Madam President, I rise to bring attention to the process which this body is considering, not just this massive spending bill but the way in which we have handled all the very limited business that has come before this Chamber this entire…
Madam President, I rise to bring attention to the process which this body is considering, not just this massive spending bill but the way in which we have handled all the very limited business that has come before this Chamber this entire year.
Before I do that, I would like to say we have some folks in the Gallery, and we have people tuning in. And I am sure everyone watched the Super Bowl last night, where the Kansas City Chiefs won in overtime. I think it is only the second overtime win. Patrick Mahomes, anytime he has the ball--the last guy to have the ball usually wins, and in big games this is becoming a thing. And the Chiefs essentially now are in a dynasty.
So Patrick Mahomes has been in the league for 6 years. He has won three Super Bowls, three out of four trips--three in the last 5 years. So it was a great game, and I am certainly glad our Kansas City Chiefs won, with my not sincerest apologies to the California Senators. I would probably be disingenuous if I said that. But it was a good game, and congratulations to the Chiefs on another well-deserved championship.
Right before that game, yesterday--and I finished just in the nick of time, essentially, for the kickoff--I rose on this floor to talk about what has happened at our southern border.
Now, in this bill that we are considering now, there is nothing in there for our southern border. It is gone. To the extent there ever was anything, this is now an exclusively foreign aid package. And I can't probably make the case strong enough of what a disconnect that really is from what the American people care about.
And I know that there will be some people in this Chamber who will say: As much as we tell them, they just don't understand.
Now, I think they do understand. I think they do understand. They see a Federal Government that is $34 trillion in debt, with a President who wants to spend trillions and trillions more this year than we take in. No real sanity in sight and no real process for Senators to actually weigh in on these important matters.
I went through the laundry list of how we got here. The punch line is--not to recap that, and maybe I will tomorrow--but the punch line is: Joe Biden has every authority he needs right now under existing law to secure our southern border. He just doesn't do it; he doesn't want to, because on day one, the executive orders that were in place that were effective under President Trump, he got rid of, whether it was ``Remain in Mexico'' or title 42. A number of them we rolled through last night. Even right now, as we stand here, talk here, Joe Biden could do all those things; and he actually could stop abusing the parole process, where those are supposed to be individualized adjudications. But instead, millions of people--millions--are being released en masse because they are from a particular country or category. That is illegal.
So if you wonder how we got here, that is how we got here, and you don't need another bill to fix that. You need a President who wants to fix it.
Now, we could have a real debate on the Senate floor with all of us about how we go about improving existing law, but we don't do that either. We have secret negotiations with a couple of Senators. Some people liked the product; some people didn't. But the process--there is no doubt about it--is totally broken, and that played out last week.
So that is what I want to talk about. It turns out that there are a few other Senators--I know Senator Lee, Senator Blackburn; I think, probably, Senator Vance touched on this, and there are a lot of other people, and not just Republicans, by the way--who feel that this process that is in place now is broken and people don't have an opportunity to weigh in.
Before I leave the border, though, I do want to mention one thing. If there is one thing that could crystallize the lunacy of this administration's policy, there was something under President Trump called Operation Talon. You didn't hear much about it because it was canceled very early on.
What is Operation Talon? Operation Talon was an effort to deport previously convicted sex offenders from other countries. There is a lot that divides us. I don't know. I would think that is something we could come together on. Maybe we want to deport people who have been previously convicted of sex offenses--evidently not. That was too difficult for the Biden administration to accept, probably because Trump did it.
That reflexive desire to undo success to appease the group clamoring for more compassion at the border has completely backfired. Women and children are being raped on their way to the southern border. The cartels are in control. Fentanyl is streaming across. Human trafficking that, when I went down to the border when I was attorney general of Missouri, was valued
then at the time--you probably saw two-thirds of the level of illegal immigration that we see right now--was valued at $100 million a week-- $100 million a week--for the human trafficking alone.
Some of that is the worst stuff that you could possibly imagine. But some of it also was people being trafficked across, being placed in employment in cities across this country, being taken advantage of. And if they ever expressed any concern, their family might get killed back home.
There is nothing compassionate about what is happening at our border. The media won't cover it. My suspicion is if it was happening under the previous administration, NBC ``Nightly News'' would be camped out for a year at the southern border. But that is not what we see.
What do we see here? We see 98 Senators--96 Senators--locked out. And I mean this as a call to any colleagues who are listening, and I have had many of these conversations already: There is a better way. We can strike some real reform in the way that we handle things.
Regular order is talked about. An open amendment process is talked about. There are a couple of people who don't want to see that happen. Senator Schumer certainly doesn't want to see that happen. Think about the power he gets to wield: Come to me. I am the one that gets to come down from the mountain and unveil the tablets. You will be cast aside if you dare try to change what has been carved into stone.
That is not what our Republic is supposed to be like. Each one of us is from different States. Madam President, our States share a border along the Mississippi River. There are a lot of things we have in common as Missourians and Illinoisans. My wife is from Illinois. She has family there we get to visit. There are a lot of things we get to agree on, but there are also things that are different.
We have a system of federalism. And the Founders had a really unique opportunity at the time, 240-some-odd years ago. They decreed a government from whole cloth. They got the unique opportunity to create structural safeguards to protect individual liberty. They were students of human history. They understood the dangers of consolidation of power, of what it meant to have a single person in charge of too many things. They had seen it play out, and it plays out in the world today.
So a system of government was created to spread out that power, vertically and horizontally. The States came together and unanimously agreed on the very limited powers they wanted the Federal Government to have, and the States retained the rest. The States were sovereign. They made this compact. The first one didn't work with the Articles of Confederation, but the Constitution stuck. Thank God.
In that Constitution, the Article I branch is the first one mentioned, of course, because what we do here has enormous impact on people. We are supposed to be connected to the people, not cloaked away, telling everyone we know better than them.
The idea that as a U.S. Senator, you cannot come to this floor and say, I have an idea, I have a way that I think would improve this bill, and then offer it and have people vote on it is totally insane to me. Maybe I have not been here long enough to have that idealism beaten out of me, but I will never lose that. I will never lose that desire-- sincere desire, no matter your political party--to have the ability to come out here and try to persuade--or your willingness to be persuaded.
Unique coalitions can be formed from that. All of that is taken out. So for me, I want some diagnosis of why this place is so dysfunctional. There are zero vehicles--or there are very limited vehicles.
To the folks in the Gallery who are coming here today or the people listening, what you think happens here doesn't happen here. I mean, I think back a little over a year ago when I was sworn in or before I got sworn in. There is an orientation we go through, and you meet the people that are going to have this shared experience with you as a freshman Member of the U.S. Senate.
I mean, it is humbling. I speak for myself and I think all the freshmen Members--Republicans or Democrats--understand what a unique privilege this is to serve in this Chamber. When I signed my name in that book, I was No. 2,000, which is kind of cool.
And you learn a lot. You are actually given some reading materials. I have always kind of had an interest, particularly in this Chamber, in the unique role that it plays in our Republic. There is a reason why they take 60 votes to get to move. It is not supposed to be a place where simple majority rules. That is for the House of Representatives which, of course, every 2 years has elections. It is supposed to be more rooted in the kind of changes that could happen every couple of years.
The Senate--with staggered terms, every 6 years--is supposed to be more deliberative. This body is not deliberative. It is deliberately exclusionary.
Anyway, you read about how the Senate used to operate. I am not talking about ancient history. I am talking about a couple of decades ago. I mean, in the course of a republic, it is certainly not that big of a reach in time. A Senator would have an amendment, and it would get voted on.
There is something that happens in that process. If a Senator has 80 amendments, the colleagues are going to come up and say: You know, Senator from Nebraska, or whoever it would be, we get it. Are you sure all of them are necessary? Maybe they are; maybe they are not.
There is sort of a social pressure that comes into play, and you start figuring out what are the most important things. You start to see where the body might be, if you have similar issues that have come up on amendments. There is a flow to it.
Right now, there is no flow. We come in here a couple of times a week in a 45-minute window to say yes or no to some judicial nominations because Chuck Schumer--you better go to his office. If you want anything to happen, if you want some glorious omnibus monstrosity, that is where you head.
It is worth pointing out that we have already done a couple of these CRs. We are headed to another. And guess how much time we dedicated to appropriations bills? In almost 14 months since I have been here, we have spent a grand total of 8 hours on one piece of legislation that combined three appropriation bills. That is it. So for a government that is bankrupt, borrowing money to spend, that is the kind of respect that the majority leader has given to the American people on perhaps the most important thing we are supposed to do every day or every year, which is to kind of sift through our priorities. That has been robbed from this place.
It is my sincere hope that in this place, a group of us can come together, a bipartisan group together, and demand real reforms. This idea of filling a tree is totally antithetical.
I mentioned the Founders created a system. They were weary of and concerned of aggregations of power. I can't think of a greater aggregation of power in what is supposed to be a place where power is diffused among the 100 of us than one person getting to decide that amendments don't--look, by the way, this is a point made from my Republican colleagues and Democrat colleagues about objecting and withholding consent. I think there is a lot of muscle memory that needs to get back into this place where we are allowed to vote.
You see the frustration. You don't need to be a social scientist to figure out where the frustration comes from. There are not that many vehicles. Something gets bounced of yours--human nature--they maybe want to bounce something from somebody else.
I guess my plea here is that we use this--regardless of how you feel about this particular bill--this slow-moving train wreck of how we do business here, where everybody privately looks at this and says, This is not the way, this can't be the way. And then you have a bubbling up among Members, rank-and-file Members, to demand something different.
But we can't get there if we just go along with this stuff every time because somebody says this is how you are supposed to vote. You will get out of here in 3 hours. Every time that happens, individual Senators cede really important autonomy to help shape legislation that will affect people's lives or refuse, in this instance, to get serious about potentially demanding our southern border is secured before we
send another $61 billion to another country.
The appropriations process. I know there has been some progress made in that committee, and I commend Senator Collins and Senator Murray for the work they put in it. It doesn't necessarily mean I agree with all of the work product, necessarily, but that process that they went through is very important.
Then what is supposed to happen is--it is like the old ``how a bill becomes a law.'' Those bills, each one of them, are supposed to come out on their own. Senators would have an idea, amend it or not. We send it over to the House--or, more appropriately, those bills come over from the House, and we have a vehicle to do something on it in the Senate.
Something happens in that process, too. There are going to be disagreements. I don't care who is in charge or if different parties are involved in the two Chambers. There are going to be different priorities; there are going to be different ideas. That is healthy. Then you work it out in a conference committee. And then it goes back to each Chamber for an up-or-down vote. That is how it is supposed to work.
That is not how it works, not even close. I mean, we are already sort of creeping towards--again, talk about an embarrassment of riches for Chuck Schumer. He has another couple of CRs coming his way. Then what you get to is a couple days before or a day before or 5 hours before: Here it is. You need to support this, Senator Schmitt or Senator Scott or whoever, or you are in favor of shutting down the government. And let me read off the parade of terribles of the things that will happen that you will be responsible for if you don't vote for this thing that I came up with in my basement 4 hours ago.
It is crazy. And I know that many of my Senator friends agree. I have had these conversations. If you are in your office and agree with me, blink twice. We are all being held hostage here.
I guess in the limited time that I have here--and if we have more time later, I will continue to talk about this--but I just think there is real opportunity for reform. I mean that sincerely. I mean that as a gesture of good will. It doesn't need to be the stuff--it doesn't even need to be my amendment.
I am prepared to win. I am prepared to lose. I just think it is healthy for this place to have vehicles where people can offer these sorts of amendments, where they can have regular order.
But I want to talk specifically about sort of where we are at with this one. We had a negotiation among a few people who produced a product that a lot of people didn't support. And that is not a personal attack on anyone--quite the contrary. I appreciate the effort. Senator Lankford worked very hard.
There were a lot of things that were very problematic, from my perspective--not to relitigate that but only to say that I think part of that, the lesson from it is that there has to be more buy in, there has to be more input, and that all shouldn't happen, you know, where nobody can see it or there are broad strokes because, you know--I am a little biased here as a lawyer--language actually does matter.
I think from the get-go--by the way, my position on this has been, I think, consistent. You could roll the tape from when I was on this floor talking about it. I think these issues should be spread out separately. I don't think Ukraine money should be tied to Israel money should be tied to Taiwan money. I think it is a mistake. Again, I think it robs the ability of individual Senators to say: You know, that situation is different.
Take the difference between Ukraine money and Israel money. There are different levels of support in this place. There are different likelihoods of success. There are different needs. There are different coalitions of allies around the world that can step up or haven't stepped up. But to continually come back to the American people without an articulated plan here or what victory looks like as it relates to Ukraine, you are denying the reality of the justified skepticism.
I will just speak for my State. Missouri is the ``Show Me'' State. Missouri has always been skeptical, and I don't care if it was Harry Truman or Kit Bond or whoever--who, by the way, stood at this desk-- skeptical of a government a thousand miles away telling them how to live their lives or in this instance the Federal Government saying to Missourians and the American people: Securing the southern border isn't a priority, but sending $60 plus billion to Ukraine is today.
It is so important, we were here all weekend--I don't care about that. But all business aside, here we are, and we are going, and we are going to the mat, and you don't get amendments. The American people are smart. They see right through that. And you can try to explain it away, but that is the reality.
The truth is, Joe Biden can secure the border with existing law--the same law that existed under President Trump--but refused to do so.
Part of what that negotiation was supposed to be about, I guess, was that if you were going to tie this stuff together, you weren't going to have that unless the southern border was secured. Well, we didn't get that, but here we go immediately confirming the worst fears of the American people: that this whole debate, all of it, the center of gravity all along has been about the Ukraine money; the rest of it, window dressing, maybe to get a couple more votes to make it look like it had a broader bipartisan coalition--or not. I think if people were being honest in this place, that is what it was about.
So here we are now with the center of gravity at center stage, but instead of Senators having an opportunity to maybe affect that in a particular way--maybe the $8 billion to pay for the Government of Ukraine might be amended out. I know Senator Cotton from Arkansas has an amendment about that. We are not going to have a chance to vote on that, I don't think.
I had an amendment to separate out aid for Israel. We are not going to get to vote on that.
By the way, I don't think it necessarily changes the result too much on the floor if you separated out Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan. I don't think that it does. But it does certainly harm, again, people's trust and their faith in the process.
So the two main points I suppose I wanted to bring up in this 30 minutes before I yield back and reserve the remainder of my time--I think we have to be honest about the disconnect between what we are doing here and what is happening in real America and what people really feel about all this. We can keep bulldozing right through that, but I think it is insulting and disrespectful to the American people.
Secondly and more broadly, we have to come together as Senators and decide that no matter who is in charge, people are going to have a say. They get to vote. They get to offer ideas. And all these little tricks and procedural roadblocks that have been set up by both parties over the last 40 years--20 years probably more specifically--are not healthy for our Republic, and it certainly diminishes our power as individual Senators to fight for the people of our States.
Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
I yield the floor.
Madam President, I rise to talk about the very ill- advised plan that we have before us right now that puts Ukraine first and America last. Now, for the--I am going to say 25 people in the country that may have tuned in to the last time I was on this floor earlier today to now, you might notice one big difference: I have a different tie on. So in between the last time and now, I worked out.
As you know, Madam President, you can't skip leg day. So I did that in preparation, of course, for the Congressional Baseball Game, which is just a mere few months away now. So I figured while I was going to do that, I had a little time, a lot of energy, I have 1 hour to give to this that I would switch ties--so breaking news.
I will say, though, that standing here in a very sort of contrived effort that the majority leader has put forth--well, I guess I should say, actually, he is not making any effort to make this look like it is a real activity of the world's most deliberative body. There are no amendments being considered for a $95 billion foreign aid package. It is being rushed to get done just before guess who gets to go to Munich. Chuck Schumer.
So we want to get this done, without any amendments, so that the majority leader can glad-hand with other global leaders and talk about how he is delivering for Ukraine. All the while, the people that we represent are clamoring for action for something to secure our southern border.
And I know the figleaf that was offered last week that lasted about 24 hours before people could pick apart the language and realize it took us backwards on immigration law. That wasn't anything other than trying to get a few more votes for Ukraine. So if you want to understand why there is so much dysfunction about this whole process, all you need to understand is that the Ukraine piece of this has always been the center of gravity.
Israel aid is held hostage to it. This 4-month exercise to get some language that was rejected was about getting more support for Ukraine. So here we are--a mere, I guess, hours away from a vote that some of my colleagues have told me this is going to be the most important vote I will ever cast. I cannot help but think, as someone who has run statewide in Missouri three times in 6 years, what an utter disconnect what we are doing right now is to where real America is.
When I am back in Missouri--and I go back and forth every week, I live in the St. Louis area--what people want to talk to me about is what is going on in their family; the fact that when they go to the grocery store every week, they are hit with that sticker shock that has never really gone away. For a younger person who is trying to buy their first house, it is literally twice as expensive as it was just a few years ago.
We have got 9 million people who have come across our southern border. We don't know who they are. We don't know where they are at. Some of the most strenuous objections that we have are from immigrants who have come here legally, who wait in line, who did the right things.
The people who don't understand why our energy policy punishes working families who just want affordable, reliable energy, who are lectured by elites like John Kerry who fly on private jets
to Davos and then tell working families all the things that they should live without, that is what they care about.
Now, as a U.S. Senator, I don't believe that we shouldn't have a debate about Ukraine. But I can honestly say there has not been a person that has come up to me and said, You know what, Eric, what I really want you to do up there is send another $61 billion to Ukraine. That is what I really want you to do. My priority is for you to go up there and do that when our border is not secure, when terrorists are streaming across the border, when fentanyl is streaming across the border, when women and children are being raped and trafficked to the tune of $100 million a week.
That is the economic value of the human trafficking alone.
The cartels have never had it so good. American families are struggling, but the cartels have become wealthy beyond belief because of policies from this administration that have devastated our border, devastated our immigration laws, and flooded our streets with drugs and crime.
Perhaps there could be no more emblematic image of all of this than what we saw just last week when a couple of people who came here illegally beat up cops, got out of jail in a couple of hours, and did the double bird to the camera, telling the American people exactly what they thought of them. I mean, I really can't think of a better symbol of what this administration has wrought on the American people than that. There will be all kinds of disingenuous stuff to shift blame, but people are smart. They know exactly what is happening.
I do come from Missouri, and before I was attorney general, I served in the State senate. Like in most States, there actually--for all the issues that every State has in working through things--our constitutional Republic and our democracy can be a messy thing. It is supposed to be that way. It is supposed to be difficult to get things done because our Founders believed that one of the ways you protect individual liberty is to spread out that power so it is not efficiently taking money from people and efficiently taking away their God-given rights.
So in Missouri, the one thing they have to do is pass a budget. It is the only thing they are constitutionally required to do. And there is a date. I think it is May 15. They have to do that. So the house--there is a consensus revenue estimate that comes out in December where they-- I am sure this is true in California and other States--where the different parties and branches decide what they think they are going to take in, how much they have to spend, and then they craft the budget. That process begins in Decemberish.
They come in January, and the hearings begin in full force, and people come and they advocate and they make their arguments. Subcommittees report to committees, committees then report bills out, and it goes to the house floor.
All the while, the senate is having their own hearings anticipating house bills because it has to originate in the house, and it comes over and they work on that. Then they have something, and they report to the senate, and they go to a conference committee. And guess what. They craft a budget. You disagree with it. It might be too much spending or might be not enough spending for your taste. It may not have done all the things you wanted to do. But there is a product that people can have an input on. They can amend things.
We don't do that here at all. We don't do it. I talked about it on the floor earlier today. It is a travesty for this constitutional Republic because the very frustration that you see in this instance or in CR debates and the deadline politics that this town has gotten used to is all because there are simply no vehicles. There is no way for people to advocate for the people they represent.
We go to lunches. Nobody told me about that, by the way, that we have lunch together every day. I love it. I love getting to know my Republican colleagues. I am sure the Democrats feel the same. But what if, actually, what we have seen here in the last couple of days, where Senators come out here and talk about the things that they believe in and there is more than just a couple of people at a time--what if we did that all the time? Maybe I am just the new guy, but what if we did that, and the Senator from California and the Senator from Missouri--we would offer amendments. Do you know what we might find out? That there are actually some things we could work on together or there are some things we are just going to be on a different team.
But guess what happens. There are a few people in charge who keep us very separated. They keep us in those lunches. And we spin around, and a couple of people negotiate a bill. We don't know the details. We are told: You can't offer amendments. We are told that the tree is filled.
What if 95 of us said: We are done with that. We are done with it. Instead of this Thunderdome you have created for this limited contact, we are going to disperse the power to individual Members like it was supposed to be, like when this place was created.
The U.S. Senate is a unique institution in human history. There has never been anything like it. It was conceived of an idea that we had three branches, but within the bicameral article I branch, there was going to be one branch that had 6-year terms, and they were staggered. You had to be a little bit older to serve. I don't know if they ever thought that the median age would be 68, but it is or I think it is something like that. Whatever. I digress.
No matter. We are supposed to sort of deliberate on these things, and then it would take a little more than just a simple majority. In fact, we didn't have cloture being filed for everything, like for some, you know, appointment to the Zoo Commission; there was a little bit of a social contract that happened in this place.
I know this is really process-oriented, and I am going to get to other stuff, but I do think it is important because I actually believe that what a couple of people in this place, including the majority leader, are really afraid of is that what if we actually get a taste for what it is like to have an impact on our own? What if we figure out we don't need them to tell us what to do? I don't need that. I don't need somebody telling me how to vote. I would think that the 100 of us who campaigned so hard and got around our States and listened to people--I don't need that. I am open to advice always. I don't think I have everything figured out. But I also think that, in talking to people--listen, I don't pretend to know everything. I think you have to approach this place with some amount of humility. I mean, talk about an honor of a lifetime. But in 100 years--I was the 2,000th Senator. I am not sure many people in 100 years will know that--maybe my grandkids. I hope my kids would tell my grandkids that, but I don't know.
The point is, our lives are finite. The roles we play here are very serious and important. But I just think this place can be so much more than what it is, and it is a hollowed-out shell of what was supposed to be the greatest legislative body ever conceived. We don't do those things. I lament that.
What I was trying to say was, I talk to plenty of people, and I try to meet and am going to meet with every Senator, Republican or Democrat, individually. It takes a little while with our schedules. We are not on the floor very much voting, but we are all very busy. I just found that there are really some unique conversations that you can have with people about not only what is important to them and how you can work together but a desire to sort of open this place up a little bit.
I think that what we are seeing play out here is kind of emblematic of it. Regardless of how you feel about this particular issue, regardless of how you feel about, you know, this is the most important vote you will ever cast or I can't believe that we are sending $61 billion but we won't secure our own southern border--regardless of where you fall on that spectrum, I would hope that we could recognize individually and collectively that this is broken.
I mean, look at what is happening with the appropriations process. I don't know what is going to happen in a few weeks. We are going to presumably vote on this stuff and come back and then--guess what. We have another deadline. If you don't support this bill, you want to shut the government down.
Meanwhile, the majority leader in this place has spent 8 hours in 13 months on appropriations bills. Something tells me--I don't know; I am a lawyer, I am not a detective--that there is a reason for that. There might be a reason why he doesn't want those on the floor. He doesn't want an open discussion, and he is not alone. There is a very natural sense of desire to sort of aggregate power.
The Appropriations Committee voted out every bill. But, Eric, they originate in the House. Well, we have a number of vehicles, not to mention we could just send a message about what our priorities are in the Senate, whether I agree with them or not, on Senate bills. I guess it is too hard, but I don't think that is really the reason.
I have heard: Well, Senators don't--they come to us and don't want to take tough votes. We are protecting them.
I don't believe that. I don't believe that. I think it is because this is the--who could imagine the power that somebody could have to unveil an omnibus before us, the flashing lights. Wait until I unveil this before you all. You won't have time to read it, and you can't amend it, can't really affect it. But the lobbyists in town know who to go to.
I just believe that is the source of some of the disconnect. I think there is a real danger in being insulated in this town, in this bubble here, you know, caring too much about what the New York Times or the Washington Post have to say about you, that somewhere along the way, and I don't care where you are from--whether you are in a deep blue State or a deep red State--you lose a little bit of what people actually at home are connected to, what they care about.
This bill here couldn't be more disconnected from American priorities. This bill sends $95 billion to foreign countries. Debate the merits of that as you will without actually--think of the message that sends. We care so much--think about the issues that we are confronting as a country, all of them. This is what we are doing. This is what we have chosen.
And I don't care--like I said, I feel good from the workout--I don't care that I have to come out here for my time. That doesn't bother me. I wish I had more time. But this is how we are pressing people. We have to get this done.
(Mr. CARDIN assumed the Chair.)
I know in the back end of this is a trip to Munich. I am not going. I kind of wish I was. I would love to have some conversations with some of the folks who don't understand, who maybe want to look at people like me as like a zoo animal. Don't you understand? I do understand.
And, by the way, if it was such an existential threat, where has your country been? Why aren't you at 2 percent of your GDP?
I mean, I had a conversation with some high-level government officials in a European country. They are pulling back from that number because they have to address the flooding that happened in their country this year.
Imagine that, putting the interest of their own country ahead of spending money on a foreign war. I am a little surprised, though, by the groupthink that sort of embodies anybody that raises legitimate issues or questions as being referred to as some sort of like Putin lover. To me, that is a very soft defense that reveals deficiencies in an argument.
I think we can have a reasonable conversation, like: To what end? What are we seeking to gain? How much will it cost us? Can we be effective? Can there be accountability?
All of those amendments are blocked. All of those conversations are blocked.
I think that the American people will be shocked to know the amount of time and energy we spend just on this issue. I know it is important to people, but, in my first 13 months, I have been shocked at the amount of time that is spent on this one thing--not on the border, not on energy policy, not on the government's willingness to suppress free speech, not on the fact that we are simply not turning our attention quickly enough to China.
I mean, pick it. The Presiding Officer might have 10 things. I might have 10 things. But they are all crowded out by the supernova, which is the Ukraine funding. And, you know, the truth is, it is probably going to get out of the Chamber sometime in the next, whatever, how many hours.
It is dead in the House, and I think the stubbornness to accept any kind of rational debate or meaningful amendments ultimately dooms all of this.
But here we are. And I will also point out that the insistence on some--and I hear Senator Schumer, in his comments in the mornings, speak glowingly about this and how important it is. Yet he often also, interestingly, casts half of the country, half of Americans, often in the light of radical, extremist, MAGA Republicans--othering half of his countrymen.
And do you want to understand why people are skeptical of this kind of politics--the ``deplorables''?
I actually think there ought to be a drinking game in Washington. Every time Chuck Schumer says ``extremist'' or ``MAGA'' or ``Republican,'' everybody in this town ought to take a drink. This town would be drunk by 10 a.m. It is insane. It is not helpful.
And for somebody who, by the way, talks about the importance of bipartisanship, let me offer this as a refresher. Chuck Schumer, if he had it his way and he had two more votes, would end the filibuster and would pack the Supreme Court and would add States to the Union, and he would federalize our elections. I am not buying it.
And so he is ramrodding this thing through without any amendments. That is not what our Republic is supposed to be. It is not what the Senate is supposed to be.
So there are a lot of problems with this bill, but I want to point out that a lot has been said about, well, you talk about border, but you had your shot. You got everything you wanted--not what I wanted.
And my Republican colleagues who have been at the lunches can testify under oath about what I said all along. I don't believe that this administration is interested in securing our border at all, and I speak with some experience on this because I was attorney general of a State that sued the administration on a few different measures and had to go back in court to get them to abide by court orders. It is not in their