Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to speak to two or three topics. One of them is the current procedural situation in the Senate and, for that matter, the House.

It has been more than 60 days since the White House and congressional Republicans allowed funding to lapse for the Department of Homeland Security and for the government to partially shut down. This has turned out to be the longest government shutdown in American history.

Day after day and week after week, Senate Democrats came to the floor and proposed funding all of the Department of Homeland Security except two specific Agencies--ICE and the CBP agents. Do you remember that, Mr. President?

In one instance, my colleague from Oregon Senator Merkley sought unanimous consent to pass legislation to pay all TSA employees. Unfortunately, the Republican majority objected.

In another instance, my colleague from Connecticut Mr. Murphy sought to pass legislation to pay members of our Coast Guard. Republicans objected to that too.

In all, Republicans blocked bills to fund TSA, FEMA, and the Coast Guard a total of 14 times. Why would they block the funding of these critical Agencies? Because the White House and my Republican colleagues refuse to sit down and talk about the future of ICE and whether the rules that apply to law enforcement all across the United States will apply to ICE.

It is an Agency that we have seen in realtime terrorizing communities like Chicago and Minneapolis across this country with increasingly violent and militarized enforcement operations. You can't miss the ICE agents. They wear masks. The only law enforcement Agency in the United States that I know of--Federal, State, or local--where their officers wear masks. Many of them, historically, didn't even have a name tag to identify who they are. They are a paramilitary force created by President Trump and Stephen Miller to harass people who may be here illegally when it comes to immigration.

All of this occurred when the chaos at our airports grew and essential workers went unpaid. Instead of agreeing to reforms, the White House took Executive action to skirt accountability.

What has happened to ICE? After the killings in Minneapolis and the violence in Chicago and other cities, ICE virtually disappeared. When the director of the Department of Homeland Security was forced to resign, we had a new director come on board--the Senator from Oklahoma. What has happened to him? They have gone radio silent.

The only evidence that the ICE agents are still around and working was when they were dispatched to airports. And for some reason--it may be part of the current charm offensive for ICE--they were told they don't have to wear a mask if they are in an airport. This makes no sense at all if you buy their explanation that the ICE agents are so vulnerable.

What happened when they were in the airport? It is reported that they arrested and detained over 800 people.

Remember what ICE was supposed to do? It was supposed to make us safe--safe in our homes and neighborhoods, safe across the United States. The President said over and over again: ICE is going to go after the worst of the worst. Rapists, murderers, terrorists, the criminally insane--we are going to go find them.

So what has happened in the months that ICE has been on this crusade? One out of seven people that they have detained or removed from the United States actually had a serious criminal record. It made no difference; the Stephen Miller plan is to put fear in the hearts of all the immigrants to the United States, and that is what they set out to do. It is not a question of safety in the neighborhoods; it is a question of whether or not we are going to tolerate immigration in America.

I think there ought to be some basics in a bipartisan agreement when it comes to immigration. Let me tell you what I think those basics are. We should never knowingly allow a dangerous person to come into this country. Second, if there is a person in this country that is seeking legal status and they do something serious, like commission of a crime or they are dangerous, they are gone--gone. Third, we cannot absorb at any one time all the people in the world who want to come to the United States. We need to have an orderly system. I think those three elements are the starting point of a bipartisan conversation.

When it comes to the future of immigration, I was involved several years ago with the Gang of 8--four Democratic Senators, four Republican Senators--among them, John McCain and Chuck Schumer. We sat down for months and wrote up a bill: comprehensive immigration reform. It was supported by business and labor and the agriculture groups, and by and large, it was bipartisan from start to finish. More money was put into border security than ever in the history of the United States.

That bill passed the U.S. Senate with a bipartisan vote. That should have been the beginning of a conversation that leads us away from where we are today, but what happened? It was sent to the Republican- controlled House of Representatives and, for a variety of political reasons, went nowhere.

It is time for us to return and visit that issue again for a comprehensive immigration reform plan. We have to tell Stephen Miller to cool it.

As far as I am concerned, to turn ICE loose on more and more communities is just to make people fearful and not solve the problem we face. We have to work together to solve it with a comprehensive plan, and we should be started on that immediately.

Mr. President, I will also tell you that when it comes to the future involvement of the United States, we have a serious question in the Middle East. I cannot tell you what the objective of the President is when it comes to the war in Iran. If you take a look at what happened today--we had a rollcall vote on my colleague Senator Duckworth's motion that would have given Congress the authority to declare war, as the Constitution states in article I, section 8. It was defeated on a partisan vote once again. We have tried this two or three other times.

This is an effort to make sure that we have a conversation about the war in Iran. Do you know how many public hearings we have had in Congress about the invasion of Iran? None. Not one. We are virtually in a war that has gone on now for 70 days or so, and we have not debated it.

What is the purpose of our invasion of Iran? The President has given six, seven, eight different explanations, depending on the time of day. One day, it is to close the Strait of Hormuz; the next day, it is to open the Strait of Hormuz. One day, it is to get regime change in Iran; the next day, it is to reject the regime that is governing in Iran. The next day, we are going to eliminate missiles. And it goes on and on. You can't keep up with it.

The problem, of course, is that there is an impact on families all across the world but especially in the United States when it comes to the cost of living. When you ask American families ``How are you doing?'' they say ``Not so well, thank you.''

When we take a look at the cost of raising a family these days, we see the cost of groceries hitting an alltime high; we see our utility bills going up--in Illinois, they have gone up 15 percent this year over last year; we see the cost of gasoline going through the roof. It is over $4 a gallon in Illinois and in some parts of Chicago, over $5 a gallon. That is a real hardship on working families.

Why are we in this mess with gasoline? Because of the invasion of Iran and the disruption of the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz into Europe and beyond. That is the reality of the President's invasion.

Did anyone in the White House or the Department of Defense sit down and measure the impact of what it would mean if we invaded Iran on the global economy? This morning, I heard on the radio someone predicting the possibility of a global recession.

Was that part of your calculation, Mr. President?

We don't know because we can't understand what the President's motives are on a day-to-day basis when it comes to the future of Iran.

Do we want Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Of course not. What have we done about it? Under the Obama administration, we negotiated international inspectors to go into Iran to see whether or not they were developing a nuclear bomb. I met with some of those inspectors on a regular basis. They were getting doors opened and questions asked and answered, photos being taken, and a reporting at the time.

What happened with President Trump in his first term? He eliminated the agreement that created the inspectors. Then what did he replace it with? Nothing. Nothing until he invaded Iran 2 months ago.

We need international inspectors in place to make sure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, and we certainly are not moving in that direction with the President Trump invasion.

So we have the situation in which the President's chaos and cost-of- living increases and confusion have really created problems for families across the United States. It is time for us to remember that our goal is to make it better for those who are raising children and trying to feed a family. This war in Iran is not the answer to that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Judge John Shepherd to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

I am concerned by Judge Shepherd's overall lack of experience. He has served on the Arkansas State bench for just over a year. Prior to that, he practiced law for just 12 years. By his own admission, only half of his legal practice actually involved litigation.

In addition, Judge Shepherd has stated that less than 5 percent of his experience as a litigator took place in Federal court.

Litigants in Federal trial courts should have confidence that the judges overseeing their cases are experts in Federal practice and procedure. Judge Shepherd simply does not have adequate experience for litigants in the Western District of Arkansas to feel they have received a fair hearing before him.

For these reasons, I oppose Judge Shepherd's nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled rollcall begin immediately.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete this unanimous consent request before we recess.

Mr. President, last month, America lost a man who devoted his life to serving America. Robert Mueller passed away on March 20. He left behind an amazing legacy of patriotism, honesty, integrity, and courage.

In 1968, at the height of the Vietnam war, Robert Mueller chose to enlist in the Marine Corps. He was a rifle platoon leader. Years later, he said that of all his accomplishments in life, he was ``most proud the Marine Corps deemed me worthy of leading other Marines.''

He earned a Bronze Star for valor when his platoon was ambushed, suffering multiple casualties. He rescued--personally rescued--a wounded marine. He earned a Purple Heart after being wounded by enemy fire while leading his platoon to rescue soldiers who were pinned down by the enemy.

While Mr. Mueller's time in the Marines ended in 1970, that is far from the end of his service to this country. After his military service, Robert Mueller became a lawyer and spent most of his life in public service.

A lifelong Republican--a lifelong Republican--he served for many years as a prosecutor and senior Justice Department official under both Republican and Democratic Presidents alike.

Throughout the 1990s, Mr. Mueller would serve in various positions at the Department of Justice, working as a senior litigator in the Homicide Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California. Mueller's work won him the admiration of both President George W. Bush and the U.S. Senate.

One week before September 11, 2001, Bob Mueller was sworn in as Director of the FBI. In the aftermath of the horrific 9/11 terrorist attack, Bob Mueller worked tirelessly to make our Nation safe.

Director Mueller led the FBI in a tumultuous time. After the worst terror attack in American history, Bob Mueller more than any single individual was responsible for modernizing the FBI to combat the threats that we face in the 21st century. It was my honor to support him in that effort.

It is no surprise that when his term with the FBI was set to expire in 2011, President Obama asked the Senate to extend Mueller's term by 2 years. The vote in the Senate was unanimous--100 to nothing--in favor of Bob Mueller, as it should have been.

Mr. Mueller left the FBI in 2013, and even that was not the end of his service to the American people. In 2017, Director Mueller was asked to serve his Nation one last time. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, asked Mueller to serve as special counsel to investigate Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.

While my colleagues and I have spent many years debating the merits of the Mueller report, his work on Russia's interference in the 2016 election and throughout his time at DOJ and FBI demonstrates true character, hard work, courage, honesty, professionalism, and a dedication to our Constitution.

In honor of his legacy, I introduced a resolution with my colleagues from Virginia, his home State, that recognizes the contributions Bob Mueller made to our Nation. I will now make a unanimous consent request to pass the resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII and as if in legislative session, the Senate proceed to the consideration of my resolution, which is at the desk; further, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I am disappointed that the junior Senator from Indiana has blocked the Senate from honoring an American hero, Bob Mueller, who protected our national security with his life and for decades served the call to public service.

This is so unusual, to come to the floor and to honor someone who has served the county the way Bob Mueller did and to have an objection. And to say that it was a ``political potshot'' against Donald Trump--it was not at all. The effort that I made on the floor was to extol the virtues of a man who served this country and risked his life for this country over and over again.

My colleague is objecting for one reason only: President Donald Trump despises Robert Mueller and his memory because Trump's own administration appointed Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller's comprehensive investigation resulted in 37 indictments, 7 guilty pleas or convictions, and 14 criminal referrals to other U.S. Department of Justice counterparts. This, to Donald Trump, was an unforgivable sin.

Do you remember what President Trump said when he heard that this man died, exactly what he said? The President of the United States said of Bob Mueller:

Good. I'm glad he's dead.

``Good. I'm glad he's dead''--words from the mouth of the President of the United States, a man who poses as the messiah or some doctor; I don't understand which.

``Good. I'm glad he's dead''--the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, responding to the passing of a marine, Bob Mueller, who received a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star.

This is not the first time the President has attacked an American war hero. I am sorry that the Senator from Indiana joined in that attack. We cannot pretend this cruel and un-American behavior is normal. I am sorry the Senator from Indiana sees it differently.

I want to say to Bob Mueller's family, who I believe is watching: He is still an American hero in my eyes, and though this political move was made on the floor--and it seldom is made; I am sorry--it doesn't change one bit the fact that Bob Mueller served this country honorably, with dignity and character, his whole life.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, nearly 20 years ago, I joined with then- Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon to introduce the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act.

Key provisions of that bill included significant tightening of petroleum-related sanctions that eventually became law and helped push Iran to the negotiating table over its genuinely dangerous nuclear program. Those tough sanctions and unified allied pressure, including from Russia and China, led to an agreement that contained Iran's nuclear program with aggressive international inspections.

I remember hosting the International Atomic Energy Agency Director General many times in the ensuing years where he provided me with updates on the inspections. While sometimes contentious, they were, in fact, working.

During those years, I also met directly with Iranian officials to discuss this agreement, to push them to end their support for regional proxies, and to help return missing and detained Americans in Iran.

So I am not naive about the Iranian regime's threat to the region and even its own people. And while the nuclear agreement wasn't perfect then, it was working. It allowed us to confront Iran about its otherwise troubling behavior without the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. We made progress.

Yet, during his first term, President Donald Trump walked away from this agreement and replaced it with nothing--nothing but bluster and wishful thinking. The President's approach did not stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear program, but it did undermine the coalition that we had created to counter Iran's nuclear aspirations.

The mess we find ourselves in today--and it is a mess--is one the President has helped to create through his narcissism, impulsiveness, crude threats, and lack of planning.

I have learned during the course of my service in Washington that it is far easier to get into a war than it is to get out of one. We find ourselves today facing a set of easily predictable policy problems despite the stunning skill and bravery of America's military.

The belligerent regime in Iran has not fallen. Already difficult leaders have been replaced by even harder hardliners, with the Revolutionary Guard gaining even more influence.

Iran continues to rebuild its military capabilities and threaten our troops, interests, and allies in the region.

The Strait of Hormuz, which had largely been free and open for the last several decades, is now being held hostage by the remaining Iranian regime--one that is brazenly still threatening ships and charging outrageous tolls for safe passage.

If I asked the American people randomly ``What is this war all about?'' they would start by saying that Iran is a bad actor. Agreed. No argument there. But what are we trying to achieve there?

If they are puzzled by that question, I am, too, because you listen to how the President explained his strategy from the start--let me tell you what the list contains partially. I don't know the complete list.

Why did we do this? Regime change. That was announced almost immediately. Several days later, that was removed.

How about ballistic missiles? Ballistic missiles for sure, and then later, it was said: Well, there is no capacity for ballistic missiles striking the United States or our friends in the near term.

How about nuclear weapons? We want to stop nuclear weapons. But didn't the President say 6 months ago when we attacked that we had obliterated their capacity to build nuclear weapons? He came back to say that was on the agenda too.

When you go through it, the list keeps growing. The initial explanation for why we were there had never mentioned the Strait of Hormuz, and now it is a daily topic. One day, we are fighting to keep them open; the next day, we are fighting to keep them closed. I can't follow the bouncing ball. I don't know what the President's agenda is when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz.

The fact that the President suggested last week that the United States would jointly collect payments for access to the Strait of Hormuz is beyond imagination. These funds are being used as extortion funds by Iranian hardliners to rebuild the country's military and continue to fund its terrorist proxies.

After weekend talks in Pakistan--21 hours with the Vice President-- went absolutely nowhere, President Trump announced a U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

At a time when our gasoline prices are skyrocketing, when the revenue from oil, because of the new barrel prices, is reaching record levels not just for the Iranians' profit but the profit of the Russians, who use that to fight in Ukraine, for goodness' sake, who ever sat down at the table before this invasion and analyzed these possibilities, and what was their conclusion? Did we really go to war in Iran to worsen the free flow of goods in the critical Strait of Hormuz and enter into an extortion business with the Iranian regime? It is upside down.

The equally predictable move by the Iranians to try to squeeze the global economy has hurt American consumers and farmers and the global economy--a surprise to no one except President Trump. Americans are already struggling to make ends meet because of the President's cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act and his tariff taxes. He is doing everything he can to make this economy even worse. The increase in gas prices--now more than $4 a gallon in Chicago--may be too much for many to bear.

While Americans suffer under high prices, our adversaries are reaping the benefits in profits. The increase in global oil prices and the desperate easing of some oil sanctions by Trump have been a gift to Vladimir Putin, who takes this revenue to renew his bloody war against the Ukrainians. Was that thought about before we invaded Iran?

And let's not forget that Putin, who continues to snub any attempts by President Trump to end the war in Ukraine, has also been helping target American interests in the gulf. He is not neutral; he is helping the Iranians at the expense of American soldiers.

I cannot say it better than New York Times columnist and Middle East expert Tom Friedman. Here is what he wrote recently:

Trump has no clue how to get out of the mess that he has

created by starting a war without thinking through the

implications.

We desperately need a coherent plan to end this war, one that addresses the remaining highly enriched uranium still in Iran. We need a plan that stabilizes the U.S. and global economy and makes sure any further wars are done with the consent of Congress.

It is not too much to ask that this President--every President who wants to engage in a war follow article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the authority to declare war to Congress. Notably, it is for the American people to decide through their elected Members of Congress. That is why I still support Senator Tammy Duckworth's War Powers Resolution which will be on the floor this week. It is time for us to accept our constitutional responsibility and try to get this mess under control with Iran.

If there was ever a reminder of the importance of the constitutional role of the people's elected representatives, it is in the declaration of war.

This current mess reminds us that those who wrote the Constitution had real wisdom, and those who are executing the plans for this war have not demonstrated that feature.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let's see if we all agree on something. People should not be allowed to vote in elections illegally. Is that a radical idea? I think it is a basic idea. It ought to be against the law for somebody who is not legal to try to vote in America. It is. It is a felony. Well, how often does this happen that people who are ineligible to vote--like immigrants--try to actually vote? Well, let's think of this possibility.

In a 20-year period of time, we did a survey of all the people who were caught trying to vote illegally in the United States. Now, keep in mind that in each election cycle, 25 to 50 million

Americans registered to vote. So in a 20-year period of time, think about all of the possibilities of people who are registering to vote and how many were actually illegal when trying to register to vote. How many do you think? Seven million, right? No. Seven hundred thousand? No. Seventy thousand? No. Seven hundred? No.

In a 20-year period of time, 77 people in America who are ineligible tried to vote--77 out of millions who are being registered every election cycle. So the Republicans said that is enough--77 is enough. Let's make everybody in America reregister--everybody. We will catch those 77 or anybody who looks like one.

You think to yourself: Why are you doing this to me? I have been legally voting in America for decades and nobody has questioned it, nor should they. Why do I have to go through a registration? Well, that's because we shouldn't have anybody illegal voting. I agree we shouldn't. But with 77 out of millions, OK, you want to reregister to vote? The bill before us says there is a simple process you need to follow. You have to show identification.

Well, that is easy. I just got on a flight the other day, and I had to show my ID. Everybody shows their ID. But what ID did you show? Your driver's license, right? That is what I use. I have got one of those upgraded driver's licenses we are all supposed to have that proves my identity. They accept it, put me on an airplane. Nobody says: He is really a terrorist. He showed me his driver's license.

But their bill doesn't include a driver's license. If you want to prove your identity, you have to show a passport. That is one way to do it. Well, how many people in America have a passport? About half. About half do. And if you don't have a passport and you want to get one just in time for the election, get busy.

The first thing you need to do is be prepared to write a check for $165 for your passport and then you go through the process. It may only be 4 weeks, but it may be longer depending on how much you want to pay. That is one way that you can prove your identity.

The other way is pretty simple--produce your birth certificate. Got one handy? What name does it show on there? For a lot of ladies, it shows their birth name--what their family name was when they were born. They have since gotten married. They may have a hyphenated last name. The names don't match up, so birth certificates don't work out that well.

Why are we going through this hassle? Seventy-seven people tried to vote who shouldn't have in 20 years. That isn't what it is really about. I used to work for a fellow in politics who used to say: For every political issue, there is a good reason and a real reason. A good reason is to stop fraud in voting. The real reason: turn this election upside down in November. And why do they want to turn it upside down? Because this President thinks he is going to lose.

Why would he think he is going to lose? He might have been listening to the ``Hungarian Rhapsody'' over the weekend; and if he was, the people of Hungary threw out Viktor Orban and put in the person who is on the left. Despite the campaigning of Vice President Vance and the support of President Trump, the rightwing candidate lost-- overwhelmingly lost in Hungary. The fear is the President's party is going to lose in November. The voters have the ultimate decision.

The point I am getting to is there are so many things we could be working on now, but to have Americans reregister to vote with questionable identification services accepted, with people writing out a $165 check so that they have a passport so that they can vote in November, this is all unnecessary and overdone. What we are telling you today is, there are more important things for us to worry about in America.

First and foremost, let's get these gasoline prices down. Filled your tank recently? Mr. President, $4 a gallon, $5 a gallon? In Illinois, you run into both. It means that families are going to put a lot more money into the tank than they did before because of this President's undeclared war--that is what we are facing.

If this Chamber continues to debate this misguided SAVE America Act, we also must reconcile with the President's recently signed Executive order--listen to this--an unlawful, unprecedented attempt to meddle in elections under the banner of integrity. Why? Because it is a blatant attempt by President Trump to exceed his constitutional authority by directing the administration to determine the eligibility of American citizens to vote. This is a reckless solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Mr. President, 77 voters over 20 years.

This Executive order shouldn't come as a surprise. As I mentioned, the President has long sought to sow distrust in the integrity of our elections. Last month--listen to this--the President wrote, and I am quoting him now:

Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating.

Hmm. Interesting. Public records recently revealed the President himself voted by mail--What? I thought it meant cheating--in a recent special election for a State house district that includes Mar-a-Lago. So according to President Trump, vote-by-mail is cheating when the nurse who is working strict work hours or the elderly person with mobility issues uses it, but it is totally fine when he himself personally uses it to vote. The hypocrisy of this White House knows no bounds.

There are serious concerns that the processes and systems that Federal Agencies would employ to enforce the President's Executive order are filled with errors and produce unintended consequences.

Under this order the Department of Homeland Security--this is the President's Executive order--the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration would be responsible for determining a voter's citizenship status, empowering them at the Federal level to create a list of approved voters who may receive mail-in ballots; however, nearly a quarter of the Social Security Administration records lack any citizenship information.

They haven't thought this through. The same bad data already used by DHS's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements--or SAVE Program-- which has repeatedly misidentified American citizens as noncitizens. They make mistakes; they question whether you can vote. And people who are doing this legally and accurately shouldn't have to put up with it.

So they basically tested the President's SAVE Program to see how many people were actually not voting properly. They went to Boone County, MO. More than half of the voters that were flagged as ineligible turned out to be American citizens. The system doesn't work.

The President's Executive order also requires the Postal Service to send mail-in ballots only to the administration's approved list of voters. So if you want to use a mail-in ballot--and more than half the people in Illinois do--you have got to pass muster and approval by the President first; your name has to clear the list. As a result, when eligible voters are misidentified as noncitizens, they will not receive a ballot to vote by mail and will be purged from the voter rolls essentially blocking access to the ballot.

The point I am getting to is this: This right to vote that we have in the United States is a key to our democracy. People died to give us this chance to be American citizens who have the right to vote and make up our minds about who would be sitting in this chair or that chair or the other chair. That is your decision, nobody else's. This President should not be able to take it away from you or complicate your life to the point where you have to start dreaming up identification services to go and reregister to vote. That is just wrong.

We are only a few months away from this election. We can't let this happen. The reason we are debating this issue on the floor today is to make sure that they don't hurry and pass this provision without thinking it through. Millions of people's opportunity to vote is at stake.

I come to the floor today to say: If you can't protect the right of Americans to vote however they want to vote in their conscience, then you have forgotten the very basics of our democracy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following law clerks to the Senate Judiciary Committee be granted floor privileges until May 8, 2026: Reena Cranmer, Dillon Ruzich, Kem Chatfield, James Treuthardt, and McKenna White.

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

Mr. President, I listened to the Republican leader from South Dakota Senator Thune in his remarks today, and I would like to say a few words that may be in disagreement with him on some of the things that he said.

Let me preface my remarks by saying the Republican Senate leader is my friend. I think he would count me as a friend as well. We have served together for many years. There are many things we agree on; many things we disagree on.

But that is what the floor of the Senate is all about: Men and women elected to the Senate come to the floor and discuss the issues that they or the people who gather in the Gallery or at home follow this debate.

And there are differences of opinion. It is not unusual. But what I have seen in the 30 years--this is my 30th year in the U.S. Senate representing the State of Illinois--is that despite these disagreements, there comes a moment where the doors are closed, cameras are gone, and Members of both political parties sit down and say: OK, can we solve this problem? Is there a way to solve it?

And let me tell you what this problem is, and for some of you, it will not be a surprise because you have witnessed parts of it. There was an effort made by this President when he was elected to start a massive deportation effort. That is how they characterized it. It was massive.

Millions of people living in America would be forced to leave. And the Agency, the Department of Homeland Security would be in charge of that effort. We heard the President explain over and over and over again at his rallies what his goal was.

He used the words, you will recognize them: We are going to expel the ``worst of the worst.'' Terrorists, murderers, rapists, criminally insane, sex and drug traffickers, they are gone. They never should have been allowed in this country, and now, they are going to be gone.

Well, let me hold up my hand and say: That is a worthy goal. I believe,

having been involved in the debate on immigration for decades now, there are some basics that I believe, and most Senators of both parties agree. Let me see if they ring true to you as well.

We should never knowingly allow a dangerous person to come into this country--never knowingly allow a dangerous person to come into this country. And if they are in this country seeking legal status and citizenship and are dangerous or commit a crime, they are gone. I think most Americans would say: Well, that just makes sense. We don't want dangerous people here. And if they come here and want to be part of America for any period of time, they have to demonstrate that they will be positive, contributing to this society and our economy.

What happened to the previous administration with the border, I am not going to debate one way or the other. We are in the present dealing with the second year of this President's term, and we are dealing with the situation as of today. The question is, What are we going to do about it?

Because it turns out that President Trump's promise to go after the ``worst of the worst'' was a promise that was not kept. I know it personally from the city of Chicago because the ICE forces showed up in Chicago.

I went over to their facilities. I asked as a Senator to see some of the people who were being held. They refused me that opportunity. It was the first time ever. They said: This is too dangerous a situation. We can't let you see the people we have arrested.

Well, it turns out that the legal reports of the people who were arrested and the people detained and the people sent away did not just include a handful of people who were dangerous but many more who were not dangerous. They have not broken any laws, and yet they were deported.

Some of them were American citizens, arrested by the ICE Agency. And now remember what happened in the streets of Minneapolis. We all saw that video over and over again. Two innocent Americans protesting, as they have a right to do under the Constitution, were killed on the streets of Minneapolis by ICE agents.

When they were asked later on by the Agency who were these people, they said they were domestic terrorists. They called them domestic terrorists. And when they took a look at their background, it turned out it wasn't true. One of them was actually a nurse in a veterans hospital in Minneapolis.

And so we said to ourselves: What is going on here? Thousands of ICE agents descending on populations in cities like Minneapolis and Chicago, deporting people from those cities, and they don't fit the definition of dangerous people, dangerous criminals. We have to do something about it to clean this up.

And why would we have ICE agents wearing masks? Why are they hiding their faces? I will just tell you: If your home State is South Dakota like the Republican leader or Illinois like myself, our policemen don't wear masks; our State troopers don't wear masks; our deputy sheriffs don't wear masks. What is going on here? I know what is going on, and you do too.

It strikes fear in the hearts of a lot of people to see those folks heavily armed with combat type uniforms wearing masks. It is to create fear; it is not for effective law enforcement.

What we have tried to argue on this side--the Democratic side of the aisle--is we ought to use the same standards for the ICE agents that we use for police in our own States. That makes sense to me. I have talked to a lot of law enforcement about this, and they say: Our people don't wear masks, and they don't need to.

Now, if they are undercover agents, different thing, keep them safe, do what you need. But that is a rare circumstance, a limited number of people that it applies to.

So we have gone back and forth for weeks now as to what to do to reform the ICE agents and those who are working for this effort for masks and deportation. I thought we were at least moving in the right direction, but we had limited success.

And so we said on 11 different occasions to our friends on the other side of the aisle: Republicans, join us in doing this. Let's fund everything else in the Federal Government, everything else in the Department of Homeland Security, and leave this one area, ICE agents and such, which we are debating, separate.

We offered that amendment 11 times, and 11 times they voted no. Now, they can explain why they voted no. I happen to think they believed it was politically right for them to stick with the President at that point.

But we have gone beyond that point now. Just 2 weeks ago, Senator Thune from South Dakota the Republican leader came to the floor and asked for unanimous consent to pass a funding bill, which excluded ICE from being included into it, and it passed here.

It was sent over to the House of Representatives where there is a Republican majority; they rejected it. They said: We want everything funded or nothing. So they funded everything, which brought us to a standstill again.

Needless to say, this needs to be resolved and soon. The good news is that the Agencies at the Department of Homeland Security like the Coast Guard, CISA, and FEMA, and a lot of other Agencies which you may be familiar with are going to be funded, but we still have to work out the ICE agents part. That is an important element in this, and it should be done and done right to make sure that our constitutional rights are protected.

If any law enforcement agent in any State that you happen to live in decided that it was time to search your home and to crash down your front door to get into your home, they would need a judicial warrant for that purpose. Arguments are being made by some that ICE agents should be excepted from that; I think that is wrong. If you don't have a court that says you have legal authority to tear down my front door and come into my home and arrest me, then you shouldn't do it. You need a judicial warrant, except in the most extreme circumstances, and that doesn't apply to what ICE is doing. So that issue still is out there.

That is the background that Senator Thune was alluding to. He sees it differently than I do, but that is not new in the Senate. There are always differences of opinion. The question is, Will we come together now and try to work out those differences? We have 3 weeks, this week and two more, that we will be in session. This is an opportunity to get it done. No excuses. Both parties, Democrats and Republicans, let's get it done, starting this week.

I am ready to stand and volunteer for that effort if I can help, but it should be done, and done soon.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, not once, not twice, 10 times we Democrats have brought to the floor of the Senate an opportunity to restore all of the appropriations in the Department of Homeland Security but for one Agency, ICE and a related Agency, Border Patrol. Ten times the Republicans have voted no--ten times. Let's get it done this week and done as quickly as possible.

We proposed this to the point where the Republican leader met with the President and said: We ought to be for this. He said: No, not until you pass this voting bill.

This voting bill is controversial. It seems to change. My friend from Wyoming--he is my friend--the Senator from Wyoming said: We are offering an amendment to change this bill.

This bill has been changed over and over again because it is a mess. Why is it a mess? Because the premise is wrong. The premise that there are illegal aliens voting in the United States in any measurable number is wrong.

We did a survey. We looked at 24 years, 1999 to 2023. How many illegal aliens were caught voting in the United States? There were 50 million every election cycle who were registered to vote. How many of those were illegal aliens?

Over a period of 24 years, what is your guess? Seven million? You would think so, wouldn't you, from Senator Barrasso's statements? How about 700,000? How about 70,000? How about 700? How about 77?

That is the exact number that was found. Mr. President, 77 people over a span of 24 years were not eligible to vote as illegal aliens and voted anyway, 77 over 24 years.

So now the Republicans want to change the system. They want people to reregister. This is the first I have heard that they are going to accept a driver's license. Up until now, you needed a passport. How many Americans have passports? Forty-nine percent.

If you wanted to get a passport in time to register to vote for November, what do you have to do? Well, you have to fill out a form and you have to write a check and you have to wait weeks to receive it.

How big is that check that you have to write so you can be sure you vote? Mr. President, $165 for you to get a passport--$165. You wait weeks and maybe months before it is delivered to you to prove you are an American citizen so you can vote in November.

What is wrong with this picture? For 77 voters or attempted voters, in 24 years, we are going to require every American to come up with this proof? Oh, there is an alternative. Your birth certificate, you can prove you are an American that way in this reregistration effort by the Republicans.

Have you found your birth certificate recently? I think mine is upstairs in the bedroom closet in a cardboard box. I am not sure. I would have to go look. Some people don't have access at all to them.

Why are we going through all this? The bottom line is: There is a good reason and a real reason. The good reason is to make sure that noncitizens don't vote. I agree with that premise. The real reason is: Donald Trump is scared of this election in November.

Remember when he said: The States give me some more Republican Members of the House? Redistrict your State. Draw up your map, save it for unusual times. He did that because he is concerned about the outcome of the election.

So when you hear this explanation about voter fraud, remember 77 in 24 years, 77 examples. And for that they want to change it.

In terms of showing their driver's license as an ID, I do it every day, and you do it too. It is pretty normal. That is not a problem, but that is not what this bill says. They think they want to change it. Let's see them change it.

In the meantime, let's pay everybody: TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, and the basic Agencies at Homeland Security except for ICE. We are working

with the White House and negotiating new terms for the ICE agents. Let's get it done this week.

For 10 different occasions, we have come to the floor and said: Fund the rest of the Agencies including TSA. I still think we should be there.

Political Prisoners

Mr. President, I come to the floor at this time to discuss a separate issue, totally unrelated. Over the course of the time I have served in the Senate, I have pointed out political prisoners jailed around the world. Others have joined me over the years. Our current Secretary of State Marco Rubio joined me on the floor one time to help further history of bipartisan support for those pursuing freedom and democracy around the world.

Sometimes those released as a result in pressure from this Chamber actually come to see me in Washington, and they say how important it is to know that they were remembered.

I want to salute my staffer Chris Homan, who joins me on the floor here. This has been his personal project for many years with great success.

Thanks, Chris.

Today, let me raise a few issues and cases for your consideration. Let me start with the United Arab Emirates. We are one of that nation's top human rights defenders. Ahmed Mansoor tragically has marked 9 years in jail. He was arrested under the guise that his social media posts advocating for human rights threatened social harmony.

Despite the dismal conditions of his incarceration, Mr. Mansoor has remained steadfast in his commitment to human rights, even conducting multiple hunger strikes to protest jail conditions.

We have strong ties and many shared interests with the UAE, but its continued involvement in this horrific Sudanese civil war and jailing Mr. Mansoor complicates the relationship.

Adding to the strain is Emirati Ambassador Otaiba's bewildering refusal to engage on these issues. I appeal to him to finally release Mr. Mansoor.

Next, Azerbaijan. Vice President Vance recently visited this country. In 2023, anti-corruption researcher and advocate Dr. Gubad Ibadoghlu and his wife were forcibly dragged from their vehicle and severely beaten. His dubious arrest was a tragic result of writings about the rampant corruption stemming from Azerbaijan's oil and gas industry.

While eventually placed under house arrest in 2024, he has still been denied a trial and medical care; and his family continues to suffer harassment.

In fact, his son Emin, who desperately hopes to reunite with his father, is here today in the Senate Gallery. He is one of the many wrongfully detained individuals in Azerbaijan who should be fully released immediately.

In a number of cases in China, starting with Gulshan Abbas, a doctor serving a 20-year sentence--20 years--likely a result of her sister's advocacy for the Uyghurs.

Hong Kong publisher Jimmy Lai, jailed since 2020, a tragic example of that island's loss of freedom under Chinese rule.

Pastors Jin Mingri and Gao Quanfu and his wife Pang Yu, arrested amid a crackdown on religious freedom.

I apologize for mispronouncing the names.

The Chinese have worked with my office on such cases in the past and made some important gestures, but it is time to do something. Release these individuals.

I urge President Trump to raise with Chinese President Xi when he visits China the fate of these prisoners.

In Tunisia, last July, I came to the floor to call for the release of prominent Tunisian lawyer and political commentator Sonia Dahmani. She was arrested in May 2024 for peaceful radio and television political commentary and subjected to appalling prison conditions.

Her sister Ramla was also sentenced in absentia to 2 years in prison, simply for publicly advocating for her sister's release.

While I am glad Sonia was conditionally released last year, the government is still harassing her with nonsense charges.

I urge President Saied to end this vendetta against Sonia and Ramla and take steps to restore press freedom in Tunisia, once a symbol of great democratic hope after the Arab Spring.

Lastly, Equatorial Guinea, an oil-rich African nation with a history of repression and growing ties with the Russian military, human rights advocate Joaquin Elo Ayeto had been arrested in 2019 and eventually released a year later, not long after which he came to meet me in my office here in Washington.

Unfortunately, he was rearrested under new specious charges in 2024. It is time to end this official harassment against Mr. Ayeto.

I urge President Mbasogo to show the same compassion displayed in 2022 and release him without delay on humanitarian grounds.

What we have here really matters, not just to these individuals and their families. My friend and jailed Russian dissident Vladimir Kara- Murza often reminded me that for political prisoners the worst nightmare is the thought that people have forgotten them.

Let me remind Ahmed, Gubad, Gulshan, Jimmy, Pastors Jin and Gao, Pang, Sonia, Ramla, and Joaquin you are not forgotten, and we will continue to speak out for your freedom.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving right to object. I say to my colleague from Ohio, I believe you are sincere. I believe you want to find a solution. I share that feeling.

There is a provision in this, which I am not sure that you are aware of. It is very important. It is at the end of the second page, and it says about the effective date of this.

This section shall apply on and after the day after the date of the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office held in November 2026.

I don't want to wait until November, and I think that is an approach which puts that date in play. It really suggests that we are asking even greater sacrifice of the people who are being disadvantaged.

I will just tell you that eight times now we have brought to the floor a provision which would pay TSA, Coast Guard, pay all the divisions of the Department of Homeland Security, except for the ICE and enforcement divisions.

We can agree to that, and I believe the Senator from Oregon Senator Merkley is going to offer that.

Oh, sure. Go ahead.

You are not supposed to say that.

At this point, I am going to object, and we can discuss many of the things which you brought up today. I would just tell you: You will have your chance, within an hour, to vote for Jeff Merkley's provision which will pay everybody working for TSA right now. So until you get that chance--and I hope you vote the right way--I object.