billion taxpayer dollars on a gilded ballroom and not one penny on bringing down American costs. Trump may be trying to build a ballroom, but, clearly, he is living in the theater of the absurd.

Really? Do Americans want a ballroom when wholesale inflation just hit 6 percent--the highest level in 4 years? Do Americans want a ballroom when food prices just went up more in April than in any month in nearly 40 years? Do Americans want a ballroom when the cost of a gallon of gas has increased a dollar and a half since March?

Of course not.

I would say Trump has completely lost touch with the American people, but that would assume that Trump was ever in touch with the American people to begin with. And on this issue, he sure as heck isn't.

Iran

Mr. President, on Iran, Trump was talking about his disastrous Iran war when he said:

I don't think about Americans' financial situations.

Trump launched this war without a plan, without a clear objective, and without any thought to how it might affect the American people.

When Hegseth and other Pentagon officials came to testify, at the end of April, they said this war cost American taxpayers $25 billion. Well, yesterday, they revised that figure to $29 billion. Trump has forced American taxpayers to sink at least $29 billion into a war that still has no end game.

And $29 billion is just the sticker price and doesn't include the hundreds of additional dollars American families will have to pay this year just to fill up their tanks. Americans are paying over $4\1/2\ a gallon at the pump--more than a dollar and a half above what it was when Trump started this war.

If Senate Republicans care about Americans' financial situations, which they should, they need to vote for our War Powers Resolution today to limit Trump's ability to continue this war without authorization. Senator Merkley will be introducing that War Powers Resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor, in a little while.

Today's vote will be the Republicans' seventh--seventh--opportunity to support our resolution to withdraw our troops from hostilities with Iran and stop the economic fallout from this historic blunder.

Americans' financial situation is dire, and Republicans don't think about anyone other than Donald Trump.

China

Mr. President, on China, Donald Trump may have no interest in helping the American people get ahead, but he certainly seems willing to give China a leg up. We all ought to fear what Donald Trump may concede to China just so he can claim a headline. Trump has fantasized about $1 trillion in Chinese investments in America that would give the Chinese a stranglehold on our economy, threaten our supply chains, our economic independence, and our national security.

This is Trump empowering Xi's ``Made in China'' ambitions--selling out American manufacturers and workers, giving CCP businesses an edge in undermining America building the industries of the future here at home.

He is opening the door. He is saying: China, you come here. Use all American innovation and technology and everything else; and then send it back to China, and let China take the lead over America on industry over industry.

What a disgrace. The American people--American businesses--aren't going to fall for this bunk.

And then there are many other things we all worry about that Trump would or could do to weaken American workers, families, and businesses when he gets outnegotiated by Xi. And that has happened time and time again.

Here are some of the things that Donald Trump could do that we all worry about--American workers, American families, American people, American companies worry about.

Donald Trump could sell out American autoworkers by allowing Chinese EVs to flood our markets and crowd out domestic manufacturing.

Donald Trump could sell out America on chips and AI, allowing the sale of our AI chips and semiconductor equipment to China so they can catch up in the technology race that will define the global economy for the next decade. This is a clear and present threat, not just to American jobs but to our national security.

Donald Trump could sell out on fentanyl, failing to use American leverage to extract real and meaningful concessions from the Chinese Communist Party to prevent the deadly flow of fentanyl poisoning our communities. This is an issue I brought up directly with Xi years ago. We were making some progress. Will Donald Trump sell it out? We all worry about it.

Donald Trump could sell out Taiwan, whose people want to continue living in freedom, instead of under the jackboot of the Chinese Communist Party. Any threat Trump allows Xi Jinping to

make against the Taiwanese is a threat to the global democracy. It is also a threat to the global economy, given how many semiconductor chips are made in Taiwan.

So in all of these things, forget the ``Art of the Deal.'' Trump is practicing the ``art of the duped.''

Forget the ``art of the deal.'' Donald Trump is practicing the ``art of the duped.''

Nomination of Kevin Warsh

Mr. President, on Mr. Warsh, Donald Trump has made it clear he will stop at nothing--nothing--to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve at the expense of the American economy and the American people. As the Senate prepares to vote on Kevin Warsh's confirmation as Fed chair, Donald Trump has shown no sign he intends to stop his crusade against an independent Fed.

Trump undermined the central bank with his attempt to oust Lisa Cook and his sham investigation against Chairman Powell. Those attacks on the Fed ought to concern everyone who is worried about the cost of living and interest rates going up.

The more Donald Trump interferes with an independent Fed, the more chaos he injects into the markets. And the more chaos he injects into the markets, the more the interest rates go up.

Markets like certainty. Donald Trump doesn't offer that.

With this administration's disastrous war and failed economic agenda driving up costs, Donald Trump will only seek to exert more pressure on the Fed to manipulate interest rates to his own political advantage. Appointing a new Fed Chair amid this chaos and coercion could further undermine the independence of the Fed.

I urge Senate Republicans to join Democrats in protecting the Fed and restoring some stability to our economy.

Congressional Review Act

Mr. President, on CRAs, later today, the Senate will have a series of votes on the Trump administration's undermining of key protections for the American consumer against predatory corporate practices that raise costs and limit opportunity.

The CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has played a critical role on the side of people to help them avoid junk fees, predatory medical debt, and payday lenders who take advantage of people in need, including military servicemembers.

The Trump administration has chosen to prioritize undermining these critical protections, and, today, Senate Democrats stand up and say ``enough.''

As someone who helped authorize the CFPB, years ago, I feel strongly that we cannot let Trump undermine and constrain this vital Agency. So I thank Senator Warren and so many of my Democratic colleagues for leading these joint resolutions of disapproval to fight on behalf of the American people, of the American consumer.

The joint resolution of disapproval that I am leading is against the Trump administration's decision to reverse CFPB protections on mortgage lending called ``contract for deed'' transactions, that without the proper guardrails can be predatory to people trying to live the American dream in purchasing a home.

For millions of Americans who can't access a traditional mortgage, a contract for deed can seem like a lifeline, but all too often these arrangements are traps. The buyer takes on every obligation of home ownership immediately--taxes, repairs, risk--but doesn't receive the deed until they have paid every last dollar. You miss a single payment, and you can lose everything--no equity, no recourse, evicted like a tenant.

Over 200,000 New Yorkers are in these arrangements right now.

The CFPB has heard reports of many unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices in ``contract for deed'' transactions and took action in 2024 to crack down on these practices by applying the same lending protections to these loans as other consumer and mortgage loans.

What does Trump want to do? Of course, he wants to give a green light to the bad actors, that they are free to exploit American potential homeowners in this way by eliminating the protections of CFPB.

Apparently, Trump wasn't paying attention during the 2008 financial crisis. Giving these predatory lenders free rein only hurts the American people and the American economy.

I call on all of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--to join me in protecting Americans who just want a fair shot at the American dream.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall vote: Senator Cornyn for up to 10 minutes and Senator Kennedy for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, like many families across America, mine was touched by the disease of cancer when I was a young man. At the age of 14, my father died of lung cancer. I was 14; he was 53. Seeing my dad struggle changed my life. I made it a priority during my time in Congress to try to spare others from the suffering. We have made significant progress in reducing smoking over the last several decades. After I passed legislation banning smoking on airplanes, it turned out to be a tipping point. And, increasingly, we have seen tobacco and cigarettes disappear from public spaces.

But Big Tobacco did not dissipate like a cloud of smoke. They rebranded with flashy new products: vaping and e-cigarettes. And they followed the same playbook they used to sell Marlboro cigarettes and so many others: They targeted our children in America.

Tobacco companies have donated generously to Donald Trump's election, his inauguration, and his ``Great Gatsby'' ballroom with the expectation of favorable treatment, and President Trump's administration has delivered for tobacco. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration did something it had never done before. After pressure from President Trump, the FDA authorized the first ever flavored e- cigarettes.

Why is that important? That is what lures the children into this deadly habit. Scientists, doctors, and parents--even the FDA's own studies--all acknowledge sweet and fruity flavored e-cigarettes are responsible for addicting our children. Health experts I have spoken to believe the true number of high school kids vaping is at least 40 percent--40 percent of our kids vaping--a percentage that teachers, principals, and students acknowledge. These are not kids vaping to quit cigarette smoking. These are kids who first became addicted to nicotine because of flavored vaping.

Why would an administration supposedly committed to making America healthy again unleash this new wave of addiction on our children? Formaldehyde, chromium, and heavy metals like nickel and lead all are present in e-cigarettes. A recent study found that vaping is likely to cause cancer.

We should not trust Big Tobacco when they promise they won't market to kids. We know better.

Then, on Friday, the Food and Drug Administration granted a free pass to scores of illegal vapes, permitting them to stay on the market without having met the law's requirement that they first prove to the FDA that their product is ``appropriate for the protection of public health.'' They didn't try to do it because they can't do that; they can't prove it.

But even that gift to vaping and cigarette titans like Altria and R. J. Reynolds was not enough to spare the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Yesterday, President Trump canned him, forced his resignation. Dr. Makary is gone for his resistance to this expansion of vaping in the high schools of America.

What a disgraceful display in Washington. The President wants yes-men no matter the consequences, even if it harms our children.

While I did not agree on everything that Dr. Makary did, I appreciated his commitment and focus on protecting kids from Big Tobacco.

Whether it is for drugs, medical devices, or tobacco products, it is never a good idea for the President and the White House to pressure regulators to approve applications. That is a recipe for deadly consequences.

As the President's whims have created dangerous vacancies now at the

Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control, my Republican colleagues should have the nerve and fortitude to call out this alarming, unacceptable, and dangerous behavior and treatment of our children.

American Cures Act

Mr. President, on a separate topic, every family, like my own, has wrestled with a dangerous medical condition. When you or a loved one receive a diagnosis, there is only one question on your mind: Is there a cure? Is there a treatment? Often, thank God, the answer is yes.

America's world-class medical researchers and institutions have pushed the boundaries of science and achieved so many important and lifesaving breakthroughs. Medical researchers have turned terminal illness into treatable conditions in many instances--from HIV and AIDS, to heart disease, to many types of cancer--and they have developed treatments that have given patients what they desire the most: more time with their loved ones.

This work is primarily supported by the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. It is not only the Nation's premier medical research agency; it is the world's premier medical research agency.

Today, the budget of the National Institutes of Health is nearly $50 billion. The vast majority of their research is competitively awarded to scientists, research institutions, and small businesses in every State across the Nation. Last year, Illinois hospitals and universities received more than $1.2 billion in NIH funding.

What do we have to show for this investment? Well, thanks to NIH research, cancer deaths have declined by 34 percent between 1991 and 2022, and death from heart disease and stroke fell by 78 percent between 1968 and 2013. Medical research works. Because of NIH funding, we are on the verge of curing--yes, curing--sickle cell disease. Consider this: Between 2010 and 2016, the FDA approved more than 200 new drugs and treatments. Every single one of them benefitted from NIH research funding--money well spent.

Congress has long recognized the importance of NIH, which is why we, on a bipartisan basis, provided NIH with $19 billion in additional funding over the past decade, a 60-percent increase. I was part of that effort, and I am proud to announce that it was bipartisan from the start. Senator Roy Blunt, a Republican from Missouri, was chairman of the key Appropriations subcommittee. Senator Patty Murray, who is the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, was a leader in this field. Senator Susan Collins did remarkable work in the same area. It has been bipartisan from the start. And working together as a team, we have achieved an amazing investment in medical research.

However, thousands of chronic diseases still need treatments, causing millions of families to suffer. These families are depending on us to support NIH in groundbreaking research today. So, this week, I have reintroduced the American Cures Act, which would provide our top medical research agencies with 5 percent real funding growth every year. My bill would ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of new treatments and would provide researchers with the strong, stable funding they need to continue their lifesaving work.

This legislation is more important than ever since we currently have a new administration that seems hell-bent on dismantling America's medical research infrastructure. No nation has ever made such a significant investment in science as the United States. No nation's scientists have ever done more to improve the quality of life on Earth. Through government support for scientific research, we have split the atom, defeated polio, and mapped the human genome.

American leadership comes with the responsibility to continue to move forward, to never be satisfied when there are those suffering with sickness, and to push the boundaries of what is possible. Let's pass the American Cures Act on a bipartisan basis and give families facing terrible illnesses today the hope of treatment and cures tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I appreciate that my colleague from Ohio has come to the floor and said: Wouldn't it be great if we ensure that a paycheck is written for 2 weeks?

I have a better idea. We have far more than 2 weeks left in this particular year. The funding year ends at the end of September, so we are talking about something closer to 26 weeks. While there might be a cheer for 2 weeks, there would also be a lot of dread, and people across the Nation would be going: So the proposal is to fund for 2 weeks while the majority sends us out for a 2-week break.

Not until I finish my remarks, but thank you.

And so there are going to be two proposals by my colleague. And in response to one, I am going to suggest that we free TSA as a hostage.

TSA, right now, we are seeing hundreds of TSA agents quit because they are not being paid. We have seen thousands call in and say: I am not available for work today.

They are probably sick from the stress of not receiving paychecks. We can alleviate that completely for the rest of this entire year--this entire fiscal year--with a proposal I will put forward in a moment.

And then if my colleague has another proposal, well, we will consider that as well, but I will probably put forward a suggestion that we do all 26 weeks for TSA and FEMA and the Coast Guard and Cybersecurity.

See, the debate where pushes come to shove is over ICE and CBP, and it is because of the rules of engagement under which they have acted have been so extraordinarily aggressive, terrorizing our communities.

So the conversation still remains and is underway about ICE and CBP and the reforms.

When I am done with my remarks.

And so the key here is: Let's release these hostages because TSA is being held hostage by my colleagues across the aisle, and FEMA workers are being held as hostages--

Madam President, and so I will just put forward the fact. I am not impugning anyone, just the fact that nine times Members of this body have come to the floor and asked unanimous consent to fund

--completely focused on--

Thank you, Madam President. I will just cut to the chase here. Just as my colleague's heartfelt desire is to get those paychecks written, so I, too, want to see them written. At the moment, we see the TSA agents in high stress. Our airports are causing stress for people all through the Nation, so let's get that piece done right here, right now in this moment.

Therefore, I would ask the Senator to modify your request so the Senate instead proceeds to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 362, S. 4127; that the bill which funds TSA be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, may I respond to my colleague's questions?

Thank you. To his first question in which he sought to clarify that his proposal is retroactive--

Madam President, speaking to my colleague through the Chair in the ancient Senate tradition, the answer to that, as I already pointed out, is that I am going to offer two proposals: One, that we fully fund TSA, and we do it not for 2 weeks but we do it for the balance of this year through September 30.

And second proposal--

Madam President, just because I am answering the question--

--I think I have the floor for a question.

Madam President, has my colleague from Ohio objected to funding TSA for the rest of the year?

Madam President, has my colleague from Ohio objected to--

His objection is heard?

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I propose we fund TSA for the rest of the year. My colleague, as I understand it, has refused to agree to that; and, therefore, he has essentially objected. But he has asked for a modification.

I am happy to, at this very moment, propose that we go to a request which funds FEMA and the Coast Guard and Cybersecurity and TSA-- essentially everything except ICE and CBP--and the other Agencies are fee funded. I am happy to go to that proposal if my colleague is willing to fund FEMA and Coast Guard and Cybersecurity.

But I think he has been well aware that he keeps putting a poison pill in here. He keeps asking for Customs and Border Protection to be funded without modifying how they are behaving across the Nation, and he keeps asking for ICE to be funded without modifying their actions when they are operating like a secret police.

That is why negotiations are underway with the White House--over that issue. So let's stop holding FEMA and Coast Guard and Cybersecurity and TSA hostage. And I am happy to put forward a proposal right now that would fund all four of those Agencies for the balance of this year.

Madam President, I think my colleague can check and see that that is a fee-funded organization.

Madam President, I think, if my colleague checks, he will find that USCIS is funded through fees. And let me explain what a fee is. A fee is when--

Madam President, my colleague is engaged in a dialogue here that I would be happy to resume at another moment. He has rejected both my proposal to fund TSA--he has rejected my proposal to fund FEMA and Cybersecurity and TSA and the Coast Guard.

At this very moment, there is a ceremony going on to honor our police officers who protected this Capitol on January 6, and that is to honor a plaque that has been posted by the Senate, in a bipartisan way, and agreed to have put up when it was being hidden by the Speaker of the House in some closet.

And so I understand the points my colleague is making. I think the Senator understands the points I am making. I have countered his proposal with a proposal to fund TSA for the balance of the year. I countered his proposal to fund everything but ICE and CBP. And although the Senator has never said the words ``I object,'' I understand he is objecting through his dialogue. If I misunderstand that, please let the Senator say now that he agrees to my proposals and we will be done with this conversation.

But I really think it would be good for both of us, in a bipartisan way, to go down and honor the officers that protected the Capitol.

Madam President, my understanding is the second proposal funds everything but ICE and CBP is my understanding of the Murray bill.

Madam President, is that a question?

I would be happy to answer the question. Twice when I have answered questions, my colleague has reclaimed the floor in the middle of it. Does he intend to actually let me answer the question this time?

He is not responding--

--which means he is reserving the right to object when I get part way into the explanation to his question.

But let's be clear. Because of the sequence of events in which I proposed two modifications and he rejected two modifications--he rejected and objected to paying through the end of September the TSA. And then I proposed that we fund everything except for CBP and for ICE because those are the two issues under negotiation with the President, and he has again objected. And he is proposing a 2-week extension and then people don't get paid again.

So we are going to bring this to a close because essentially my colleague has asked me to participate in this debate. And it is very clever, and I have willingly done so; but I would think 26 weeks is a whole lot better than 2 weeks.

And so since my colleague objected to paying TSA, objected to paying everyone in Homeland Security except for ICE and CBP--because that is under negotiation with the House and with the President--I have objected to his 2-week extension.