Alex Padilla

Mr. PADILLA

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

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, my amendment will specify that at least $300 million of the ICE funding in the Judiciary title must be used to ensure that all officers and agents wear body-worn cameras while engaging in immigration enforcement activities. Body cameras are already required by State and local law enforcement across the country, and it has been for years in many jurisdictions. What we have learned from that experience is that it is not just an important tool for transparency, but it helps keep agents accountable. It protects both the subject of enforcement actions as well as law enforcement officers themselves. The DHS has said that, somehow, they want to implement body cameras but don't have the resources to do it--that is, despite sitting on more than $100 billion of money that they haven't spent already. Therefore, this amendment will give them the specific funding that they claim they need. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5808, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, it is a deja vu all over again. Not only did this Senate, on a bipartisan basis, reject similar measures legislatively just a few weeks ago, but just a few hours ago, this Senate rejected a similar amendment on a bipartisan basis. The Senator from Utah suggested we ought to be making it easier to vote and harder to cheat. We do make it harder to cheat. It is unlawful for noncitizens to vote in our elections. Every study, every audit, every report shows that voter fraud is exceedingly rare. There is simply no evidence of massive voter fraud. But this measure doesn't make it easier to vote. You know, this and other measures that would eliminate vote-by-mail and make voter registration drives unlawful are not enabling civic participation. It is making it harder. It is wrong-headed. We defeated it before. We should defeat it again. Please vote no on this measure. Point of Order And, therefore, Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane and therefore violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, yes, I rise in opposition to this Graham amendment. I will remind us, colleagues, that just over a month ago, a similar proposal was defeated on a bipartisan basis. I will repeat for the umpteenth time: Every study, every audit, every report shows that there is no massive voter fraud across America. Current safeguards are working--and, yes, it is already unlawful for noncitizens to vote in the United States. What this amendment does is to smear earlier attempts to put through the President's priorities to try to take over elections and to ban vote by mail. While we are at it--while they are at it--attacking trans folks during Pride Month? That is pretty damned offensive. So, for all of the same reasons we killed prior legislative efforts, I say we vote down this amendment. Point of Order Mr. President, in so doing, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates the Byrd rule, section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, like the reconciliation bill before us, the past few weeks have been really eye-opening for the American public to see in plain view the clear priorities of President Trump and his allies here in Congress. It is increasingly clear that their top priority is not addressing the affordability crisis that is hurting so many families across the country, families who are struggling just to get by. The proposals, the actions of the Republican majority and the White House isn't trying to tackle the cost of healthcare; it is not trying to tackle the cost of housing; it is not reducing the price of gas-- that is for sure--or addressing the increasing costs of groceries. The end result of the proposals before us continue to be personal gain for the President and those around him, plain and simple. But I don't think we should really be surprised by that. Don't take my word for it. We are talking about a political party whose President--the leader of that party, who has said publicly, his own words: I do not care about Americans' financial situation. Let me repeat that. A President, leader of the Republican Party who says: I do not care about Americans' financial situation. It doesn't get any clearer than that, folks, because whether it is a late-night social media post or what he says in front of the cameras for everybody to hear, this President has no problem telling us exactly what his priorities are. And his priorities are clearly not Americans' financial situations. His priorities include an abomination of a ballroom that he wanted the American people to pay for to the tune of $1 billion after repeatedly saying that it wouldn't cost a single taxpayer dollar, that it would be privately funded. Another one of his priorities is ensuring immunity for himself and for his family, and shoring up support from his MAGA loyalists, including the January 6 insurrectionists who were prosecuted for violently attacking the Capitol, violently attacking Capitol Police. He was trying to advance a self-serving corrupt slush fund to pay off his supporters. That is his priority. Here is another one just from yesterday: selecting an unqualified person Bill Pulte into an extremely sensitive position within our government as head of the Director of National Intelligence whose track record leads us to see plainly their goal of interfering in our elections or politically pursuing anyone the President perceives as being an enemy. These are the President's priorities, colleagues, not helping working families. And as clear as day, as he has outlined these priorities, there is no pushback by the Republican majority. They continue to enable every single one of these efforts. The ballroom, which is nothing other than a vanity project, that never should have happened in the first place. It is a tragedy that the East Wing was torn down without a discussion, without the consultation with Congress that is clearly required. Yet for weeks, we heard Republican Members of Congress parroting the lame excuse of: For security reasons, this was a necessary project. But they have nothing to say about a UFC ring being built on the lawn of the White House. Really? And by the way, what happened to the private donations that were supposed to be paying for the ballroom project? The President bragged about the $400 million--probably more--that he secured. So where is it? Where is that money? We have to remain vigilant that the ballroom project funding does not appear in this new reconciliation bill or doesn't work its way back in. Now while Acting Attorney General Blanche publicly stated yesterday that the so-called weaponization fund was not moving forward, it is really hard to take this administration at its word when they are constantly saying one thing and doing another--lies over and over to the American people. When we first learned about their plans to create this fund, I actually came to the floor and asked that this floor pass by unanimous consent my No Rewards for January 6 Rioters Act which I introduced back in January to stop this proposal in its tracks. Trump already gave pardons to January 6 insurrectionists. Let's not give them payouts as well. So we must act to ensure that no one who attacked the Capitol and especially those who assaulted law enforcement officers that day can ever qualify for any kind of payout like this. And again, a few words on Bill Pulte, Donald Trump's pick to serve as Acting Director of National Intelligence. It is clear that his only qualification--only qualification that matters to President Trump--is blind loyalty to President Trump, a willingness to do whatever Trump asks. Now time and again, we have seen Pulte use sensitive information in his role at the Federal Housing Finance Agency to target Trump's political opponents. Don't just imagine what he might do, imagine what he will do with the sensitive information at his fingertips in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, whether it is attacking opponents or finding new dangerous ways to advance Donald Trump's election corruption and efforts to take over--the President's words again--to take over elections. Each of these is a misplaced and dangerous priority that Donald Trump puts over the needs of the American people. All these priorities do nothing to advance our national interest or improve the lives of working families across the country. So let's not allow ourselves to be distracted from the biggest of the misplaced priorities at the heart of this reconciliation bill. When I hear some of our Republican colleagues say: OK. No ballroom here, no slush fund here--they don't commit to not coming back to it in other efforts. They say: Let's come back to the intent and core of what this reconciliation bill was at the outset--billions and billions and billions of dollars more for ICE and CBP for immigration enforcement, the same Agencies that are still sitting on more than a $100 billion of previously approved and appropriated funds that they can't even spend. What happened to fiscal responsibility? Instead of ensuring that money flows as Agencies can spend it, they are trying to ram more money to these Agencies while shielding them from oversight and accountability. Let me remind us all of the deaths of Americans like Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and Ruben Ray Martinez. Let me remind us of how this administration is using children like 5-year-old Liam Ramos as bait. Let me remind our colleagues about the price gouging that is happening, mothers and children at Dilley detention center having to pay so much just to access clean water and letting thousands of children languish in detention, jailing more than 6,200 children since the beginning of this administration. That is a shame. And now they want to shield them from more than 425 judges appointed by both Democrat and Republican Presidents, including some appointed by Donald Trump himself who have issued more than 10,000 rulings finding that ICE has violated the Constitution of the United States. That is not an exaggeration: more than 10,000 findings of ICE violating the Constitution of the United States, violating due process, and violating Federal laws since the start of this Trump administration--10,000 rulings. That is more than a 90-percent loss rate in court by this administration. This administration's immigration enforcement efforts have clearly not just been extreme and cruel, they have been unlawful and indefensible. What we should be doing, colleagues, is discussing and debating ideas on how to help American families better afford their groceries, how to better afford the gas they put in their car because they have to get to work, help American families afford their mortgage or the rent, how to pay for childcare, how to pay for healthcare. So many Americans are reeling from the ``Anything But Beautiful Bill,'' from the expiration of the ACA tax credits, and so many Americans are suffering from the experience of witnessing or having their children ripped from their arms, with loved ones, family members, friends, neighbors, coworkers disappearing into detention, many in the United States, many now in a foreign country. They are suffering through all of that while still wondering how they are going to make ends meet at the end of the month. Those are the priorities for countless families across the country who are hurting and struggling right now that we should be focusing on. But instead, no, we are focusing on what this reconciliation bill offers in front of us. I have said it before. I think most folks, at some point in this Chamber, have used the reference that budgets are a reflection of our values. A reconciliation bill is a budget bill. It, too, is a reflection of values and priorities. They reveal what we prioritize. They reveal what we stand for, what we fight for, and it serves as a guide to see if it truly reflects the needs and priorities of the American people or not. If you look at this language, if you look at the concept of the reconciliation bill in front of us, it is clear that Donald Trump and our Republican colleagues have no interest in addressing the urgent needs of the American people. So I ask, colleagues, let's reject this bill full of misplaced priorities. Let's actually regroup and put a bill together that will lower costs for American families, expand their opportunities, and help Americans get ahead. And I guarantee you, if we were to do that in good faith, you wouldn't have to resort to this party-line, strictly partisan process of budget reconciliation. That would be something that would garner bipartisan support and be in the best interest of our country, our economy, and the needs of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan 9-8-8 Connect Act. This legislation would boost our continued efforts to improve access to and improve followup services through the 9-8-8 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. The 9-8-8 Connect Act establishes a new grant program for eligible crisis centers to provide followup services to individuals receiving suicide prevention and crisis intervention services, including check-in calls, outreach to ensure engagement in services and support, collaboration with family and caregivers, and referral navigation. It also requires carriers to allow calls and texts to 9-8-8 even if the plan is inactive or the carrier is experiencing service interruptions or failures, just as they currently do for 9-1-1 calls. Furthermore, it requires multiline systems like hotel and office phones to support the direct dialing of 9-8-8 rather than requiring a caller to dial 9 or another number before dialing 9-8-8. Significant progress has been made in increasing access to quality mental health care in America. The 9-8-8 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline has been critical for supporting Americans in crisis; however, there is currently a lack of capacity to provide followup services for those in crisis. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration emphasizes the role of connections to care following a crisis episode in supporting individuals who are experiencing mental health, substance use, or suicidal crisis towards recovery. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention reports that 80 percent of surveyed crisis line callers said that followup services helped save their lives. A frequent critique of 9-8-8 is that, while a single contact may resolve a crisis situation for many individuals, a lack of followup support doesn't provide callers with the necessary mental health resources they may need longterm. As awareness of 9-8-8 increases, it is critical to ensure that the line can quickly connect callers to a range of mental health services and a full continuum of care, including mobile crisis response teams. I would like to thank Senator Tillis for introducing this important legislation with me, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the bipartisan 9-8-8 Connect Act as soon as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan 9-8-8 Connect Act. This legislation would boost our continued efforts to improve access to and improve followup services through the 9-8-8 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. The 9-8-8 Connect Act establishes a new grant program for eligible crisis centers to provide followup services to individuals receiving suicide prevention and crisis intervention services, including check-in calls, outreach to ensure engagement in services and support, collaboration with family and caregivers, and referral navigation. It also requires carriers to allow calls and texts to 9-8-8 even if the plan is inactive or the carrier is experiencing service interruptions or failures, just as they currently do for 9-1-1 calls. Furthermore, it requires multiline systems like hotel and office phones to support the direct dialing of 9-8-8 rather than requiring a caller to dial 9 or another number before dialing 9-8-8. Significant progress has been made in increasing access to quality mental health care in America. The 9-8-8 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline has been critical for supporting Americans in crisis; however, there is currently a lack of capacity to provide followup services for those in crisis. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration emphasizes the role of connections to care following a crisis episode in supporting individuals who are experiencing mental health, substance use, or suicidal crisis towards recovery. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention reports that 80 percent of surveyed crisis line callers said that followup services helped save their lives. A frequent critique of 9-8-8 is that, while a single contact may resolve a crisis situation for many individuals, a lack of followup support doesn't provide callers with the necessary mental health resources they may need longterm. As awareness of 9-8-8 increases, it is critical to ensure that the line can quickly connect callers to a range of mental health services and a full continuum of care, including mobile crisis response teams. I would like to thank Senator Tillis for introducing this important legislation with me, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the bipartisan 9-8-8 Connect Act as soon as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, a couple of days ago, I had the pleasure--not just the honor but the pleasure--of welcoming a group of students from Southern California here to the Capitol. As so many schools from across the country do, it is sometimes an annual trip to come see not just a symbol of democracy but literally the home of Congress, where democracy is in action. These young students are smart. They are keeping up with the news to know what is going on in their communities and in their State and in our Nation. Knowing that sometimes our--small ``d''--democratic institutions are being challenged, are being stress-tested, as they are today, people can be discouraged, and part of our job, I think, is to have them not lose faith in our system. It is not always running perfectly, but it is resilient. We are close to celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and we have learned both from the steps forward our country has taken to be a more perfect Union and from some of the less proud moments of our Nation's history, where we tend to always come out a little bit stronger. And that comes to mind, it comes to the heart of this moment after hearing once again these conspiracies and these lies from Members of the Senate who should know better than either to believe them or to regurgitate them and to exacerbate them in this very debate. The 2020 election was held. There were countless lawsuits before, during, and after the election. Ballots were counted. Ballots were recounted. Ballots were audited. It is clear who won the election. It is not some mass conspiracy to keep Donald Trump from having won that election. January 6 happened. Don't take my word for it--plenty of video coverage. All types of news outlets saw the violence that day. It is undeniable. The rule of law was followed. People who were accused of involvement on January 6 had their day the court. Maybe some were found innocent. Maybe some were found guilty of lesser charges. Many were convicted, found guilty because of the proof, because of the evidence, by juries of their peers. It is President Trump who sent the message that if he came back into office, they would be pardoned. He won the election. I can say it. It was not my choice in 2024, but he won the election. I will admit it. And he made good on his promise to pardon those who were involved in the violence on January 6 in this Capitol. But I refuse to stand here and just let the administration and any Republican Member of Congress-- in either House--who agrees with him to set up this slush fund. It is an offense and disrespectful to the American taxpayer, to our democracy, and to our Constitution. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, this past January on the fifth anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, I introduced a bill called the No Rewards for January 6 Rioters Act because, as we know, one of the first things Donald Trump did when he returned to office was to pardon every person convicted of crimes connected to the January 6 insurrection in 2021. That is right, not just those accused of crimes, those convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers. But for Donald Trump, that abuse of the Constitution's pardon powers was just the beginning. And since then there has been a concerted effort to keep going even further, to not only try to rewrite the history of that awful day, but to raid taxpayer funds to actually reward those who ransacked the Capitol, those who assaulted law enforcement officers, who called for the hanging of Vice President Pence along with Members of Congress, and those who tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. And so, sadly, it was not exactly surprising when, earlier this week, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a corrupt settlement creating a special $1.8 billion slush fund for Donald Trump to reward his supporters, including the perpetrators of the January 6 attacks. And January 6ers being able to receive money from this fund isn't some loophole or unintended consequence. Let me cite a few people. Ed Martin the Department of Justice pardon attorney whose nomination to be U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia was rejected by the Senate, that Ed Martin, made it clear that this fund's explicit purpose publicly declaring last year that ``you're damn right I want to pay J6ers.'' That is Ed Martin. The leader of the Proud Boys says he expects a $2 to $5 million payout. Another January 6 convict told CNN he plans to claim $30 million from the public treasury. And one other stated ``[A]ll January 6ers will apply for restitution'' from the Department of Justice's funds. ``All of us . . . it's all over Twitter [and] our group chats.'' So to be clear, ``all of us'' he means includes the many attackers who have not just been convicted of crimes related to January 6 but even after they have been pardoned by the President have been convicted of additional serious crimes, including one man who tried to bribe a child who he sexually abused to stay quiet with the promise of this exact kind of payout. Now, the American people have seen a lot of egregious things since Donald Trump first came down that golden escalator in Trump Tower to announce he was running for President, but never--never--have we witnessed something this brazenly corrupt, an American President effectively suing and negotiating with himself to create a taxpayer- funded slush fund to funnel taxpayer dollars to his friends and allies. This cannot be allowed to stand, colleagues. Now, I'm encouraged to hear some of my Republican colleagues agreeing with me, beginning with Majority Leader Thune who said he is ``not a big fan'' of this proposal. Another Republican colleague saying ``People are concerned about making their own ends meet, not about putting a slush fund together without a legal precedent. We're a nation of laws. If there needs to be a settlement, let's consider it and Congress should come together and decide upon that.'' A third Republican Senator said ``I've never heard of someone negotiating with themselves and making a plea bargain with themselves, so I think there's no precedent for it.'' Finally, former Vice President Pence himself has said ``It would be my hope that anyone who engaged in violence against law enforcement or at the Capitol building would never be rewarded with taxpayers' money.'' Colleagues, this situation is so outlandish. Some might say it is laughable, but it is not. What it is: it is urgent and it is dangerous. Because if the Republican majorities in Congress, both in the Senate and the House, let this happen, then in less than 60 days, $1.8 billion will be transferred from the judgment fund to this new slush fund, which Congress would have no control over and no oversight over. Senate Democrats saw this coming months ago, but the time to stop it is now before it is too late, which is why today I am bringing up my No Rewards for January 6 Rioters Act. Let's stand up for congressional oversight as a unified Senate. Let's pass this bill and prevent corruption payouts before they happen. Mr. President, and so I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3582. I further ask consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, before I offer remarks this evening on voting rights, I want to take a moment to acknowledge a horrible tragedy that struck my home State of California just yesterday. Yesterday afternoon, two assailants opened fire at the Islamic Center of San Diego, in what authorities are now investigating as a possible hate crime. Three people were killed: a security guard and father of eight named Amin Abdullah; Mansour Kaziha, a store manager at the mosque for 40 years; and Nader Awad, a member of the mosque who lived right across the street and whose wife was a teacher at the school. Amin is credited with sounding the alarm bells as soon as the incident began, heroically saving the lives of everybody who was inside the mosque. And while authorities are still piecing together exactly what happened, what we do know is that Mansour and Nader somehow drew the shooters away from the mosque, into the parking lot, long enough for them to choose to flee the scene, as hundreds of police officers arrived. Their sacrifices and their bravery were not in vain. Mr. President, 140 children were inside the center's school at the time, and they are all OK, now reunited with their parents. Our prayers are with the victims, their families, and everyone impacted by this horrific act of violence. I want to share my particular gratitude with the women and men of the San Diego Police Department and other first responders who responded literally within moments of first being alerted about the shooting, saving hundreds of lives in the process. I want to echo the words of San Diego mayor Todd Gloria, who said yesterday: [A]n attack on any one of our communities . . . because of who they are, what they believe, or how they pray--is an attack on all of us. Colleagues, we must remain united against hate in all its forms and reject those who spread Islamophobia and White supremacy of any type. And I want the Muslim community of San Diego, the community throughout California, throughout the country, who may be angry or anxious at this moment to know this: We stand with you. We mourn with you. And we will not allow hate and violence to divide our country or define us. Voting Rights Mr. President, our late friend and colleague Congressman John Lewis once said: The vote is precious. It is almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in a democracy. Today, that sacred right is under assault. And with its recent Callais decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has dealt our right to vote another devastating blow. Sadly, this ruling did not happen in isolation. It is the culmination of a decades-long effort to undermine the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the promise of American democracy itself. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, this decision marks the ``latest chapter in the majority's now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.'' All in what appears to be Donald Trump and his allies' attempt to cling to power--not by addressing the exploding costs of living that are crushing so many families across America, not by ending this unauthorized war in Iran, but by undermining our democracy, rigging electoral maps, and gaming the system in their favor. What is clear with the Callais decision and earlier voting rights decisions by the Supreme Court is that they have rejected both the text and the purpose of one of the most important laws of American history. You see, the Voting Rights Act was born out of struggle, including the struggle of Americans who marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, decades ago, and endured incredible violence and persecution simply for demanding that democracy in America truly include everyone. When the Voting Rights Act finally became law 61 years ago, America made good on a promise: that our democracy would truly belong to everyone. And the results were undeniable. In just the first decade after its passage, the disparity in voter registration rates between Whites and minority communities dropped from 30 percent to 8 percent-- huge progress. And communities that had long been denied a meaningful voice in their government gained representation in local city halls, in State legislatures, and--yes--right here in Congress. The law enjoyed decades of bipartisan support. Its initial passage and every reauthorization had been bipartisan. In fact, the last time Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, in 2006, it passed the Senate unanimously. Yet we know there have been always those determined to undermine and weaken this landmark law, including Chief Justice Roberts himself. When he was a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, he wrote memos attacking the Voting Rights Act and devising legal arguments to undermine it. And he succeeded. Beginning with the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County decision, he and the Court's extreme majority began dismantling the law's core protections. In the Shelby decision, the Court declared that the law's preclearance protections were no longer necessary because of how far we had come as a country, ignoring the mountain of evidence that they were presented with, showing the chronic problem that voting discrimination continued to be. The consequences of that decision were both predictable and swift. Republican State legislatures immediately unleashed a flood of new discriminatory voting bills. Many turned into laws--everything from restrictive voter ID requirements to closing polling sites in minority communities, to restricting voter registration drives and attacking early voting. It is no surprise, then, that the participation gap between White and minority voters soon began growing again, after decades of narrowing, including and especially in the States that were previously covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. According to one Brennan Center analysis, as many as 9 million more ballots would have been cast in the 2020 election without the Shelby decision of 2013. And, now, the Callais decision goes even further. This decision has already thrown elections into chaos, with States racing to redraw political maps ahead of this November's midterm elections. You don't believe me? The Supreme Court has already given Alabama permission to use a map found by a lower court to be intentionally racially discriminatory. But the Supreme Court is sanctioning Alabama's use of that map. The State of Louisiana, which just had a primary election yesterday, dropped the State's House primary elections, even after absentee voting had already begun, in order to redraw congressional districts for the current year. And, as we speak, in South Carolina, they are debating whether to redraw the map to entrench Republican power. Colleagues, this is not representative democracy; it is a political power grab. Sadly, Callais is just one part of a broader effort to skew our upcoming elections and make participation in our democracy process harder for millions of Americans. We see it in efforts to purge voters from the rolls using flawed Federal databases. We see it in attempts to impose burdensome ID requirements that threaten to disenfranchise women, students, seniors, Native communities, and both rural and blue- collar voters who may lack passports or their original birth certificates. And we certainly see it in Trump's obsession with the SAVE Act, which would make it harder for eligible Americans to register to vote, stay registered to vote, or actually cast their ballot. Colleagues, all of these efforts are rooted in the same dangerous idea: that political power can be preserved by restricting rather than expanding voter participation. That is un-American. We are living in a pivotal moment for American democracy. In the difficult days of Jim Crow, Americans chose to organize, to march, and to sacrifice to pass the Voting Rights Act. And now, following their example, Americans today are marching again. Last weekend, thousands from across the country gathered in Alabama and returned to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, determined to carry the legacy of the Voting Rights Act and the civil rights movement forward. A new generation is taking up the torch to defend the principle that, in a democracy, every voice matters and every vote counts equally. Colleagues, we have a duty to join them, beginning with the passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the protections gutted by the Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, colleagues, as you know, every year we recognize--let the Record reflect even the U.S. Senate can experience some technical difficulties. We are going to try this again. Colleagues, as you know, every year we are honored to recognize Police Week with thousands of officers from across the United States descending here on the Nation's Capital to honor those who have fallen in the line of duty. There are a number of events and ceremonies throughout the week, and the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, among others, is proud to utilize this opportunity to advance policies, legislation, and initiatives in support of women and men in uniform across the country. And I personally am honored to work closely with State and local law enforcement agencies in my home State of California to advance their efforts by strengthening partnerships with Federal support. Earlier today, we considered a slate of bills in the Senate Judiciary Committee that would do just that by improving law enforcement and supporting safer communities. I am proud to say a series of bills came out with overwhelming, mostly unanimous, bipartisan support. That is the Judiciary Committee. In the Senate Rules Committee, Chairman McConnell and I have the particular special responsibility of overseeing the U.S. Capitol Police and ensuring that they don't just have the right policies in place to do their jobs but advocating for the proper resources for Capitol Police to do their very important and unique job, in not just protecting the Capitol Complex and the campus and not just us as Members of Congress and not just our staff but visitors to the Capitol and the Capitol as an icon of our democracy for current and future generations. It is a big job, and the women and men of the Capitol Police department do their jobs well. After all, Congress is the first branch noted in the Constitution. I am grateful for what they have achieved over the course of years, certainly in recent years in the wake of January 6. But as big as their job is, they find themselves in need of reinforcement, and they are working hard to address some staffing shortages. It is not just by the numbers. Let me quote Chief Sullivan, Chief of Police for the Capitol Police, who has shared in testimony recently: [W]e simply must continue increasing staffing levels. And he made the reasons for this quote very clear: [T]he implementation of additional security measures on the Capitol Complex combined with the need to surge resources to address the recent rise in [the] threats has overextended the Department's traditional staffing model. So the bigger picture, in the longer term, we need to do more to improve recruitment and retention of Capitol Police officers. But today, colleagues, I offer a modest step that we can take. Currently, the Federal law enforcement retirement age is 57, but the Capitol Police Board can increase that up to 60 for officers who may wish to continue their service, to extend their service. We are talking about officers who have served for a long, long time and have a tremendous amount of institutional memory, experience, and expertise. They offer immense value to the department. Senator McConnell and I have a bill to increase that retirement age of the Capitol Police Board to be able to extend the retirement age to 62 instead of the current 60. It allows us to all benefit for a few more years for those veteran officers, with their experience and expertise, who desire to continue to serve. This is voluntary but an important element to what the Capitol Police does and needs. The House unanimously passed a bill just recently--a very similar bill--and after some bicameral and bipartisan discussion, I hope to see this measure signed into law. The Capitol Police union, as well as the department, support these steps, and I believe it deserves unanimous support from the Senate. Mr. President, that being said, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4530, which is at the desk.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act to make technical corrections to incorporate additional land taken into trust and address water contaminants found since the agreement was ratified. The Pechanga Band of Indians is a federally recognized Tribe whose ancestors have been living in the Temecula Valley for over 10,000 years. After being forced out of their ancestral home, Temeeku, in 1875, the Tribe rebuilt and reestablished their homes nearby, which later became the federally recognized Pechanga Indian Reservation in 1882. Since the 1950s, the Tribe has been working with the surrounding water users to develop agreements on water rights and to protect the long-term water supply and sustainability of the Santa Margarita River Watershed, including the groundwater in the Wolf Valley Aquifer. The Tribe reached a settlement agreement with the Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, Metropolitan Water District, and the United States, which was ratified as part of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, WIIN, Act in 2016 and was made fully enforceable in 2020. This agreement clarified the Tribe's water rights and established mutual cooperative water management agreements with the local water agencies. The agreement also established a water quality fund for addressing salinity caused by the use of recycled and imported water. However, the water settlement agreement currently only applies to land that was held in trust at the time of the settlement's ratification. The water quality fund is also currently restricted only to desalination activities. This bill would update the agreement's definition of ``Reservation'' to allow the Tribe to use their water rights on any current and future trust lands. The bill would also expand the possible uses of the water quality fund to include any water quality improvement activities, such as addressing PFAS and other emerging contaminants. I want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this bill, and Representative Darrell Issa for introducing companion legislation in the House. I urge my colleagues to support this technical fix that would preserve Pechanga's sovereignty over their water rights.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act to make technical corrections to incorporate additional land taken into trust and address water contaminants found since the agreement was ratified. The Pechanga Band of Indians is a federally recognized Tribe whose ancestors have been living in the Temecula Valley for over 10,000 years. After being forced out of their ancestral home, Temeeku, in 1875, the Tribe rebuilt and reestablished their homes nearby, which later became the federally recognized Pechanga Indian Reservation in 1882. Since the 1950s, the Tribe has been working with the surrounding water users to develop agreements on water rights and to protect the long-term water supply and sustainability of the Santa Margarita River Watershed, including the groundwater in the Wolf Valley Aquifer. The Tribe reached a settlement agreement with the Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, Metropolitan Water District, and the United States, which was ratified as part of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, WIIN, Act in 2016 and was made fully enforceable in 2020. This agreement clarified the Tribe's water rights and established mutual cooperative water management agreements with the local water agencies. The agreement also established a water quality fund for addressing salinity caused by the use of recycled and imported water. However, the water settlement agreement currently only applies to land that was held in trust at the time of the settlement's ratification. The water quality fund is also currently restricted only to desalination activities. This bill would update the agreement's definition of ``Reservation'' to allow the Tribe to use their water rights on any current and future trust lands. The bill would also expand the possible uses of the water quality fund to include any water quality improvement activities, such as addressing PFAS and other emerging contaminants. I want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this bill, and Representative Darrell Issa for introducing companion legislation in the House. I urge my colleagues to support this technical fix that would preserve Pechanga's sovereignty over their water rights.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Water Rights Settlement Act. This legislation would finalize this multidecade effort by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to ensure their sovereignty over their water rights. The Palm Springs area east of Mt. San Jacinto is home to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and has been officially set aside by the U.S. Government since 1876. All the land traditionally held by the Cahuilla people was divided into even and odd parcels between the Tribe, Federal Government and private landowners--creating a checkerboard pattern of land management. For over 4 years, the Tribe engaged in settlement discussions with the U.S. Government, Coachella Valley Water District, and Desert Water Agency. All parties reached a comprehensive agreement to secure the tribe's federally reserved water rights and promote the Tribe's sovereign authority over its water resources and trust lands. My bill would codify this agreement. Specifically, this bill would ratify the Tribe's federally reserved water right of up to 20,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater from the Indio Subbasin, as well as surface water rights in Tahquitz Creek, Andreas Creek, and Whitewater Ranch. In exchange for absolving the Federal Government of its liability for failing to protect the Tribe's water resources, the bill would appropriate $500 million to the Agua Caliente Settlement Trust Fund to support water infrastructure development projects, water supply improvements, and groundwater management and operations. The bill would also place 2,742 acres of Bureau of Land Management land into trust for the Tribe, and would authorize the Tribe to levy taxes on their reservation in order to provide community services. It is long past time for the Federal Government to live up to its trust and treaty responsibilities to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Sovereignty over their water resources and trust land is essential to the continued strength of the Tribe and to ensuring its sustainability and viability for future generations. I thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this legislation, and I thank Representatives Calvert and Ruiz for introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives. I would also like to thank the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians for their tireless work to finalize this settlement and the impacted entities for supporting this legislation, including Coachella Valley Water District, Desert Water Agency, County of Riverside, city of Palm Springs, city of Cathedral City, and city of Rancho Mirage. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Water Rights Settlement Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Water Rights Settlement Act. This legislation would finalize this multidecade effort by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to ensure their sovereignty over their water rights. The Palm Springs area east of Mt. San Jacinto is home to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and has been officially set aside by the U.S. Government since 1876. All the land traditionally held by the Cahuilla people was divided into even and odd parcels between the Tribe, Federal Government and private landowners--creating a checkerboard pattern of land management. For over 4 years, the Tribe engaged in settlement discussions with the U.S. Government, Coachella Valley Water District, and Desert Water Agency. All parties reached a comprehensive agreement to secure the tribe's federally reserved water rights and promote the Tribe's sovereign authority over its water resources and trust lands. My bill would codify this agreement. Specifically, this bill would ratify the Tribe's federally reserved water right of up to 20,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater from the Indio Subbasin, as well as surface water rights in Tahquitz Creek, Andreas Creek, and Whitewater Ranch. In exchange for absolving the Federal Government of its liability for failing to protect the Tribe's water resources, the bill would appropriate $500 million to the Agua Caliente Settlement Trust Fund to support water infrastructure development projects, water supply improvements, and groundwater management and operations. The bill would also place 2,742 acres of Bureau of Land Management land into trust for the Tribe, and would authorize the Tribe to levy taxes on their reservation in order to provide community services. It is long past time for the Federal Government to live up to its trust and treaty responsibilities to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Sovereignty over their water resources and trust land is essential to the continued strength of the Tribe and to ensuring its sustainability and viability for future generations. I thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this legislation, and I thank Representatives Calvert and Ruiz for introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives. I would also like to thank the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians for their tireless work to finalize this settlement and the impacted entities for supporting this legislation, including Coachella Valley Water District, Desert Water Agency, County of Riverside, city of Palm Springs, city of Cathedral City, and city of Rancho Mirage. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Water Rights Settlement Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

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

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

Mr. PADILLA. This doesn't make sense.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, my amendment would create a point of order against reconciliation bills that would provide funding for Federal Agencies that still have unobligated funds left over from previous reconciliation bills. Now, as I have described this amendment, many people are thinking: Well, that is pretty common sense. Why is this even necessary? Well, let me remind us that ICE and CBP still have a combined total of $103 billion in unspent funds from last year's ``Big Anything But Beautiful Bill.'' You heard me right: $103 billion. Let that sink in. Let that sink in. ICE is still sitting on $63.2 billion of its funding. That is 84 percent of the funding from that bill. The CBP is sitting on $40 billion. That is 62 percent of the funding from last year's bill. So what are we even doing here? There is $103 billion that is unspent, and you are trying to give them another $140 billion.

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

Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, of all the serious issues facing this country, including but not limited to the affordability challenges that so many working families are struggling with, I can't believe we are back here debating a partisan attempt to rush through what I referred to as a solution in search of a problem. As we all know, and particularly the voters of Virginia will remind us, voting is already underway this election year. And instead of working to keep our elections safe and secure by making it more accessible for eligible Americans to cast their ballot in our elections, we have back before us a measure that would make it harder for eligible citizens to register to vote, to stay registered to vote, to cast their ballot, and make it tougher for election administrators and volunteers to administer our democracy, as is so fundamental to our country. We have already gone down this road for several weeks and weeks and weeks now. We have debated the so-called SAVE America Act, but I think, despite how you talked about the SAVE America Act, which has certainly not passed the Senate, even my Republican colleagues who have seen the measure suggested by our colleague from Louisiana, it is an even more extreme version. Let me begin by saying, we already know that you have to be a citizen to vote in our elections. That is nothing new. That is already existing law. And despite the President's claims, there is zero evidence of massive voter fraud across the country, which is the premise of these proposals. So not only is it a solution in search of a problem, to paraphrase a wise man, this measure is all foam and no beer. This amendment seeks to eliminate or, at a minimum, restrict early voting opportunities which 47 States in the country offer for eligible citizens, 47 States. Why we would want to take away opportunities for citizens to participate in our democracy, I don't know. This proposal also suggests that all ballots be counted within 36 hours of the election. That may sound good, and it may be very doable in States with smaller populations and smaller numbers of registered voters, but in the larger States, yes, it takes more time to count more ballots. And I know we can all agree that we want to do it securely to maintain election integrity, things to ensure that if a ballot comes in on election day, that that voter hasn't already voted by mail. It takes a minute to cross-reference those records. Or a ballot that is received on time by mail that you conduct a signature verification to help confirm that the person submitting that ballot is indeed the voter. You need more than 36 hours when you have more than 20 million voters like we have in my home State of California. So what is this proposed amendment really about? It is about holding on to power because the President knows that his agenda has failed, and it is not just extremely unpopular but has done damage to families across the country. Just look at his most recent executive order seeking to ban vote-by- mail--changes to the rules when the primary season is already underway. But the language has these changes go into immediate effect, just adding to the rising costs, just adding to the rising chaos, just adding to the rising corruption. And it is unfortunate that the election administration has been turned into a partisan issue. I actually ask our colleagues to protect the early voters, not just in my State but in yours. Protect vote-by-mail opportunities, not just in my State but in yours. Let's protect women who are married and change their name and their right to vote, not just in my State but in yours. Colleagues, I urge a ``no'' vote on amendment No. 5414. Point of Order And, furthermore, Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane and, therefore, violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1984.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, if you look anywhere across the country right now, what you will see more than anything else is working families, countless Americans struggling just to get by; struggling with skyrocketing prices at the pump; struggling with rising costs of healthcare premiums; struggling to afford groceries, their prescriptions, to pay their rent or their mortgage. Many struggling just to keep the lights on at home. You would think that the Republican majority would recognize that and dedicate time on this floor of the Senate to prioritize a discussion and proposals to bring down costs for working families; but, no, instead we are focusing once again on immigration and, specifically, whether or not to give even more money to ICE and CBP. So I think it is important for us to lay out to the American people why we are in this position. Republicans created this mess last year when they passed their ``One Big Anything But Beautiful'' bill. But rather than fix that mess through commonsense reforms, as we have suggested, their solution is to throw even more money at these Agencies that have been acting for a year now with little regard to the rule of law, to dump $140 billion in the same out-of-control immigration Agencies that have created chaos in American communities for the past year, the very same ICE and CBP that Republicans already gave $140 billion to last year. That is over seven times ICE's typical annual funding and more than four times the typical annual appropriations for CBP. That was last year. And what did they do with that money? Before we entertain should we give them even more, let's see what they did. They went on a so-called Defend the Homeland hiring spree. They brought on unqualified recruits who were deployed into communities across the country with clearly insufficient training. Let me lay it out. Let me break it down for us. In just 6 months, ICE doubled its number of agents from 10,000 to over 22,000--more than doubled. And the only way to reach those numbers is to cut a bunch of corners and to lower standards. And so that is what they did. They dropped the minimum age for ICE officers to just 18 years old, and they reduced the required training to 47 days--47 days. Let me put that figure into context. To be a DC Metropolitan Police officer here in the streets of our Nation's Capital, it takes 28 weeks of training. Basic training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is 12 weeks. The Los Angeles Police Department, where I am from, that takes 6 months of training before you are on the job. But to be an ICE officer, just 47 days, and then you are given a gun and a badge and deployed into the field. We have seen the records that DHS has rushed applicants through a very sloppy vetting process. It has led to the hiring of numerous officers with questionable backgrounds, clearly unfit to do these jobs. We have also seen reports that about a third of the recruits at the ICE training academy failed what is considered a relatively easy physical test. And a number of others were sent home because they failed a written exam which, by the way, a written exam on which they could use textbooks and notes, but they still failed. Here is a quote from an article by the Associated Press that really shines a light on what is happening with this hiring spree: Two bankruptcies and six law enforcement jobs in three years. This is a description of one officer. Here is another: An allegation of lying in a police report to justify a felony charge against an innocent woman--an incident that led to a $75,000 settlement and criticism of his integrity. How is that for a description of an ICE officer? A third job candidate once failed to graduate from a police academy, then lasted only three weeks in his only job as a police officer. Their common bond: All were hired recently by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during an unprecedented hiring spree . . . after the agency received a $75 billion windfall from Congress. Don't take my word for it, colleagues--actual reporting. So let's, again, assess where we are. Republicans gave ICE and CBP $140 billion. And the Trump administration used it to hire people with questionable qualifications, questionable histories, questionable temperaments, and questionable ability to do the job. And you are going to tell me you are surprised by the chaos and the violence that we have witnessed unfolding in the streets across America this last year? If you are hiring all these unqualified people, encouraging them to act with impunity, you throw out the rule books and the training manual and ensure that there is little or no oversight and accountability, it is entirely predictable that chaos will ensue and especially when they are led from the top by people who regularly dehumanize others, whose goal is to inflict pain and cruelty on immigrants and refugees as deterrents. It is exactly what we are seeing. We are seeing agents knocking down doors to homes without a judicial warrant in violation of the law. We are seeing cars being driven off the road, their windows smashed in, their occupants literally dragged out through broken windows, and some, like Marimar Martinez, shot multiple times. We are seeing indiscriminate raids sweeping up hard-working people who are just trying to provide a better life for their family, including legal immigrants with work authorizations. We are seeing American citizens hurt simply for exercising their First Amendment rights, like 21-year-old Kaden Rummler, who permanently lost his vision in one eye after being shot by agents at close range. And, of course, we saw--we all saw, the whole country saw, the whole world saw--two U.S. citizens, Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti--killed by Federal agents on camera in broad daylight. So, yes, Democrats are demanding commonsense reforms to address this outrageous behavior. You should be too. And the commonsense reforms we are talking about are nothing other than policies that State and local law enforcement officers across the country already have to abide by. Instead, Republicans continue to refuse, and that is why we are here today, because as Democrats, we refuse to give a single dollar more to an out-of-control, unaccountable Agency. We are demanding oversight. We are demanding these commonsense reforms, not just to protect people's rights but to protect people's lives. Instead, what do our Republican colleagues want to do? They want to hand over another--another--$140 billion of taxpayer money, even though, by the way, for the fiscally responsible ones of you, the Congressional Budget Office says that ICE and CBP still have $103 billion in unspent funds from last year's bill. That is right. ICE is sitting on $63.2 billion of its funding from last year's bill. That is 84 percent of the funding from last year. And CBP is still sitting on $40 billion--62 percent of its funding--from last year's bill. So what are we even doing here? They have a ton of money left over from last year's bill they haven't even spent--they can't spend it fast enough--and you want to give them more. You would rather give them more when they don't need it than negotiate necessary changes to these Agencies. That is outrageous, and it comes at a time when President Trump says: Oh, we don't have enough money to help people with daycare. We don't have enough money for Medicare and Medicaid. We have to cut those programs. But, clearly, he and you all believe we have enough money to give another $140 billion to these ICE Agencies. By the way, that is on top of the $1 billion a day that we are spending in this unauthorized war in Iran. If we are going to use this budget reconciliation process for anything right now, we would rather be using it to help working families afford the basics. Let's use it to help bring down healthcare costs. Let's help bring down gas prices. Let's bring down the cost of food and housing and utilities. That would be worthy of our time, not this sham--not this sham. I yield the floor.