John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Thirteen days ago. And there has been no response from the Democrats to the latest offer. And subsequent to that, my colleague the Senator from Alabama and others have tried by approaching the Senator from Washington and other Members of the Democrat caucus and leadership to actually sit down and have a conversation about a path forward. And usually around here, in order to get a deal, there has to be a negotiation where the two sides sit down together, and my understanding is that has been completely rebuffed by the Senator from Washington. And so we are here today, and we are trying to close a deal that would enable us to fund all the Agencies that the Democrats say they want funded, with reforms--with reforms to ICE. And I have seen the offer sheet from the White House. And they have gone a lot further--a lot further--than any Democrat would think was even possible. And so we have a situation here where one side is trying to get a deal to open up the government, to get people back to work, to fund the programs and functions that are important to the national security of our country, and we have one side that is saying: We are not going to sit down and talk. I don't know how you defend that, honestly. I mean, this is a one- sided negotiation in which the White House has put forward a proposal. Senate Republicans have said repeatedly: We are prepared to sit down and talk with Senate Democrats, and Senate Democrats--and my understanding is the Senator from Washington--has said: Sorry. We are not ready to talk. We have a lot of people who are unemployed, a lot of programs that aren't being funded, a lot of functions that aren't being performed, and they are important to our country's national security.

Mr. THUNE. Now, one other thing. Mr. President, reclaiming my time.

Mr. THUNE. Reclaiming my time. No, it is reserving the right to object. The other thing that has been offered repeatedly is a continuing resolution--

Mr. THUNE.--that would allow a sufficient amount of time to debate this--

Mr. THUNE.--until we actually get a deal.

Mr. THUNE. So what I just heard was that they are willing to sit down, and yet we have tried repeatedly to sit down with the Senator from Washington and other Democrat leaders to negotiate a solution here. And we have even gone so far as to say that, until we get that sort of a negotiation--and hopefully a solution--that we would fund the government under a continuing resolution, which is done fairly routinely around here, to make sure that these important Agencies get funded, these employees get paid, and these functions of our government that deal with national security and homeland security actually get performed. And so I guess I am at a loss as to why we continue to have an attempt--a one-sided attempt, it is--to actually sit down and solve this deal, and why we can't then at least fund these Agencies with a continuing resolution until such time as we can. Now, again, I would point out that the latest offer on the table is from the White House. It is 13 days old. The Democrats have not responded to that, nor have they indicated any willingness whatsoever to sit down with our side and actually talk about how to resolve this. So you have two things here. You have a White House offer and a willingness by the White House to sit down and talk--an offer on paper with significant changes in the direction that the Senator from Washington and others are asking for. And yet we are just being rebuffed at every turn, even to have a discussion and conversation. Honestly, I don't know how you get a deal without a negotiation; and to have a negotiation, you have to have two sides at the table. We have one side at the table. Republicans are at the table, willing and ready, able to make a deal--with the White House, I might add. The Senator from Washington talked about having the White House there, and, obviously, that is an important component of this because we have to get a bill signed into law. But there is an offer, 13 days old, which hasn't been responded to by Senate Democrats, and repeated attempts by Senate Republicans to sit down and actually have a discussion about this--and complete, utter block resistance. That is--

Mr. THUNE. That is--

Mr. THUNE. And I would yield to a question by the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. THUNE. I appreciate the Senator from Missouri making that point. The response to his question is, I do believe that we have people who are tasked with an important job, and defunding them is not an option, and I think we all agree with that over here. I would hope that some of our colleagues on the Democrat side would agree with that as well. Are there reforms that can be made? Yes. Some were included in the base bill, which this side agreed to and then walked away from. And I understand why; don't get me wrong. But we are trying to sit down now, and the White House--I think in good faith--has put forward what, to me, are fairly significant reforms. But we don't have, I said, a willing partner. And we obviously are not going to defund law enforcement in this country. That is not something we are going to do, which is why it is important that in the context of this conversation here, as we fund these other Agencies under the Department of Homeland Security, that we also come to an agreement about how to fund Border Patrol, which does secure our southern border, and ICE, which enforces the law in this country. My understanding is the Senator from Hawaii wants to enter into this.

Mr. THUNE. Which is precisely what the Senator from Alabama was going to do here momentarily. And what she is going to suggest is that we fund the government under a continuing resolution to allow additional time to negotiate, and that has now been objected to on multiple occasions by our friends on the other side of the aisle. But that, to me, is something that we have done routinely around here, repeatedly around here: to allow additional time to negotiate until we can finally land what I hope would be a deal that could fund all of DHS and not individual components or pieces of it. So I don't know why anybody would object to that--if you are sincere in trying to get a deal, why you would object to funding the government for some foreseeable time in the future. We did do it for 2 weeks, which you guys all knew wouldn't be enough time. But if we funded it for whatever that is--4 weeks, 6 weeks--to allow this negotiation to continue, at least these Agencies are functioning. We have tried repeatedly to do that, and you have consistently--the Democrats, I should say, have consistently objected to that. So I think what you are asking, I would say to the Senator from Hawaii, is precisely what the Senator from Alabama is going to propound in the form of a unanimous consent request, and that is to fund those Agencies to allow this negotiation to continue. Again, I don't know how you can be more good faith--at least for the particulars that I have seen. The latest proposal that was put forward by the White House had a number of issues addressed in there that I think were important to the Democrats. It would seem to me, at least, that if there is not an interest in agreeing to that latest offer, that there be some counteroffer made or we sit down and talk about that offer. I think that has been offered up by Senate Republicans as well as by the White House. So I hear what the Senator from Hawaii is saying, and I think it is exactly what we are saying right now and what we are trying to do.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, home ownership--that quintessential part of the American dream--has become increasingly unattainable for a lot of Americans and for younger Americans in particular. The New York Times reports that home prices have surged roughly 50 percent since the pandemic, and mortgage rates have also risen. A December 2025 article from the New York Post notes: A new Bankrate analysis has found that more than 75% of listings nationwide are out of financial reach for a median- income family, despite annual earnings hovering just under $80,000. To swing a median-priced home in 2025, buyers now need to earn roughly $113,000 a year, which is a gap that's turning the starter-home dream into a math problem few can solve. Let me just repeat that. . . . a gap that's turning the starter-home dream into a math problem few can solve. With these kinds of numbers, it is no surprise that the typical age of first-time home buyers has reached an alltime high of age 40 or that in a recent New York Times poll 25 percent of registered voters listed housing as their biggest financial worry--the only category to get more than 20 percent. That number was even worse for young people, with more than 50 percent of registered voters between the ages of 18 and 29 putting housing at the top of their financial worry list. Well, this week, we are taking action. On the floor this week is the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, a package of bills targeted at making housing more affordable and accessible for hard-working Americans. This bill isn't some new government program that will drive up costs to taxpayers while doing little or nothing to solve housing problems for everyday Americans. No. This bill offers real solutions that will unlock new home construction, drive down prices, and increase the supply of affordable homes. One problem driving up the cost of housing is regulation. Regulations account for roughly 25 percent of the cost of constructing a new single-family dwelling, and, of course, these costs are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher selling prices for new homes. That is why the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act takes aim at unnecessary regulation by removing, streamlining, or updating regulations that act as a drag on the supply of affordable housing. Along with removing regulatory barriers, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act focuses on unleashing private sector investment. And this entire bill has been put together with an emphasis on allowing States and local communities to pursue the housing solutions that work for them. Look at the great diversity of circumstances across rural, suburban, and urban communities, and it should be clear to everyone that one- size-fits-all mandates from Washington are not the solution. Instead, we need to empower States and localities to create the solutions that fit their particular communities. There is a lot more in this bill, from support for veterans and rural communities to increased oversight and accountability for Federal housing programs. It is the product of good ideas from both parties and from both Houses of Congress. And it is no surprise that it is supported by everyone from the National League of Cities to the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders and the National Association of REALTORS. The inflation crisis that defined the Biden administration is still weighing down a lot of American families. And since taking office last January, Republicans have been focused on making life easier for the American people. We prevented a massive tax hike and put more money in American's pockets with the working families tax cuts, took aim this January at high prices at the pharmacy counter, and now we are continuing our work on affordability with the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act to open the door for affordable homes for hard-working Americans around the country. And we are going to continue to do everything we can to ease the burdens facing Americans and to make life better for the American people. Department of Homeland Security Mr. President, in just a moment, I am going to move to proceed to a piece of legislation that we have voted on a number of times already, and that is a bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security. This is now the 25th day of the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. It follows the Democrat shutdown last fall that went for 43 days of virtually the entire government. This applies to the Department of Homeland Security. And so here we are, 25 days into another government shutdown instigated by Democrats because they want, I guess, changes made to the bill--although it is very hard to know what that is because, at this point, they refuse even to meet to talk about this. Now, remember how this all began. The Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill was negotiated by both the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, and it passed out of the House of Representatives. So it comes over here to the Senate, a bill negotiated by Democrats in the Senate along with our Republican colleagues on our side and our colleagues in the House of Representatives and the White House. So we had an agreed-upon Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. And then what happened? Well, the Democrats decided they didn't like that bill anymore and decided to walk away from it, wanted to renegotiate it, after all that negotiation, which included, I might add, reforms that they had requested specifically as they apply to ICE, including body cameras--$20 million in there for body cameras-- deescalation training, additional oversight of ICE activities. A whole range of things were included in the base bill. It is the bill that we will be voting on later this week, again, unless there is some--unless they decide to actually come to the table and negotiate. So it had all that input from Republicans, Democrats. Reforms requested by Democrats, passed out of the House, comes over here to be picked up and passed by the Senate. Senate Democrats say: Whoops, sorry. We are not for this anymore. We want to renegotiate. So in that context, the White House and Senate Republicans have made good-faith efforts to submit proposals, additional ideas that the Democrats have put on their long wish list--which was about 15 items, some of which were not doable. I mean, there are certain things on there--obviously, anytime you are trying to negotiate a deal, you are not going to get everything you want, right? Well, the Democrats had a long list of things, demands that they had wanted. Republicans agreed to sit down. The White House, to their credit, has submitted now multiple efforts. The most recent one has not been responded to by the Senate Democrats. But what makes this even more stark is you have now Agencies of government with employees who aren't going to get paid that perform important national security functions, cyber security. You think that is not a problem in a dangerous world? Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection--Border Patrol--they are not getting paid. TSA-- people are starting to travel. The airport, the lines are getting longer and longer and longer. Coast Guard, FEMA--FEMA, the Agency that responds to disasters around this country and has virtually run out of money--is also part of the bill that the Democrats are holding up. Now, all that is bad enough and, frankly, shameful, if you think about it, given what is at stake for this country and for our national security, for our border security, for security in our communities, for disaster assistance, for our cyber security. Those are all things that aren't being funded because of the Democrat shutdown, which is bad in and of itself. But what makes it even worse is they are now saying they don't even want to sit down and talk. Overtures were made yesterday to the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Countless overtures have been made to the Democrat leadership, and they have basically said: Sorry, we don't want to talk. So here we are, in the 25th day now of the government shutdown instigated by Democrats, after they had agreed to the very bill that they are now opposing, and are now opposing even sitting down and talking and negotiating on the things they say they want. Explain that one. This is borderline obnoxious. This is indefensible; it is unjustifiable; and there are American people who are going to hurt as a result of this and those already who work at these Agencies--some 120,000 at 1 Agency alone--that aren't going to get paid, who perform critical security missions for this country to keep the American people safe. I don't get it. I really don't. You want reforms? Our side, the White House have been willing to sit down, have given a number of the suggestions the Democrats had, in addition to the things that were in the original bill that they had negotiated and agreed to, which included reforms, like I said: $20 million for body cameras, deescalation training, oversight of ICE. There have been a number of additional things the White House has been willing to work with the Democrats on. Tom Homan, who has been sort of in the lead in terms of what is going on out there as far as the enforcement issue is concerned, has offered up himself and been willing to talk about some of these requests that Democrats have, but, frankly, it is hard to get to a solution when you have one party that refuses to even sit down and talk. This is kind of a new low, really. There are certain things the American people, I think, expect of their elected officials, one of which is to continue the basic functioning of the government: funding government Agencies, especially government Agencies that have critical national security missions. What makes it even worse is, we have tried now on countless occasions to buy additional time to allow for negotiations to continue and to fund those Agencies, at least temporarily, until there is a permanent solution in place. We have now twice come down here on the floor and asked for a continuing resolution--a continuing resolution, meaning a funding mechanism that will allow these Agencies to function and these employees to get paid until such time as there actually is an agreement, and they have objected to that both times. So we are going to try again. I am going to move to reconsider, and we will have another opportunity to vote on that proposal--the original proposal negotiated by House and Senate Democrats and Republicans, unless between now and the time we vote on this, they decide to engage in conversations and discussions and we do arrive at some agreement that will enable us to actually fund the government and perhaps include some of the things that the Democrats want included, but you can't do that if you are not at the table. You can't do that if it is a one-sided negotiation, and it is pretty clear, at this point, that is what we are talking about here. There is no question about--you know, sometimes there is some ``Who is shutting down the government?'' My impression, in this case at least, is that the Democrats view this as a political issue and some sort of a political winner for them; otherwise, I can't explain why-- why they won't even sit down at the table and negotiate. It is not about politics. These are people's lives we are talking about. These are jobs. These are livelihoods. These are families. And the mission, which is protecting the American people, keeping this country safe and secure--there is no higher one. You want to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, the Department that is tasked with defending the homeland? Those people aren't getting paid; those programs aren't getting funded; and those functions aren't being performed by the people that we ask to do that job.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. So, Mr. President, I am going to move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call in relation to substitute amendment No. 4308 to Calendar No. 343, H.R. 6644.

Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we are more than 3 weeks into the Democrat's DHS shutdown, and Democrats keep telling us that they are serious about funding this Agency, but their actions speak louder than their words. Negotiations have been going now for well over a month, and Democrats have sent two offers to the White House--two offers that were basically the same. No compromise. No give-and-take. Just take it or leave it. Then, on Thursday, perhaps realizing that forcing tens of thousands of DHS employees to go without pay isn't great for their brand, Democrats made a new yet equally unserious proposal, and that is selectively funding certain DHS Agencies. That is right. Democrats want to fund the parts of the Department of Homeland Security that they like and keep the rest shut down indefinitely. Now, this might come as news to Democrats, but the fact is that every part of the Department of Homeland Security is essential. As our colleague Senator Britt pointed out on Thursday, Democrats' plan would leave Homeland Security investigations in limbo. A lot of Americans might not know it, but Homeland Security Investigations is responsible for some pretty serious law enforcement activities in this country. They look up child predators, drug dealers, terrorists. And then there is Customs and Border Protection, another Agency that Democrats' plan would leave in limbo. Now, most Americans interact with CBP officers when they come back to the United States from abroad. They are the people who check your passport. They are also the people who prevent illegal immigrants and contraband like drugs and weapons from crossing our borders and getting into the country. Under President Trump and thanks to the hard work of these men and women, our border is secure, and illegal crossings have shrunk to a tiny fraction of the record-setting numbers of the Biden administration. The police chief in Sioux Falls recently said this of the drop in fentanyl seizures in South Dakota's largest city: I think it's safe to say that some of the measures taken within the southern border are paying dividends within our community. Are Democrats looking to undo these gains and return to chaos at the border? Well, on top of all this, Democrats' proposal would also leave enforcement and removal operations unfunded--the people responsible for removing gang members, convicted criminals, and other dangerous illegal immigrants from our country. On Thursday, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee Senator Murray said that Democrats ``cannot, we will not, cut a blank check--funding without reforms--for ICE and Border Patrol.'' Well, no one is asking her to. In fact, the DHS funding agreement the Democrats reneged on would have funded deescalation training for ICE officers, added $20 million for body cameras, and increased oversight of ICE funding. The Trump administration has already taken a number of actions to rein in immigration enforcement on its own, and the administration has made two substantial offers to Democrats to legislate reform measures, over and above the measures that Republicans had already agreed to. Republicans and the White House are at the table--at the table. It is Democrats who are standing in the way. Democrats can talk all they want about getting reforms, but the only thing they are accomplishing by dragging this out is protecting the status quo. There is only one way to get reforms signed into law, and that is by passing a DHS funding bill. And if Democrats were really serious about taking action on this issue, they would be working overtime to arrive at a compromise. But they are not. They don't even want to sit down. Members on our side have reached out to the leaders on the Appropriations Committee on the Democrat's side and been told: We are not interested in having a conversation about this--not even interested in sitting down, which strongly suggests that what they are really interested in is not a solution but a political issue. They don't really want reforms. They want a political issue that they can use in November. It is 3 weeks and counting on Democrats' second shutdown this fiscal year alone. Tens of thousands of DHS employees are going without pay and critical DHS priorities are going unfunded. Will this be the week that Democrats actually get serious? I hope the answer is yes. But as of right now, this is what we are getting from the leadership on the Democrat side, the leadership on the Democrat Appropriations Committee--by the way, all of whom negotiated this deal in the first place before they walked away from it. But despite repeated overtures on our side and by the White House to engage with Democrats, they said: We are not even going to talk about it--not even going to talk about it. So are they going to continue to keep Homeland Security and hard- working Americans in jeopardy? I guess we will find out soon enough, but I hope that posture changes and they reengage in keeping important Agencies of our government that fulfill important safety and security responsibilities funded and those employees at work. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before I begin today, I would like to take a moment to honor Claudia Kostel, the Senate's chief counsel for employment, who is retiring this month after serving this institution for more than 25 years. Senators may get the limelight, but we wouldn't last a day without our staffs, and they also wouldn't last a day without the many institutional staff who keep the Senate functioning--people like Claudia. For more than 25 years, Claudia has provided Senators and staff alike with counsel on employment and labor law. She is known for providing scrupulously nonpartisan, high-quality legal advice and for maintaining the highest standards for her own work and that of her office. She is also known as a mentor to--and an advocate for--her employees and is the kind of leader who, in the words of one staffer, ``never asks others to do what she is not willing to do.'' And in addition to providing the highest quality legal advice, she also keeps writing standards high, with one coworker noting: She never met a draft she couldn't make tighter or a brief she couldn't shorten. As I said, Claudia has served the Senate for more than 25 years. Only the second chief counsel for employment in the Senate's history, she served under seven Secretaries of the Senate and has been witness to a lot of history. It is hard to overstate the value of that. She doesn't just bring legal acumen and a commitment to excellence; she also brings a tremendous amount of institutional memory and institutional knowledge. We are lucky to have public servants like her who are willing to dedicate so much of their working life to this institution. Claudia, my warmest congratulations on your retirement, and thank you for your service. Department of Homeland Security Mr. President, it is another Thursday here in the Senate, and it should be just another payday for employees at the Department of Homeland Security, but thanks to Democrats' shutdown, a lot of DHS employees are only receiving a partial paycheck today. Democrats will have an opportunity to fix that this afternoon. Republicans will again try to pass legislation to fund DHS so employees can get paid and DHS can operate at full capacity, but I suspect Democrats will once again oppose this commonsense measure. And having kept DHS shut down now for 3 weeks and counting, Democrats will once again leave Washington today and head to the airport, where they will walk past some of the 50,000 TSA agents who are missing part of their pay because of Senate Democrats. One TSA agent told CNN recently, ``You're going to see TSA officers in the food bank lines in a couple of days,'' and he noted that several of his colleagues have taken out payday loans. And it is not just the TSA. Civilian Coast Guard employees, FEMA employees, cyber security professionals, and others are missing pay because of Democrats' shutdown. Like Democrats' first shutdown, a few months ago, this shutdown is causing a lot of financial stress, uncertainty, and pain for hard- working Americans. It is also making it harder for those working to keep America safe. Right now, less than half of the Americans who work for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency are on the job. Think about that. The rest have been furloughed, and the Agency has had to cancel vulnerability checks on certain infrastructure. Now, you would think that that might raise some concern among Democrats, especially given the current threat environment, but, apparently, it doesn't. The FEMA GO system, which is how State and local governments and other grantees access funding that they have been awarded, is offline. So grantees can't access the funds that they need for critical programs in their communities. Officials report that the Disaster Relief Fund is being ``rapidly depleted,'' which jeopardizes our ability to support disaster recovery efforts and respond to future emergencies. And a number of American cities that are hosting World Cup games, in a few months, are concerned about funding for security preparations being frozen due to Democrats' shutdown. This is the second time in 6 months that Democrats have subjected thousands of workers to the pain and uncertainty of a government shutdown, and like their record-setting 43-day shutdown in the fall, this DHS shutdown is entirely unnecessary. Just to review, we had a bipartisan agreement in January that included deescalation training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as $20 million for body cameras for ICE officers. When Democrats decided that wasn't enough, Republicans and the White House agreed to reopen negotiations. We understood that negotiations take time, and we wanted to ensure that Federal employees would not be impacted by this ongoing work. So we suggested a temporary funding extension for several weeks to allow the negotiations to continue. Democrats insisted on no more than 2--2--weeks, and when those 2 weeks came and went without an agreement, we tried to get another temporary extension through. Again, Democrats blocked it. Here we are, 3 weeks later, and Democrats, apparently, don't care that a whole lot of Federal employees are working without pay--Federal employees, I might add, who have nothing to do--nothing to do--with immigration enforcement--FEMA, TSA, cyber security offices. Let's be clear. This is not some principled stand by Democrats in the face of a refusal to negotiate--not at all. Republicans are at the table and have been now for weeks. The White House sent a very serious offer to Democrats almost a week ago. It is Democrats who don't seem to be interested in reaching an agreement. In fact, from where I stand, it is looking a lot like Democrats just want to keep this alive as a political issue. If Democrats were really interested in putting reforms in place, they would be doing everything they can to get a bill, but they are not. They are interested in politics, not policy. And if public safety ends up suffering as a result of their decision to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, if hard-working Americans have to go without paychecks, well, apparently, that is just fine with Senate Democrats. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the cloture vote from February 12 on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.