A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course not.

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

Iran

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

I don't think about Americans' financial situations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination of Kevin Warsh

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congressional Review Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Cures Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on a simple question: Will Congress embrace and exercise its constitutional responsibility to decide the question of war?

As Madison summarized:

The Constitution supposes, what the History of all

Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of

power most interested in war, and most prone to it. [The

Constitution] has accordingly with studied care, vested the

question of war in the [legislative branch].

With studied care.

The Founders said that no one person, not even the President, should be able to take this Nation to war.

They would observe that throughout history, Executives were inclined to commit troops and treasure to battles that made no sense in a government by and for the people in a democratic republic. So they stipulated there had to be a debate and a vote here in the legislative branch, an act of Congress, a declaration of war, or an authorization by legislation for war. Yet we have had neither. We have had neither.

In the 1973 War Powers Act, there is a third option. It is a condition in which the United States has been attacked or is under imminent threat of an attack.

Some colleagues have said that imminent threat was real, and therefore the President has 60 days to conduct a war before he is in violation of the Constitution.

Now, I disagree. Many of us and many experts believe nothing close to an imminent threat existed that justified that third option--the President having 60 days to respond without action by Congress. But many colleagues across the aisle have said: We will give the benefit of the doubt to the President's contention that there was an imminent threat, but we will reconsider our position when the 60 days has expired.

Well, my friends, the 60 days expired on May 1. We are way past that deadline.

Now the President has a new excuse. He says: Well, we are no longer conducting acts of war. We are in a cease-fire.

But what matters are the facts on the ground. Are we, in fact--have we, in fact, suspended all the acts of war? No, we have not. We are still engaged on a daily basis. The United States is still blockading Iranian ports. That is an act of war. We are still firing on Iranian warships. That is an act of war. We are still firing on Iranian vessels. That is an act of war. Iran is still blockading the Strait of Hormuz. That is an act of war. They are still firing on U.S. Naval vessels. That is an act of war. They are still attacking U.S.-flagged tankers. That is an act of war.

Both sides are engaged in a daily war as defined by international law. Is it at a somewhat lower level than the bombing campaign? Yes, I will grant you that. But it is a war by every definition. It has not ended. Our troops have not been withdrawn.

So here we are. Are we going to honor that oath to the Constitution? Each and every one of you took that oath. The Constitution is very clear: War can be conducted by the United States only with congressional authorization. We are now past that 60 days, so that excuse, that reason, is gone.

How seriously do you take the Constitution? If you don't take it seriously, maybe you shouldn't be serving in this Chamber.

It is clear how important that debate is in this Chamber when you look at the catastrophe that has unfolded with this war of choice. Catastrophe. Undermined the reformers. Massively strengthened the hard line--massively. Enriched Russia extensively. We lifted the sanctions on Russia. They are able to sell their oil at a world price--a world price that is double what it was before. We have lost men and women in uniform. We have hundreds that are injured. We are spending $1 to $2 billion a day.

Here at home, there are massive increased costs for the American family. People keep saying it is $4 for gas now--$1.50 higher than it was. Well, in Oregon, it is over $5. Diesel is over $6. The cost to a family in the course of a year at this point is about $2,700 additional cash out of hand, posttax dollars--gone.

When energy goes up, everything goes up. Our agricultural community is looking at the increased cost for fertilizer on top of the chaos of the tariffs affecting their inputs and their outputs. The inflation index is way up--3.8 percent last month, which is the highest year- over-year in 3 years, and more is coming.

We have undermined our alliances. We said to the Europeans: We don't need you.

President Trump said: We do not need you. Then he said: Please, please come and help.

They said: This war you have embarked on is unwise. You did not ask us for help. You did not consult with us beforehand. This is your choice. It is a big mistake. And, no, we are not going to partner in this massive catastrophe.

The enriched uranium is still buried deep underground. There is a path on the uranium question. The path will look something like this: Iran will agree not to enrich for 5 years or so. That would be face- saving for the United States of America. But then they will be free to enrich to a low level, protecting and defending their sovereignty, with international inspections. The enriched uranium--60 percent--they will be in agreement that will be moved to Russia or somewhere else.

Those three features--all part of the JCPOA, the agreement that was reached through diplomacy rather than war, the agreement that President Trump tore up in his first administration and created an expanded pathway to more enriched uranium in Iran because he tore up the agreement.

So costs at home, deaths of servicemembers, cost to the Treasury, undermining alliances, enriching Russia, failing to retrieve uranium-- mistake after mistake after mistake. That is why the Founders said that a President by himself should not be able to go to war and wrote a Constitution that we each have pledged ourselves to. We are a democratic republic, not an authoritarian power--authoritarian power, the President or the Chief Executive, the dictator, whatever you want to call him.

But we have a responsibility, and today, we will test whether or not we honor that oath to the Constitution. Will we?

Option 1, have we done a declaration of war? We have not.

Option 2, have we passed an authorization for the use of military force? We have not.

Option 3, the President has 60 days when there is an imminent threat. So colleagues who have asserted that is a legitimate option, I disagree, but those who have asserted it, 60 days is up.

So will you or will you not honor your constitutional responsibility? That is the question that will be in the vote today.

Mr. President, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1546(a) and in accordance with section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 163.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 296, S. Res. 526.

Mr. President, eight decades ago, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement now known as the 1944 Water Treaty to govern the sharing of waters in the Colorado River and the Rio Grande. According to this treaty, the United States is required to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet, or just under 500,000 gallons, of water from the Colorado River to Mexico each year. Similarly, Mexico is obligated to deliver 1.75 million acre-feet to the United States from the Rio Grande River every 5 years.

And while the United States has dutifully held up its end of the bargain, Mexico has been delinquent on repeated occasions. Now, Mexico is hundreds of thousands of acre-feet behind in their required water deliveries. In the most recent cycle, which ended in October of last year, Mexico had delivered less than half of the water it was obligated to deliver under the terms of the treaty. Furthermore, Mexico has not been consistent in their water delivery, sometimes waiting until the very end of the 5-year period to deliver a substantial amount of water in an attempt, ostensibly, to catch up.

This uncertainty in and of itself has made life difficult, you can imagine, for the more than 400,000 farmers and ranchers who call Texas home. Imagine trying to grow crops not knowing whether you are going to have any water for as long as 4 years, only to receive a huge lump sum at the end of year 5. It just doesn't work out. But this is a very real dilemma faced by many of my constituents in South Texas.

Water deliveries from Mexico are vital to irrigation farming and municipal use in the Rio Grande Valley, helping generate billions in economic productivity for the region. Water shortages created by Mexico's failure to follow this treaty have wreaked havoc on the ability of farmers and ranchers to plan and to tend their crops, which has, in turn, had a terrible economic cost on our entire State. In 2024, the Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, which ran the only sugarcane mill in Texas, announced they were forced to close operations after more than 51 years because of these water shortages. Five hundred American jobs were lost as a result.

If Mexico continues to fail to live up to the treaty, more and more farmers and ranchers and other producers will face the same fate. Many growers will potentially default on their financing, and they will be unable to secure any additional financing for future crops without the ability to plan on future water deliveries. Imagine running a bank that offers credit to farmers in the community. If you know the farmer will not be able to access the water they need in order to grow their crops and have a profitable business, obviously that makes it a much riskier bet to offer them a line of credit or a loan.

Further delay of water deliveries could result in bankruptcies, land auctions, more lost jobs, supply chain disruptions, and higher prices at the grocery store for Americans around the country.

I am grateful to Secretary Rubio--the Secretary of State--and Secretary Rollins of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for their leadership on this issue and for their willingness to engage with Mexico and indeed put pressure on them to hold up their end of the bargain.

But South Texas farmers cannot wait. They have already suffered too much from the draught caused by Mexico's failure to live up to its obligations.

The ``carrot'' approach is clearly not working, so now it is time to bring out the ``sticks.'' For this reason, I am introducing legislation called the Water Assurance and Treaty Enforcement for Rio Grande Farmers--or WATER for Farmers--Act, which will impose penalties in the form of tariffs on Mexico if they continue in their delinquency.

This bill will establish annual benchmarks that Mexico must meet in order to be considered compliant with the 1944 Water Treaty. These annual benchmarks will help ensure that water deliveries are predictable for the farmers

in South Texas. Waiting until the end of a 5-year treaty period to deliver water is neither realistic nor acceptable and certainly what anybody contemplated when this treaty was enacted.

This bill would also direct the Secretary of State, in consultation with the U.S. Commissioner of the International Boundary and Water Commission and the Secretary of Agriculture, to determine each year if Mexico has met the requirements of these benchmarks. If Mexico does not, this legislation directs the U.S. Trade Representative to impose tariffs on the shortfalls accumulated at the end of each year.

While this may seem like an extraordinary measure, Mexico has had ample time to make things right. As I said, we have tried ``carrots.'' Those don't work, so now it is time for the ``sticks.''

By imposing severe tariffs on Mexico, I hope they will pick up the pace and begin delivering the water they are already committed to delivering so that South Texas farmers and ranchers will have the predictability they need.

South Texans and the agricultural community there are counting on us to ensure that Mexico complies with this treaty that they agreed to way back in 1944.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation, and I will not give up on this matter until the farmers in Texas are made whole.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a few minutes, we are going to be voting on S. Res. 526, and I wanted to spend a few moments explaining what my resolution would do.

First, it is a resolution; it is not a bill. This resolution will only affect the U.S. Senate. It will not affect the U.S. House of Representatives.

Very simply, this is what my resolution would do. When we shut down the government--and by that, I mean, of course, when Congress, House and Senate, refuses to provide funding for an Agency in government and in some cases, all of government, and those Agencies or all of government, as the case may be, have to shut down, that means that Federal employees for the most part aren't being paid.

My resolution would require--or stipulate, rather, that Senators wouldn't be paid either. It is called shared sacrifice.

Now, I want to be clear so my colleagues understand exactly what this resolution would do because I have worked hard to get the votes to pass this, and I have had to make a few accommodations.

First, a Senator would not lose his or her salary. The money would be escrowed. The Senator's salary just would not be available to that Senator while we are in a shutdown, but once the shutdown is over, you will get your money.

No. 2, again, to repeat, this bill will not apply to the House of Representatives. It will only apply to the U.S. Senate. The House can take care of its own business.

Because of the 27th Amendment and in order for my resolution to be constitutional, the resolution will not take effect until the day after the midterm elections. The 27th Amendment provides pretty clearly that our compensation as Members of the Senate--and the House, for that matter, although this resolution doesn't apply to the House--can't be changed until after an election, and the soonest election, of course, is midterms.

If I could, if I were King for a day--I am not. I don't aspire to be. But if I were, I would make this resolution effective immediately because I am very concerned--I hope I am wrong. If I am wrong, I will apologize. I am very concerned that my Senate colleagues on the Democratic side are going to try to shut down the government yet again right before the election to try to create chaos to affect the midterm elections. If I am wrong in that prediction, I will come here and apologize to every Senator by name. So if I could, I would make this resolution apply immediately.

Frankly, if I were also King for a day and I wanted to stop government shutdowns, I would do more than this. I would do two things. I would say that if government shuts down, a Senator loses his pay. It is not escrowed and you get it back later; you just don't get your pay. I would also say that you can't leave Washington; you can't go home.

If you make people forfeit their pay and tell them they can't leave Washington, we won't have any more shutdowns, and everybody in this body knows that. But I can't pass that. I would if I could, but I can't.

So to repeat one more time, all my resolution would do would say: If we choose to shut down government, you are not going to be paid. You will get your money later, but while we are in a shutdown, you are not going to be paid.

This is about shared sacrifice. I mean, what we have done this year in terms of keeping government open--last October--I looked it up before I came to the floor--last October, we shut down government for 43 days. That is the longest shutdown in history. We had FBI agents, national park rangers, CDC scientists, our staff here in Congress-- nobody was getting paid. Then 3 months later, after we finally got out of that 43-day shutdown, we shut down the Department of Homeland Security. It was shut down for 76 days. This is all in 1 year.

We ought to hide our heads in a bag. It has to stop. Shutting down government should not be a default solution to our refusal to work out our issues and our differences.

So that is what my Senate resolution will do. Vote how you want to. I am not saying this is going to stop all shutdowns. As I say, if I were King for a day, I know what to pass that will stop them, but maybe this will help.

So vote for it if you want to. Don't vote for it if you don't want to. Follow your heart. Be sure and take your brain with you, because this is about shared sacrifice. This is about putting our money where our mouths are.

I yield the floor. Thank you for your time and attention.

My work here is done, and I can show myself out.

Mr. President, I ask that our vote scheduled for 11:30 begin immediately.