Business Meeting on S.Con.Res.33: Congressional Budget FY 2026-2035

i call the meeting to order the budget committee is meeting today to report the fiscal year twenty twenty-six reconciliation bill a business quorum is present sounds good to me our work today is of a ministerial nature to report the legislative recommendation from the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs the full uh senate i thank senator paul for doing that according to section three ten b of the congressional budget act and past practice of this committee no amendments were in order today members who wish to amend the legislation will have that opportunity on the senate floor consistent with past practices of this committee i'll give a statement and then i'll recognize ranking member berkeley for his remarks we will then uh vote to report the legislation's members will have until five p m friday may twenty second to submit their written remarks for inclusion in the um quick overview this includes what will be coming from the judiciary committee on the floor i think we start this tomorrow night for everybody get hydrated get get a good night's sleep and if i got anything to do with it we'll start earlier so you know give everybody a chance to have their say but also maybe get get home um the bill will include twenty two point five seven billion to higher pay in trains c b p personnel who secure our border and interdict dangerous narcotics thirty point seven two five billion to fully fund isis immigration enforcement mission and keep violent criminal illegal aliens and potential terrorists out of america one point four seven five billion for doj to combat fraud and fight crime seven and a half billion to hire train pay and equip homeland security investigations personnel investigating personnel to carry out domestic law enforcement investigation which includes investigations into drug trafficking and crimes against children online three and a half billion for improvements to border security including air and marine operations and efforts to combat drug trafficking one billion for the us secret service enhancements response to the heightened threat environment in which we live in the repeated attempts on president trump's life this uh includes security elements and upgrades in and around the water And um there'll be more. But I think this is the right time for us to do that, to do this, given the threats we face. I'm an appropriator. I very much like regular order, but unfortunately when it comes to ICE and the Border Patrol, we were not able to achieve a outcome in the um appropriations process. So, reconciliation is available to us, and I think it's imperative that we make these investments uh the tremendous success of president trump and his team in securing the border the seventy two billion dollar package will give ice and the border patrol what they need to continue to make us all safe and um with that i'll turn it over to senator merkeley

thank you very much mr. chairman and as you noted it's uh we have a kind of a pro forma role here and that we'd normally be

what does that actually mean

well yeah yeah i mean i guess it means we're not going to be allowed to have amendments under under the rules

ok good i like that man

um might be a lot more interesting if we if we could

i've always liked that word

our normal role here would be to stitch together under the budget process the the different pieces coming from different committees uh and then that would be forwarded to the floor but we only have a product from one committee so we're just essentially voting on whether to pass that to the floor and as much affection as i have for my colleague from south carolina uh we have a different Democrats have a different view of this of this bill. Starting with just understanding that this moment Americans are so pressed to the wall. Uh, two weekends ago I held nine town halls across eastern Oregon and it probably doesn't surprise you to hear that folks are unhappy. They're unhappy that in our state gas is over five bucks an hour. And they're unhappy because diesel for the track on the farms is over six bucks a gallon. And simultaneously the grocery prices are up and rent is up and inflation is at its highest year-over-year point in three years at three point eight percent. And health care is more expensive and that the tax credits that help them buy health care have been slashed in the what the president called his big beautiful bill but many of us felt was a big ugly betrayal of the American family. And why? Why did that bill do? Found more tax breaks for billionaires at the expense of America's families. It was a family's lose, billionaires win proposition. President Trump summed it up last week. Maybe truer words have never been spoken. He said, uh, " I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody." to get by families are having to turn to credit cards and kevin has it may sixth the director of the white house economic council said that americans quote credit card spending is through the roof they're spending more on gasoline but they're spending more on everything else too well that's ordinary families spending more on credit cards cause just can't afford the basics And of course a big factor driving up the cost of everything is the war in Iran, and its effect on energy, that directly affects the the g- the gas at the pump and the and the diesel. It certainly affects the price of fertilizer for our farmers, and energy is in everything, so it drives the cost of everything else. So, let's just summarize it by saying that it's now clear that Operation Epic Fury has turned into Operation Epic Failure. The President promised to end wars lower prices but he's starting wars and he's raising prices you know he's putting business out of business spirit airlines had seventeen thousand workers that they don't have now because they're out of business and they're late a month because of surging jet fuel costs and with the cost of everything rising people have less money to pay their rent or pay their mortgage. And harmful closures, this hasn't gotten much attention, but harmful closures are their highest rate in six years. So with all this going on, this special reconciliation bill could be focused on helping families. But what's actually in the bill? Well, Trump's gold-plated, billion-dollar, ballroom boondoggle is in the bill. A massive, literally the fourteenth structure, that makes the white house look like this little tiny auxiliary dwelling unit well that symbolically you know tearing down the east wing the people's house and putting up a structure fit for louis the fourteenth that might be a symbol of an authoritarian government in a strongman state but certainly is the wrong type of architectural undertaking for a democratic republic government advocated to people government by and for the people and the rest of this bill well no there's not a thing in it for the groceries or the gas or the healthcare or the housing costs or any of the things that families are struggling with but there's something else that the chair mentioned that i think is worth emphasizing we're going down the route of saying the appropriations process might be hard So we'll just bypass it in reconciliation. This is planting seeds that are going to dramatically change the Senate and dramatically change the cooperation between the the parties on spending bills. And, uh, regardless of the content of this particular bill, I think that is another step away from, um, a process where people work hard to find compromise across the aisle. You know, this process was created in nineteen. seventeen four and there was no division about it every single senator present for the vote voted for the bill a simple majority process now you might wonder robert bird who was the defender of the super majority robert bird voted for this yes why one purpose the bill had to reduce the deficit every senator on both sides that's worthy of creating this special pathway. But, twenty-two years later, nineteen ninety-six, the Republican majority wanted to do a tax bill, and they brought in a new parliamentarian. His name was Robert Dove. And they asked him to rule the opposite of what everyone had agreed that this bill, this special process was for, this reconciliation. And they said, " You can increase the deficit." And that opened the door to doing tax legislation through reconciliation that vastly increased the deficits and the debt. And that's happened four times now. Four massive tax bills creating massive additional debt. The bill passed last year. How much did that add to the debt? Well, an estimated thirty trillion over the next thirty years, or fifty trillion over the next thirty years, if the interest rates are one percent higher than CBO's general estimate of four percent. so now reconciliation is not just being used to increase the deficit through tax bills, it's being used to increase the deficit through regular appropriation style spending. so here we are with this this bill that has in it the gold-plated billion dollar ballroom boondoggle but also also this massive amount of additional funds for i But here's the thing, is there something pressing that requires that? They are sitting on a hundred and three billion dollars of unobligated funds. That's equal to four years of their normal spending. It's unobligated because they couldn't possibly begin to spend all that money that was passed last year in the in the big beautiful bill. So, there's no necessity for bypassing appropriations at this moment and setting this precedent. that is so going to damage the process. And I understand that the parties go back and forth on - on who's in the chairmanship, but once you change the use of the process, the tools, both parties are going to take use of it, and that's where I'm really concerned about the impact of doing this now on the future of this body. So, I'd love to see a bill before us right now on something that is urgent, something

thank you we'll recognize some other people but very quickly uh number one we believe this is urgent on our side we had a like eleven to fifteen million people come across our border in a four year period

yes

that's just pretty much been a disaster for our country. The open borders policy that my democratic colleagues supported in earnest, obliterated every control we had on our border, waved everybody through that could take one step in America, flying them all over America, uh, has taken a toll on our country. And one of the reasons we're in charge is because we promised to try to clean up the mess that was created. And the money in this bill is trying to Uh, ice can be reformed, absolutely. We tried to reform it, but we just couldn't get there for whatever reason. Uh, but they have an important job, and that's to hunt down people that are here illegally, that present a danger to us, and also to just control illegal immigration. If you want future waves of illegal immigrants to lessen or stop, they have to see people leaving. If nobody ever leaves, then you'll entice people to keep coming. On the Border Patrol's side, uh, now's not the time to weaken our border security, cuz we are in a conflict, not with just Iran, but I think with radical Islam writ large, and those of you on the intel committee probably know better than I, but I've never seen a time with so many threats potential to our country. So I think we believe that we wanna go ahead and fund the Border Patrol and ICE through the President's term. to fulfill the promises we made to the american people which is to create order out of chaos and that's why we have this bill and we just have a different view of um necessity priorities and that's why you have elections so with that anyone else would like to speak

uh mister mister chairman

yeah

since since you did characterize our our view uh let me point out that it was

that was my view of your view

your view of my Um, which is which is inaccurate. Uh, it was twenty thirteen that the Democrats led the effort to do a comprehensive

OK.

immigration bill that had massive controls at the border. It was bipartisan. We passed it in the Senate. It went to the House, so the Republican House wouldn't hold a single hearing on it. We worked incredibly hard in twenty twenty four to reach a bipartisan deal for security at the border again. And once again, in this case it was presidential politics that that got in the way. So we have been fully uh, in support of law and order, the rule of law at, at the border and I, I hope when the dust clears from the current politics, uh, we can again do a bipartisan bill, uh, to, uh, uh, to take on many issues that are involved in, in immigration.

Well, just finally, if you think the Biden years were four good years for border control, we have a different view. Um, Mister Chairman? Yes. Can I inter- can I help? In inquiry.

Thank you, thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman.

Absolutely.

Um, so, as you noted, or, or the ranking member noted, we only have the Hicksath

Yeah.

committee portion here.

Right.

I understand that you can proceed with this. Is it still your intention to seek to add the ballroom piece when we get to the Senate floor?

We'll see how all that plays out. Um, from my point of view, the the Hilton episode should wake us all up a little bit. If it Democrat president had proposed trying to find a place on campus at the White House more secure. Albert said, yeah, it makes sense to me. What if there had been five guys rushing the Hilton Hotel? Um, I don't think this is a vanity project at all. I think the times in which we live, Senator Van Hollen, call for us to make adjustments. And the president, whoever he or she may be in the future, this really doesn't go in effect, I think, to twenty eight, uh, would be well served to have a place they could meet the public more secure and the secret service needs some upgrades so this is the package it that we're proposing where it goes i really don't know we'll have an amendment process and i wanna tell my colleagues uh a compliment really we've had two or three reconciliations it seems like a hundred but y'all fought for your causes and on the floor you'll have a chance to offer amendments and fight for your causes and that's the way it should be and we'll see how it shakes out

i appreciate that j- just brief very briefly in response look i think um i think as you know uh using that event as an example is uh misplaced the press would never have their event at a white house ballroom given the importance of the separation of of the press and i don't think we we need a ballroom i know that president came back from his trip to china with even renewed ballroom envy but i don't think it's a good use of taxpayer dollars the other thing mister chairman i would say because it's in the judiciary commission proportion is that we just learned yesterday of this this one point eight billion dollar slush fund

right

that could be used according to acting attorney general to payouts to people who uh assaulted capital police officers and committed violent crimes so just just to signal my intention uh as you say we can offer amendments on the floor i will be offering one along those lines

definitely you may have some support you might you never know you never know until you offer them right

i hope so i'm i'm i'm i'm signaling cause i think maybe you would agree that we shouldn't be giving payouts

well well here's here's what i agree that you should have every amendment within reason uh on the floor germane or not and and that's what will happen so i'm not trying to short circuit anybody this this is the way you do it apparently you know we've done it in the past is to get the thing going and tomorrow evening or hopefully as senator murray said earlier in the day we'll have a spirited debate about all this stuff

about tonight

well i don't think so

chairman

yes senator weidner

one additional word on uh yesterday's events in addition to what uh i call the one point seven billion dollar cop beater slush fund that has virtually no accountability uh delivered the week after police week in washington ironically um we also discovered that there is a trump family tax amnesty deal that figure out how that was negotiated and how you get to a proper case or controversy for a settlement there looks like the only signature on the document was todd blanch not clear who he was representing at the time i've never seen a settlement between two parties in which only one lawyer signs and nobody knows how that was negotiated whether there was the slightest independent eyeball on that scam and what was behind the tax investigation that needed to be put to an end. We already don't believe that the president has ever paid any taxes. We know perfectly well that he said he would release his taxes as soon as the tax audits are over. It's not clear that they existed to begin with, but now clearly they are over. So we'll be looking forward with interest to see his tax returns, as every other president has uh disclosed. to see whether he and his family and his businesses pay any taxes at all. But certainly, a midnight deal hidden from the Appropriations Committee until after the hearing was over, so Blanche didn't after answer questions about it, in which the same lawyer seems to be negotiating for both sides of the deal, and giving the president and his family personal cover for whatever tax mischief they've been up to since the beginning of

yeah and what spurred the litigation is that uh somehow the president's tax return were released uh outside the law and he sued what would you do if somebody released your tax returns

well the first thing i would do is i would um have somebody independent determine whether or not there is actually harm done

yeah

because every president has always released their tax returns so to have tax information released would seem to be a zero harm

oh ok

act for a president.

yes ok

senator corn is here i know you wanna move forward so i will yield

yes yes well this is why tomorrow will be very interesting we'll have all these debates and if if it's ok senator merkley uh i move that the committee report the reconciliation bill is there second

and mr. chair will there be an opportunity to make comments after the vote you want to take mmm

we could

absolutely

absolutely we'll be here for like twenty or thirty more minutes um all in favor say aye

aye aye

all opposed no

no

the ayes barely have it

can you do recorded vote

um

yes we can do a recorded vote absolutely

ok

ask for roll call vote

as for roll call vote

roll call vote would be

mister grassley

aye

mister krapo

aye

mister johnson

aye

mister marshall

bye

mister cornon mr. bryan mister lee mr. lee so we have to tie it it's not a tie mister kennedy mister kennedy please wait mister ricketts mister ricketts uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh i mister moreno mister moreno mister scott mister scott i mister markley mister markley mrs. murray missus murray mister wyden mister wyden mister sanders mister sanders mister whitehouse mister whitehouse mister warner mister warner mister kane mister kane mister van holland mister van hollin mister luhan mister luhan Mister Padilla. Mister Chairman. Aye. Mister Chairman, the yeas are eleven, the nays are ten. Uh, the bill will be reported to the floor, and proved, uh, reported to the Senate. I think, uh, who wants to speak? I'm coming, thanks. OK, um, Senator Kaine. I'm gonna have to scoot here in a minute. I think, Senator Johnson, you're good to about ten, twenty, is that right? OK. Senator Kaine.

Th- thank you, Mister Chair and to colleagues, I'll be quick, this bill in its current form would be to add seventy billion to two agencies that were funded to the tune of an extra hundred and forty billion dollars in last year's reconciliation bill. I don't think they need this money on top of the hundred and forty billion that we just gave them. What better could we do with seventy billion dollars to build homes or lower housing costs, to improve child care affordability, improve higher ed options, to reverse snap cuts, ameliorate Medicaid cuts. That seventy billion dollars would go a long way to helping everyone not supercharging an agency that has been dramatically overfunded. The money that ICE gets is larger than the militaries of many nations, and it's by far the largest budget of any law enforcement agency in the United States. And so, I will oppose the bill on the grounds that this is dollars that could be much better spent. But the other thing, Mister Chair, I want to point out, which my colleagues know, but I sometimes think for any public that's interested in this, when they hear Republicans talk about, you know, Democrats, open borders. Um, we just need to clarify the history. Um, shortly after I got here, it was actually the first year I was here, uh, we worked on a bipartisan immigration reform bill that that coupled a whole series of immigration reforms, from path to citizenship, to visa reforms, to massive investments in border security. And many Democrats supported that bill and it passed with an overwhelming bipartisan margin here in the Senate. And then it went to a Republican house with Paul Ryan is the speaker that refused even to take the bill up. What if we had made those investments in twenty thirteen? How different the world would look right now. But those were investments in border security and immigration reforms that Democrats strongly supported. Then, Mister Chair, you and I worked together during President Trump's first term to offer a proposal to the White House that the White House told us they would support, that paired relief for DREAMers with massive investments in border security. And we introduced a bill senators, eight democrats, eight republicans with the white house giving us a thumbs up and a and a green light. And we could have invested those dollars at the border then, but within twenty-four hours after introducing the bill, the white house did a one eighty, president Trump decided he didn't like the bill, uh despite his pledge that he would support it. And so yet again, a proposal that was bipartisan with democrats weighing in for significant border funding, the rug was pulled out from under it. If we had been able to accomplish that bipartisan deal in twenty thirteen, or if we had been able to accomplish the bipartisan deal in twenty eighteen, the situation today would look so very, very different. And some of the challenges that we've seen and the cases that grab attention cases that ought to grab attention wouldn't have even happened. And so lest anyone think that Democrats don't wanna work to fund border security, if I add up how much money I voted for for border security during the time I've been here since twenty thirteen, my colleague, Senator Murray, who's been here a lot longer than me, nodding an amen nod on this. It would show that, of course, we're for border security. Um, but the right way to do it is like we did in twenty thirteen or even in twenty eighteen. We can find a bipartisan path to do these things. Reconciliation is obviously a, uh, an attractive item because it allows one side to just do, you know, whatever the heck it wants. But this is an issue where there is some common cause, if you just sit down and work hard enough to find it. Um, so I'll oppose

thank you mr. chairman and

thanks

uh uh i too oppose this for the same reasons that you've heard from my colleagues and i wanna add to what senator kain said it is not that we oppose border security and in fact we worked really hard in the negotiations originally to get some common sense reform into ice and border Things like having training r- longer than forty eight days. So our ICE officers learned how to deescalate rather than murder people on the street. So that they had ID, so that somebody knew if they were talking to an ICE agent who it was, that it could be identified, for a lot of reasons. And things like warrants, so somebody wouldn't bust into your house. These were common sense things we were asking for. Who refused every single time? Every common sense request we made with Stephen Miller. And now what we have is a giant package that benefits uh only Donald Trump and Stephen Miller. That's what this package is about. It is appalling to me that the Republicans are pushing a package of seventy plus billion dollars for three years on um funding uh ice and border patrol without any additional training or warrants or common sense things that we We believe the American people are asking for today. Any police officer should not be able to bust in your door and haul you out without a warrant. That's America. No one should be able to shoot people in the streets without letting us know who they are or why they're there, without the training that would prevent those kinds of things from happening. So instead of responding to us and working with us to get some common sense reforms, Republicans have now busted by every single protocol and are putting a bill on the floor, that only requires Republicans to vote for it, for seventy two billion dollars. And Stephen Miller is pretty happy today, or will be by tomorrow night or Friday. And who else is happy is Donald Trump. And I wanna share the comments that we have heard on the Golden Ballroom. I go home and hear the same thing that Senator Merkley talked about. Gas prices, healthcare costs, uh, all of the energy prices that people are paying, the the tariffs that were passed are impacting everybody's pocketbook. They want us to address those, and what are Republicans putting on the floor? A giant package that addresses none of that. I think we make choices here about what we're gonna fight for. I think all of us come here and tell our constituents what we're fighting for. What the Republicans are telling us today is they're gonna fight for a giant ballroom for this president and not for the American people. And we will oppose it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Pedia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. uh wanna associate myself with the comments from my colleagues on the democratic side calling out uh the history of bipartisan efforts on uh immigration reform including uh sensible border security uh but uh i wanna remind this all since this is the budget committee that uh we often say both sides of the aisle that budget documents are reflections of our values and of our priorities and if that remains the case then this is a pretty picture of just how out of touch our republican colleagues are with working families across america as senator murray just reminded us uh families are struggling costs are rising costs are spiking and they're struggling to make ends meet three point eight percent inflation five dollars a gallon gas at the pump the largest single month spike in grocery costs

well

ice levels of a c a premiums ever and so how do republicans propose to help working families they don't but let's give ice and cbp seventy two billion dollars more so much for fiscal responsibility this is seventy two billion dollars on top of a hundred and three billion dollars they've been giving previously that they're still sitting on. They've been given so much money they can't spend it fast enough. And Republicans wanna give them more. Let's go back to what our constituents are saying, cuz they know it's not just in Washington, not just in California, it's across the country. Americans are waking up wondering, oh gee, I wonder if ICE and CBP have enough money today. They're trying to make ends meet. And let me be clear on another topic, cuz they know a Republican call you know, uh, twist the action of the next couple of days and accuse Democrats of defunding the police again. That's not true. We've voted for DHS funding in the past and are in- simply insisting that if we're gonna give additional dollars to ICE and CBP, that some things have to change. We need reforms. We need changes for how they're going about their job. What people are seeing is chaos on the streets. Rene Good. Alex Preddy. Ruben Ray Martinez. Not undocumented immigrants. Not legal permanent residents. United States citizens killed by immigration agents. We've heard about the uh separation of children from their parents again. We've heard about horrible conditions in detention centers ongoing. We've heard not just from our constituents, but from four hundred and twenty-five federal judges appointed by presidents from both parties including judges appointed by Donald Trump who have ruled that ISIS actions are illegal and unconstitutional and in many, many cases have undermined basic due process. The administration has lost ten thousand times in court. That's a ninety percent loss rate, by the way. If any other department or agency was failing to do their job ninety percent of the time, Congress would be demanding oversight and accountability and consequences for those in charge. But no. Because Donald Trump doesn't want that, Our Republican colleagues are happy to just go along with whatever he wants. And let's throw in a ballroom while we're at it. A ballroom which, as I recall, he promised to completely build with private donations. He bragged about at least what, four hundred million dollars being committed? Maybe even collected? Where's that money? And why all of a sudden the change of tune of, despite the private money being out there, now he wants taxpayers to foot the bill. We could be spending that money in lot smarter ways to help families. How about restoring some of the snap cuts? Not just good for families and children who are hungry, but how about the farmers who supply the food? How about reinvesting in healthcare? How about reinvesting in child care? Or repairing some highways and bridges. Investing in schools, the child tax credit. Housing assistance, there's a lot better use for them.

thank you and just just a real quick word of rebuttal uh i didn't come prepared with the long list of victims

hmm hmm

of illegal immigrant crime. Lakin Riley, Rachel Moore, and a very long list of, I don't have the list of the literally tens of thousands, I think over hundreds of thousands of children lost, immigrant children shuffled through the system, probably into the hands of sex traffickers. Uh, this administration is trying to do everything they can to to find those children. So again, tho- tho- tho- those are the names that that should be mentioned as well. Um, but anyway, uh, any any other Senator wish to make comment? If not, with no further business, I'll remind members that they have until five p m on Friday, May twenty second, to submit written remarks for inclusion in the committee. Print to the com- committee clerk, I na- I ask an Adam's consent that staff be printed to make necessary technical and conforming changes to the reported bill. Without objection, the meeting is adjourned.