Floor Statements

Madam President, had there been a rollcall vote on the motion to adjourn, I would have voted nay.

Madam President, I know you are well aware of this, but the Senate needs to pass the Russia sanctions bill, and we need to do it now. We have the votes. Let's vote.

Ukraine has Putin down and is choking him. We need to help Ukraine choke him to death. I am sorry that the people of Russia are having to undergo what they are undergoing. I am doubly sorry the people of Ukraine are, but it is not going to stop until Putin understands--and we make him understand--that the costs of his barbarism outweigh the benefits.

For the first time since 2022, through sheer will and some big brains and help from Europe and help from the United States, Ukraine has Putin on the back foot. It is truly remarkable.

I remember when Putin invaded in 2022. All the experts said Putin is going to roll through Ukraine like thunder on a summer night; headed toward Kyiv, he is going to take it over.

In fact, President Biden then asked President Zelenskyy if he needed help evacuating. And I will never forget what President Zelenskyy said. It was one of his finest hours. When President Biden asked him if he needed a ride, needed help getting out, he said: I need ammunition.

I need ammunition, not a ride.

We should have known then that the Ukrainian people are tough as a pine

knot. And I guarantee you, in his heart of hearts, Vladimir Putin wishes he never started that fight.

Putin thought time was on his side. It is not on his side anymore. Russia has had, unfortunately, 1.4 million soldiers die. He is having a hard time recruiting new ones. His flow of voluntary soldiers has dried up. He is now having to pay people to fight, and he may have to impose a draft on the good people of Russia.

Why? It is not hard to figure out. It is grit. It is guts. It is determination. And it is drones. Ukraine is now the drone master of the universe. They started with nothing. They are now the drone master of the universe.

Ukraine is producing more drones. They are producing better drones. They are producing long-range drones. They are going to produce 7 million drones in 2026. That is up from 2.2 million only a few years ago.

Some of those drones can travel up to 2,000 miles. Ukraine is using those drones to overwhelm the Russian air defense. Now, normally, when you send a drone into Russia, Russia has an air defense.

What does that mean? That just means missiles on the ground or other drones that will shoot down that foreign drone invading Russia. Ukraine has figured out a way to overwhelm Russian air defenses so that some of those drones get through. And boy, are those getting through.

No part of Russia is safe right now because of these drones by Ukraine. In late June, Ukrainian drones took out two oil refineries in a city called Ufa--I am probably mispronouncing it. That is a thousand miles behind frontlines.

As a result of these drones, as of late June, Russia had lost 30 percent of its refining capacity.

What does that mean? It means they don't have any gasoline. It means they don't have any diesel fuel. If you are a Russian in Crimea, you can't buy gasoline. They have said no more consumer sales; they are running short. There are long lines in Moscow, as we speak, as I know the Presiding Officer knows, to get gas. The war has finally come to the people of Russia.

Just recently, Ukrainians sent in drones to bomb Wildberries. What is Wildberries? Wildberries is Russia's Amazon, and they keep all these consumer goods in big warehouses. Ukraine used drones to take out two of them--about $2 billion.

But everybody in Russia has felt the impact. They have seen it. Once again, the war has come, unfortunately, to the people of Russia.

Recent polls--it is hard to get good data out of Russia because Putin has turned Russia into China. You can't speak freely. Internet is isolated. They will put you in prison and kill you and hurt you the entire time you are dying if you speak out of turn.

But the good people of Russia still have feelings, and a recent poll showed that only 21 percent of the people of Russia support its government policies.

So now is the time. What this Russia sanctions bill would do is say: If you want to buy Russian oil and gas, you can't use the dollar. And, by the way, you also can't sell your goods in America.

Why are we doing that? Because between 30 and 40 percent of Russia's budget and Putin's budget--they are one and the same right now--comes from oil and gas. So if you cut off your oil and gas, you cut off your cash flow. If you cut off your cash flow, you stop your ability to prosecute the war.

This will not require any American money.

I want to thank the European countries. It took them a while. But they finally faced reality, and they have stepped up and financially supported Ukraine. And the American people generously supported Ukraine for a long time, and we still are sharing intelligence with them. So I want to thank the leadership in Europe and the good people of Europe.

But this will cut off Putin's cash fund--one simple bill. We need to do it, and we need to do it now. And we need to vote. We just need to stop talking and start voting.

Election Integrity

Madam President, No. 2, let me talk about election integrity.

Let me tell you what I think of when I think of the SAVE Act. I think of integrity in American elections. Now, you don't have to be a senior at CalTech to know that the American people, no matter what your political philosophy is--Democrat, Republican, Independent; socialist, communist, whatever--you wonder about elections now. You wonder about the integrity.

I mean, I don't know how widespread, if at all, this is, but in New Jersey, we just discovered that the entire population of Bolivia is registered to vote in New Jersey. That is a bit of an overstatement. But after saying there is no problem with our voter rolls, we discover stuff like this.

And we just witnessed elections in California that take months to resolve. When it takes a month to declare a winner for the good people of California, what do you think they are going to think--particularly, the loser?

Look, if America is going to survive, in terms of your party, you have got to be willing to lose and accept that you have lost. And in order to do that, you have to trust in the election.

So when I think of the SAVE Act, I am thinking of election integrity. And, really, what the SAVE Act means to me is two things: It means you have to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote and in order to register to vote. It is very simple. Rule No. 1, you have to prove you are who you say you are in order to register to vote and to vote.

And, No. 2, we need to go back to having an election day and not an election month. We need to know who the winner is on election night. And if it is a really close race, I can understand it bleeding over until the next day.

Frankly, I don't care how you vote. That is up to the States. The President does not want voting by mail. He is entitled to his opinion. I just disagree with him.

If the people of Alaska or the people of New York or the people of Florida want to vote by mail, that is up to them and their State legislatures. So within reason, I don't care how you vote. I just want to require those votes to be tallied by election night--on election night.

Now, this is all really easy for me to say, but the States run elections, and they run Federal elections. And it is really easy for me and all of us in the Senate to give them orders, but they have to have money to implement these rules.

And we have a budget resolution that was sent over to us by the House--a budget resolution can only deal with money--and I think we should take it up.

I am on the Budget Committee. Senator Ron Johnson is our chair. He is going to be a very able chair. We talked about it this morning. I think we need to take up that money bill, and I think part of it needs to be election integrity.

And I think we are going to have to--the whole purpose of that bill should be, and hopefully will be, to give our States--it is a money bill; it is a money issue--to give our States the financial resources to implement these two simple rules: You have to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote, and you have to get those votes counted by election night.

The States are going to need resources, and that is the whole purpose of the so-called SAVE Act in the budget resolution. And we need to take it up now--now.

Now, it may be that we can put in a provision--I don't know; some big brains tell me it will work--that if we provide money to the States to implement election integrity, that if enough States participate, that it will become not just custom but law that these two rules apply.

Did I mention the two rules? You have to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote, and that we need to have an election day not an election month.

It may be that the money provision can be crafted to provide that if enough States agree, that is going to become the policy for all States. I don't know if that is possible under the Budget Control Act, but I do know that the SAVE Act, right now--in addition to the two rules of election integrity that I talk about--involves money, and that is what we are going to try to do. It is to provide the States the money within the parameters of the Budget Control Act.

But we can't do it unless we can vote, and it would be nice if we could all agree. It would be nice if we could all have meetings and talk about it and give and take. I am all for that. But,

right now, it is not realistic because people have differences of opinion.

Do you know what you do when you have a difference of opinion? You vote. That is why God made votes. That is why God made the U.S. Senate.

We can continue to sit around. It is also true of the Russia sanctions bill, but it is especially true with respect to election integrity. And I am not criticizing anybody. I know the way the Senate works, and the Presiding Officer does too. Senators will stall and restall and cuss and spit, and we need one more meeting.

I can't tell you how many meetings I have been in, in the last 6 months, that should have been an email, that could have been an email, to talk about the Russia sanctions bill and to talk about election integrity and to try to get a consensus. It is not going to happen--not in my natural lifetime, not in the Presiding Officer's, though you will live longer than me, and not in yours, our friends in the Gallery.

We have got to vote, and we need to vote right now. And the American people expect it.

And if there is a motion made on this floor to have us remain here until we get our work done, I am going to vote yes. I am going to vote yes. I can tell you right now. And what is the work we need to get done? In no particular order, we need to pass the Russia sanctions bill; we need to pass the budget resolution, which will include election integrity; we need to confirm Todd Blanche; we need to pass the continuing resolution to keep government open until December 11; and we need to vote on the cryptocurrency bill, which we have spent years on. And if we are waiting to take those votes to get a consensus, it is not going to happen.

Did I mention that is why God made votes? When reasonable people disagree, that is what we need to do.

Did I leave anything out, Madam President?

We need to get our business done, and then we can go on about our business.

I am not saying that people go home in August and just lie around the pool. I know that. I don't. The Presiding Officer doesn't. We go back, and we meet with constituents. Some people run for reelection. I am planning on being in all the battleground States, and I am anxious to get there to help my colleagues.

But we have to stay here and get our business done.

And that is it. My work here is done. I can show myself out.

And I may be wrong, but I doubt it. I think the American people are going to be really disappointed if we don't get our work done because it is not our work. It is their work.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have a friend in Louisiana. He is the former State speaker of the house. And Charlie invented a new word in English. The word is ``winky-doo.'' When the then-speaker of the statehouse wanted to describe someone acting dishonestly or denigrating your position or double-crossing you, the speaker would say: He tried to winky-doo me. He tried to winky-doo me.

I have always loved that word.

Intel, a fine American company, may be trying to winky-doo the American taxpayer. Last year--and let me say that again. Intel is a fine company. They have to compete in the market to manufacture chips like everybody else. I believe in free enterprise. I don't believe in state-supported capitalism, government-run capitalism.

But Intel was not doing a very good job competing, and so the Federal Government decided to bail them out. The Federal Government--the Department of Commerce--gave Intel $8.9 billion cash, bought 10 percent of the company--not $8.9 million, $8.9 billion cash.

Now, a fairminded person, when the Department of Commerce did this, could have said: Well, why Intel? Why not some other company?

So that gave me pause. Fair point. I didn't like seeing the Federal Government picking and choosing among American companies about which should get $8.9 billion of American taxpayer money. I didn't like that. I still don't like it. If there is a fair competition, fine. And I get that manufacturing chips are important to America. I get all that. But the government is still playing favorites.

When the government buys 10 percent of a company--$8.9 billion. Did I mention that is how much money Intel got? When the Federal Government takes a 10-percent equity position in a company, you can bet that the politicians, of which I include myself, are going to give a whole lot of advice to Intel--or any other company they buy the stock in. Sometimes that will be sound business advice, but sometimes it will just be raw gut politics. I don't like it. I don't like it.

I know the new thing is neosocialism. I have watched new Members of Congress get elected, all of whom can--they all know the words to the Cuban national anthem, and they are all for socialism. I would ask them to take a look at the history of Cuba and the former USSR and China and Argentina and Venezuela--and I could continue going--and they should try to show me a country where socialism has worked. They can't.

But I digress. The reason I didn't like this idea of buying 10 percent of the stock of Intel was because, as far as I was concerned, it was in the foothills of socialism. If a company needs help and we decide as a government that company is vital to America, God made these things called loans that are

collateralized so that the company has to pay it back. But my wishes were not followed. The Department of Commerce gave Intel $8.9 billion cash in return for 10 percent of the company.

Well, here is why I think Intel might have winky-dooed us. Intel just announced they were taking $5 billion of that, and do you know what they are doing with it? They are building a chip manufacturing plant in Ireland--in Ireland. I mean, I don't get it. And I know Intel is going to say: Oh, it wasn't the $8.9 billion that the American taxpayers gave us that we took and helped the Irish economy.

Money is fungible, folks. Money is fungible. And they can say all they want ``Oh, it wasn't American taxpayer money; it came from a different pot of money.''

Now, if this is true--and I saw it announced publicly that they are building a $5 billion chip manufacturing plant in Ireland--after $8.9 billion of American taxpayer money was given to them, as far as I am concerned, this deal is a breech birth; it is a total cockup. And somebody from the Department of Commerce or from Intel needs to explain this to the American people, because I don't like it.

I didn't like it when we started giving money to particular companies going: Yeah, we like you, but we don't like you. You don't get any money, but you get money.

If that decision will be made, it ought to be made by Congress, folks--your elected representatives. But it was done.

But right after we did it, Intel took the money and invested it in Ireland. It triggers my gag reflex. I hope I am wrong.

Intel, if you are listening, I hope you will explain all of this.

Department of Commerce, if you are listening, I hope you will explain all of this.

The Department of Commerce, I think, is going to say: Oh, Intel has outside investors in building this plant.

That, to me, is a distinction without a difference. As far as I am concerned, the way it looks to me right now, we gave them $8.9 billion of American taxpayer money, and they said ``Thank you very much'' and went and decided to spend it in Ireland. And where I come from, we call that a three-wheeled shopping cart.

So Intel needs to build that manufacturing plant in America or they need to give the American people their money back, and they need to do it now. And they need to explain it to the American people.

Mr. President, we have to vote, but I have still got 5 minutes. That is a dangerous combination, but I am going to do it in 5 minutes.

Mr. President, last year, we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill. One of the provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill was that, in America, if you are hungry, we are going to feed you. We are going to give you food stamps. We don't want you to be hungry. But in return for those food stamps, if you are able-bodied, if you are not disabled and you don't have kids at home, you have to go get a job. You have to work 20 hours a week or go to school for 20 hours a week or do community service for 20 hours a week--a fair trade.

We said: We don't want to take food stamps away from people who need them; we want fewer people to need food stamps.

And it is working. The full provision of the law is not even implemented, but so far, we have had 4 million people who were on food stamps--in those States that have implemented the work requirement, we have 4 million people who have either decided they don't need food stamps because they didn't want to work or they have gone to work for a living and they no longer need food stamps.

Now, those are the only two possibilities. When you say ``You have to work to get food stamps,'' and 4 million people say ``We are off the food stamp rolls,'' one of two things has happened: You either really didn't need the food stamps or you went to work and you didn't need the food stamps.

It is going to have an even more meaningful impact as more and more States implement the work requirement. It was long overdue. We ought to extend it to every social program in America.

I am not talking about and we weren't talking about taking food away from a mother with a sick child in her arms. This rule just applies to able-bodied people who aren't disabled, who aren't elderly, and who don't have kids at home. And all we require is that they work 20 hours a week or go to school for 20 hours a week and get job training or do community service. It is working.

Some of my colleagues in this Chamber are going to try to roll it back. We need to fight them tooth and nail.

I made it. I am done. Peace out.

Mr. President, last night, I read the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran. I read it twice. And for what it is worth, here is my conclusion: I think we ought to give peace a chance. And that is all I am saying today. You are entitled to your opinion, but all I am saying today is I think we ought to give peace a chance.

I have--all week long, even before the memorandum came out--I have heard all the speculation about the agreement, the rank speculation. I have listened to people say: Well, I don't like this, and I don't like that; or this is in it and it shouldn't be and this isn't in it and it should be; and if we do this, this is going to happen.

And it is all rank speculation. The people offering these points of view, to which they are entitled, they are not clairvoyant. They are not any more clairvoyant than I am. Just like me, they have to wait for the future, like everybody else.

Here is what I see in the document. The only certainty, the only practical, real consequence of this document is that for 60 days America has removed its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. And for 60 days, Iran has removed its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which means ships containing oil and natural gas and fertilizer can go back and forth just like they were before the conflict started.

The other practical consequence is that Iran will be able to start selling its oil again for 60 days.

The other thing that we are certain of is that, as a result of this agreement, the price of oil is going down. And as a result of that, the price of gasoline is going down.

And as a result of the Strait of Hormuz being opened, the price of fertilizer, for example, and other commodities that go back and forth through the Strait of Hormuz are coming down, and that is a good thing.

And that is all we know. That is all--that is the only practical consequence of this document.

Now, in the document, Iran says that it is willing to negotiate for 60 days to get rid of its fissile material that it can use to make a nuclear weapon, including, but not limited to, its centrifuges that it uses to enrich the uranium.

And in the document, Iran says: We are willing to renounce our desire to have a nuclear weapon.

And in the document, Iran says: For 60 days, we are willing to negotiate some sort of inspection protocol so that the world can go in and make sure that Iran is telling the truth.

They have got 60 days to do it--not 160, not a year. They have got 60 days. And President Trump has said if they don't do it, I think his expression was: I'll start dropping bombs on their head again.

That is the other thing that we know. Now, this might be a good time to say that--as I have said all week and as I have said in another context before--I trust the Iranian Government like I trust gas station sushi.

The Iranian Government--not the Iranian people--the Iranian Government are a bunch of religious nuts. Their religion tells them that if you--if you and I or anybody--don't agree with all the tenets of their religion, that they want to kill you and hurt you the entire time you are dying.

As far as I am concerned, if your religion tells you, in order to be devout, you have to kill somebody, you probably ought to get another religion.

My experience with the Iranian Government--not the Iranian people--is that they lie like they breathe. They lie like fish swim. They learned to lie before they could--before they learned to talk.

But you know what, they have got 60 days to prove otherwise. Sixty days--not 160, not a year. They have got 60 days to prove otherwise. And if they don't prove it, the bombing is going to start again.

I heard President Trump say it last night, big as Dallas, right there on television: They got 60 days. And if they don't do it, if they are jacking me around, I am going to start bombing again.

The other thing that I am certain of today is that Iran is immeasurably weaker than it was a year ago, than it was before the United States and Israel bombed their nuclear facilities last June, and before the conflict that we have watched transpire over the last couple of months--immeasurably weaker.

There are whole swathes of Iran that look like the aftermath of a bar brawl. There are entire regions in Iran that look like something out of ``Mad Max'' 4. We have bombed the living bejesus out of them. We haven't destroyed all their missiles, but we have destroyed a bunch of them. We have destroyed their weapons production factories. We have destroyed their entire navy. We have destroyed a lot of their drones. We have just given them a curb stomping. Hated to do it, but we did what we have to do.

The private sector--Iran has got--I don't know how anybody is eating or living in Iran. They have got 70 percent inflation, huge unemployment.

In Iran today--and I regret this, but it had to be done. In Iran today, its public and private sectors are held together with spit and duct tape, and all the President has done is said: OK. For 60 days, I am going to give peace a chance and give you a chance to do what you say you are going to do.

It is 60 days. That is it. I hope it works out, but I have my doubts. The President is taking a big risk here, and he has been roundly criticized by my Democratic friends, which I don't really get.

You know, since the conflict started, my Democratic colleagues have been offering bill after bill after bill to stop the conflict and to take the authority away from the executive branch and prosecute. I don't know how many bills it has been--a squillion. It has been bill after bill after bill. They haven't passed. But now that the President has done it, the Democrats are unhappy.

I was reading the New York Times this morning. I mean, they are just bashing this agreement which they have been asking for. Now, I don't mean any disrespect, but I discount what is in the New York Times because I know the folks running the New York Times, and the folks running the New York Times hate Republicans as much as the Devil loves sin. The New York Times and the people running the New York Times would endorse a dead armadillo over a live Republican if the dead armadillo had a ``D'' behind its name. That is just the way it is. I get it. They are entitled to their opinion. The New York Times has been called many things--some good, some bad--but they have never been called unbiased. That is just a fact that goes with the turf. Once again, this is America--you are entitled to your opinion.

But I wanted to come down this morning to say that I think we ought to give peace a chance. I think we ought to give peace a chance. It is only 60 days, and we are just going to have to trust the President on this one. We will know soon, and I hope it works. I hope our giving peace a chance makes peace possible.

My work here is done. I can see myself out.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until June 19, 2026: Nathan Hays, Bradley Fusilier, Gabby Sumrall, and Lucy John.

Mr. President, Nathan Hays, to whom I just referred, is an intern in my office. He is from Baton Rouge. He is a rising junior at LSU.

Lucy John is from Lafayette, LA. Lucy is a rising senior at Tulane.

Bradley Fusilier is from Ville Platte. Bradley is a rising senior at

Mr. President, it is the best of times, it is the worst of times, it is the age of wisdom, but it is also the age of jackassery.

Sometimes I don't recognize our world. I will give you one example, at least from my perspective. President Xi in China, President Putin in Russia, and the Ayatollah in Iran have formed a partnership. It is not an equal partnership. The managing partner is President Xi. Unless you are the reason your parents drink, I think you can see that. It is just obvious.

And their goal--President Xi and his two junior partners--is to have Russia dominate Eastern Europe, to have Iran dominate the Middle East, to have China dominate the Indo-Pacific, and have the freedom to roam throughout Sub-Saharan Africa and South America and the Arctic and space.

Now, that is the game plan. That is not a world that is safe for America. I do not want America to be the world's policeman, but I don't want Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and the Ayatollah in Iran to be either.

We have to meet this challenge. To do that, we have to spend more money on defense. I wish we didn't, but we do.

Now, there are only three ways to do that, as you know, Mr. President: Through our budget, the regular appropriation process; through what is called a supplemental bill, which deals just with defense spending; and through the process of reconciliation.

Passing a supplemental bill is not going to work for reasons--the same reasons that we are not going to be able to pass a budget, about which I will talk in a second.

We have the option of reconciliation, but time is running out. And I hear all of the happy talk--I don't mean that really in a pejorative sense, even though I realize it came out that way. But I hear all the happy talk from the House, and I have participated in that happy talk saying we need to do a third reconciliation bill. But if I am honest with myself, I know we are not.

And when the press comes to me--one came to me today--one particular reporter. He was down by the escalators kind of walking around looking like he had lost his luggage at the airport. And he came, and he said: I want to ask you a question, like I have got a quote every day. And he said: So and so says we are going to have a third reconciliation. What is your response?

My response was honest: dream weaver. I wish it would happen, but I don't think it will.

The only way to get more money to protect America is through our appropriations bill. We can also do a supplemental, which I just referred to, but if we can't pass an appropriations bill, we sure can't pass a supplemental.

I am on the Appropriations Committee. As you know, Mr. President, our budget is so big, we don't do just one bill. We do 12 mini bills. We divide it up. That is a lot of bills to pass, but we have done it before. We did it last year.

The budget that we are operating under right now was passed in a bipartisan effort, with the exception of a small piece of Homeland Security. It was passed with a bipartisan effort and voted for by both Democrats and Republicans. That is the way it is supposed to work. Other than confirming Presidential nominations, that is our most important job: to put together a budget. So we know it can be done.

Now, our fiscal year--don't ask me why--runs from September 30 to October 1. So the budget under which we are operating right now, which all Democrats--not all but most Democrats--and Republicans joined in on, is going to run out September 30. So we have been working on a new budget, which will begin October 1.

I hope I am wrong, but there is not going to be a budget. And if I am wrong, I will come to this floor and I will say: I was wrong; I apologize.

But it is clear to me, from our negotiations with my Democratic friends--and they are my friends. They are the Presiding Officer's friends too. We don't hate in this Chamber. We try to get along. But it is clear to me, from my discussions with my Democratic friends, that there is no scenario under which they are going to pass the budget.

They understand we have to spend more money on defense. President Trump has proposed a 42-percent increase in defense spending. That is pretty strong. That is as strong as horseradish. We might can do it if we work together and did it through a supplemental and regular order and a reconciliation bill. But without that--without busting it up--I think 42 percent would be, even on our best day, very, very hard to do in regular order. I think, if everybody were pulling in the same direction, we could probably do a 20- to 25-percent increase in defense spending in our regular budget. We would have to borrow the money. It breaks my heart. And I know we can work hard to find some offsets. But we just have to do it.

But here is the problem: My Democratic colleagues are not going to go along. They are not. I know they say they are, but they are not.

First, in order to do a budget, you have to know how much money you are going to spend--duh. We call that the top line. So when we go to our Democratic friends and say, ``Let's negotiate a top line,'' they say, ``We are thinking about it.'' And we make an offer, and they say, ``We will consider it.'' And then we make another offer, and they say, ``We will consider it.'' Then we make a third offer, and they say, ``We are thinking about it.'' You know, when people act like they don't care, sometimes, it is not an act. They won't even negotiate seriously about the top line.

We are together a lot. We talk among ourselves. And I have had some of my Democratic friends tell me privately: If you want to spend 25 percent more on defense, we want 25 percent more on nondefense-- welfare, social spending.

Now, they know we are not going to agree to that. You know what that tells me? They don't want a budget. And I think that if we went to our Democratic colleagues today and said, ``OK, you win; we are going to spend 25 percent more on defense, and we will spend 25 percent more on nondefense; let's vote,'' every single Democrat would vote no. Every single Democrat will vote no in the Appropriations Committee and on the floor of the Senate.

If I am wrong, I will apologize. I may be wrong, but I doubt it, because my colleague Senator Schumer, as is his right, is telling the Democrats not to agree to a budget. And Senator Schumer, as is his right, is taking his orders from the Graham Platner wing of the Democratic Party.

It is not all Democrats. It is not all Democrats. But, clearly, the Graham Platner wing of the Democratic Party is in control. And many members of Democratic leadership are scared to death of them, and they are going to do what the Graham Platner wing of the party wants. And what the Graham Platner wing of the party wants is to

burn it down--burn it down. They want chaos because they think it will help them win the midterm elections. And for that reason, I don't think we are going to have a budget.

We will keep trying. Our chair is Susan Collins. Chairwoman Collins and Vice Chairwoman Patty Murray put together the budget last year. They did a great job. We know it can be done. But I think that is the game plan. And the cherry on top is going to be--you watch. We are going to get to September, and Republicans are going to say: Well, we don't have a budget because you refused to talk about it, because you want chaos, because Senator Schumer told you to create chaos, because the Graham Platner wing of the Democratic Party told Senator Schumer to tell you to create chaos.

And we are going to say: Let's don't shut down the government. Let's do what is called a continuing resolution. Let's maintain the status quo so we can keep the government open.

And Senator Schumer is going to shut it down as tight as Dick's hatband. That is what is going to happen. That is what is going to happen. You heard it here first.

And that is not fair to the American people. That is not fair to the American people in the world that we live in today. And that, in my opinion, is totally irresponsible--in order to win a midterm election, to create that kind of chaos in this dangerous world. That, to me, is living proof that human evolution is a slow process.

The American people deserve better. And if I am wrong, I will come to this floor and say: I was wrong. My Democratic colleagues are willing to negotiate. They don't have a predetermined game plan. They are not slaves to the loon wing of their party. They understand that the American people, both domestically and internationally, need help.

I will be the first to say I am wrong. And I may be wrong, but I doubt it. The American people deserve better. And if I am wrong, I hope they will prove me wrong.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we both know that there are people in Washington who like to muddy the water to make it look deep. They don't want the American people to know the truth because, for these people to which I am referring, truth is a concept that does not interest them. Politics does.

Now, there has been a lot of controversy in and around the U.S. Senate for the last 2 weeks. If we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit that the Senate has been functioning like a broken arm with the bone sticking out. That is not anybody's fault, in my judgment, on my side of the aisle. It is certainly not the majority leader's fault.

So I want to try to refocus us on the issue. I don't really want to talk about the ballroom or the Anti-Weaponization Fund or any of the myriad of issues that my Democratic friends tried to inject into our discussion.

I want to talk about the issue, and the issue is this: Are we going to fund the Department of Homeland Security, or are we not?

Part of DHS, as we call it, as you know, Mr. President, is funded. But a very important part is not: the Border Patrol and ICE. We are paying them as best we can out of another pool of funds that is about to run out of money. Why are they not funded? Because my Democratic colleagues have refused.

At one point my Democratic friends agreed to fund Border Patrol and ICE. And then they changed their minds, and they said: No, we are not going to do it, which forced Republicans, if we want to see that portion of DHS funded, to proceed under what we call reconciliation where we don't need Democratic votes. I regret that that is the case, but we are doing what we have to do.

Why are we having this controversy? I don't get it completely. I don't. Unless you are industrial-strength stupid, you know that illegal immigration is illegal. And that is what our Border Patrol agents and ICE agents do--they enforce the law. And we have a problem with respect to immigration.

During the Biden administration, with the encouragement of some--not all, but with the encouragement of some but not all Democrats, open the borders. They said: Come on in. And about 8 to 12 million--some say 20 million--people did.

Some of them were good people and are good people. They are still breaking the law. Some of them who are here are not. They are rapists and they are murderers and they are sex traffickers and they are drug dealers and they are pedophiles.

We don't know which is which. We don't know where they are. And it falls to the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security, in part through Border Patrol and ICE, to find out.

Now, why did this happen? Why do we now need Border Patrol and ICE more than ever? You know, I have thought about that a lot. It could be just pure, plain vanilla incompetence. It could be that the people that President Biden put in charge of immigration and securing the border were not qualified to play dead in a western movie. It also could be, and could have been, intentional.

I think some of my Democratic friends--not all of them. I am talking the Platner wing of the Democratic Party, the Mayor Mamdani wing of the Democratic Party, the Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez wing of the Democratic Party, the wing of the Democratic Party that is in control-- some of them believe that vetting people at the border is racist. They do.

It doesn't matter that every other country in the world vets people at their border. These members of the--whatever you want to call it-- progressive wing, loon wing, woketopus wing--whatever you want to call that wing of the Democratic Party, they think that vetting people at the border is racist.

There are other folks who support open borders for political reasons. I think they honestly think that if they admit a bunch of people into America in violation of the immigration laws or not, that it is a rich source of potential voters. We are not supposed to say that, but I really do believe that. Not much happens around here that doesn't have a political bent to it.

But regardless, we have a problem, and that is what we have to deal with. And that is what we are going to be voting on, I hope, in the next couple of days.

If you disagree with the law--this is America. You are entitled to disagree with it. I get it. Try to change it. Go change it. But you can't just ignore our immigration laws. They are not some second-tier statutes that you can ignore without consequence, that you can ignore when you think it is convenient. They are the law, and we have to enforce the law.

And more to the point, we have to clean up the mess that President Biden and some of my Democratic colleagues in the Platner wing, the Ocasio-Cortez wing, the Mamdani wing--whatever you want to call those Democrats who created it.

And more even to that point, we have to have Border Patrol and ICE officers to do it. We have to.

The other point I would make: We see the pushback by this wing of my Democratic friends' party. We see what is going on in New Jersey. It is despicable.

Look, you have the right to protest. That is as American as the NFL or baseball. You have the right to protest. You don't have the right to protest violently. And what we have seen at the Delaney Hall detention center: We have seen ICE officers and some Border Patrol officers; we have seen the protestors cursing at them and spitting at them and threatening their families and hitting them and scratching them and biting them and blocking ingress and egress in and out of the detention center. They are breaking the law, and they have been arrested.

I think the Border Patrol and ICE and the State law enforcement officials in New Jersey have shown a lot of restraint.

But what the protestors did--not all of them--was illegal. It was illegal. You can't hit a cop just because you don't like him.

And here is a free tip. I know you know this, Mr. President. Most Border Patrol agents, most ICE agents, most cops, they will leave you alone unless you do illegal stuff. But if you do illegal stuff, they are going to enforce the law.

So let me end as I began. We need to vote to fund Border Patrol and ICE. These men and women are running out of money. I am sorry that my Democratic colleagues have taken the position that they want to defund ICE. They have every right to believe that. I am sorry that they have taken the position they want to defund the Border Patrol. My Democratic friends have every right to believe that, but they are wrong.

I have the right to my opinion. And if they don't want to fund them, they need to go change the immigration laws. Until then, we have got to enforce them, and we are going to have the chance here in the next couple days.

And all we are going to be voting on--you are going to see all kinds of amendments and talking about everything in the world. All we will be voting on: Do we or do we not want to fund Border Patrol and ICE? Do we or do we not want to enforce America's immigration laws in accordance with due process and the rule of law? And that is the issue that is going to be before us.

And I am ready to saddle up and ride. I am ready to get to it. I am tired of all the rhetoric and the tangential issues. I am tired of all that. Let's get after it. Let's do the right thing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this has nothing to do with why I am speaking, but I was sitting there thinking, listening to Senator Lankford talk about Miss Mona.

Miss Mona, we are going to miss you.

And I was thinking--you know, I know it is a sin to covet, but I wish God had given me a voice like Senator Lankford's. You know, he gave me a voice that scares small children and sets off car alarms. I would love to have a voice like Senator Lankford's. I would also like to have his big brain too.

That was really nice of you, James.

And thank you, Mona, for your service.

Mr. President, with me today are two of my colleagues--Mr. John Lowery, my executive assistant. You have met John before. But the star of the show today--for me, anyway--is Ms. Kailyn Sheehan.

Kailyn is also an executive assistant to me. Her job includes scheduling. It is the worst job in America. All scheduling jobs are tough because you have to tell a small percentage of people yes but a whole lot of people no, and some people don't take no well.

Kailyn is leaving me. I say that with joy and sadness. As I said before, I try to hire the best people I can, and when you do that, as the Presiding Officer knows, you hire good people, and they are ambitious and they want to move up. And so it is just the price you pay.

Kailyn is very, very smart. She has an undergraduate degree and an M.B.A. degree. In college, she really was a good student, but she was also a student athlete. She played soccer in college and was very good at it.

Kailyn never loses her composure. She is steady. She never panics. That doesn't sound like a big deal, I suppose, but being a scheduler up here is hard. It is really, really, really hard.

Kailyn is going to work for Congressman Riley Moore in West Virginia. She has gotten a fancy title there: ``director of operations.''

Congratulations, Congressman. You are getting a good one in Kailyn.

I hate to lose her, but it is a step up for her, and she will be not just doing scheduling but doing other things in the office.

So, Kailyn, I wanted to ask you to come down and to say thank you. Thank you for your good work.

Mr. President, please vote for my S. Res. 526.

I also ask that the vote on S. Res. 526 begin immediately.

I withdraw that motion, but I still want you to vote for my S. Res. 526.

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.

Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer well knows-- because I am about to describe the good people of West Virginia as well as the good people of Louisiana and of many other States--most Americans get up every day. They go to work. They obey the law. They try to teach their children values. They try to do the right thing by their children, and they try to put aside a little money for retirement. I have just described millions of moms and dads across the Presiding Officer's State and mine and all across America.

But, unfortunately, many moms and dads, when they lie down to sleep at night, can't. And they can't because they are worried. They can't because they are scared. Worry and fear are inextricably linked. One of the main things they are worried about today in America is the cost of living. Worry and fear also can lead to anger. There is a lot of anger in America today among our middle-class citizens. That anger is shared not only by the folks in the Presiding Officer's State and in my State and in other States, it is shared all across political party lines and all across demographics. Many of my Democratic friends and neighbors are angry just as they are scared and worried. Many Independent moms and dads or many Republican moms and dads are worried, and they are angry.

Why are they angry? First, let me say I understand their anger. It is perfectly predictable. Here is why they are angry, and this is why they are scared: These moms and dads who can't sleep at night because they are concerned about the cost of living look around and they see too many undeserving people--I want to emphasize ``undeserving'' because I don't want to paint it with too broad a brush.

These parents--these moms and dads--look around and see too many undeserving people at the top getting bailouts, and they see too many undeserving people--not everybody but too many undeserving people--at the bottom who are getting handouts. And they are in the middle, and they are getting stuck with the bill, and they can't pay it anymore because of the cost of living.

Now, this started back during COVID when we experienced our first inflation--a rise in the cost of living in America. You don't have to be a senior at Caltech to figure out what happened. The Federal Government, at the suggestion of President Biden, spent bucketloads of money that we didn't have, particularly and especially after the pandemic was over. They just spent

billions and billions of dollars. There was money sloshing around the financial system in America like it was confetti. These stimulus bills were passed at the suggestion of President Biden at a time when many of our supply chains had kinks in them, and all this extra money that President Biden spent that we didn't have increased demand at a time when supply was constant or going down.

Well, what is the result of that? Inflation. That is how you get inflation. At one point, we had 9-percent inflation in America--9 percent. And inflation is pernicious. It just guts the middle class like a fish. Those at the top aren't particularly bothered by inflation. I don't want to overstate this, but many people at the bottom who depend on public assistance to live are not as worried about inflation because a lot of their public assistance is adjusted for inflation.

But the folks in the middle--the ones who get up every day and go to work and obey the law and pay their taxes and try to do the right thing by their kids--yes, they have gotten some wage increases but not as fast as inflation.

We have gotten that 9-percent inflation down. Before the conflict in Iran, we had gotten it down to 2.5, 2.8 percent. We were trying to get it down more, but inflation is very sticky. It is like a stray dog. Once you feed it, you can't get rid of it. Our goal was to get it down to 2 percent. The Federal Reserve was doing its part, and I would like to think most Members of Congress were doing their part, but we were having real trouble getting it down.

Then, of course, we had a spike in the cost of energy. Now, energy was already up. Under President Biden, the average electricity bill of the average American went up 28 percent--almost a third. So that started the fear and the anger among middle-class Americans. But the conflict in Iran, predictably, raised the cost of energy and particularly the cost of gas and diesel fuel.

I think most Americans understand. They don't like it. I don't like it. It is as painful as hell. They understand that every time you have a conflict in the Middle East, the price of energy is going to go up, and once the conflict is over, it will gradually come down. Usually, it doesn't come down as fast as it went up, but it is still painful.

This fear, this anger at the cost of living predates the conflict in Iran. I don't want to blame it on the conflict in Iran. It was there before because we had inflation there before the conflict. I am not going to say it is just energy prices. It is not just energy prices. We were seeing it in food prices, for example. You shouldn't have to sell blood plasma to go to the grocery store, but a lot of middle-class Americans felt that they just about had to.

Now, I talked to the President about it. He understands it. It frustrates him because he didn't cause that 9-percent inflation. No disrespect, but President Biden did. He did. He spent money that we didn't have like it was ditchwater. I think, if we had discovered life on Mars when President Biden was President, he would have sent it money immediately. That is how much money we were spending that caused all this inflation, but it frustrates President Trump.

And these are my words, not his, but I have heard him say, in effect: Why are people mad at me? I didn't cause this inflation. Yes, I did what I had to do in Iran, and gas prices and diesel prices have gone up and fertilizer prices, but the American people aren't stupid. They don't read Aristotle every day because they are too busy earning a living, but they understand the energy prices will gradually come down after the conflict is over.

But the President says: Why am I getting blamed?

And I have told the President gently: Mr. President, I understand your frustration. You didn't father this child--you are not the daddy-- but you have got to raise him. You have got to raise him because you are the President.

And I don't want the American people to think we have been doing nothing. We have done a lot already, as the Presiding Officer knows. We passed the One Big Beautiful Bill. Now, I could stand here--and most of the provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill which are going to help with the cost of living are just now taking effect. People are already seeing tax refunds bigger than they have ever seen, and that is going to help. It is a breathtaking piece of legislation. I don't think I have ever--I know I have never voted for a bill that was more impactful and that covered more subjects.

I have talked before about no tax on tips and the fact that we prevented a $4.3 trillion tax increase. I am not going to go into that, but I do want to highlight one of the things we did--one among, frankly, thousands in the One Big Beautiful Bill--to try to help people in the middle class who are scared and who are angry.

I will give you an example--and the Presiding Officer knows this. We have a program called the child and dependent care tax credit. Now, we have made it as complicated as hell, as the Federal Government is wont to do, but this is what the child and dependent care tax credit basically does: Basically, if you are a mom and dad and you are working and you have to pay for childcare--which is outrageously expensive; I am not blaming the childcare providers, but it is just really expensive--under the child and dependent care tax credit, we will pay a portion of your childcare expenses.

This program has been around since 2001. In the One Big Beautiful Bill, we amped it up. We don't talk about it much, but we did. For about 4 million working families, they are going to get more money to pay for childcare. For many families, that is going to mean an extra $900 a family to pay for their childcare. I am very proud of that. We heard the American people, and we did something about it.

We also have another program--way too complicated--called the employer-provided childcare credit, 45F. Let me tell you what it does in simple terms. It basically says, if you are a businesswoman or a businessman and you want to help your employees and you want to attract new employees because you need them, we will give that company a tax credit to pay for a portion of the childcare expenses of those employees. So that is the second way that we have, at the Federal level, to try to help people pay for their childcare. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill, we expanded that dramatically. That program has also been around since 2001.

To make a long story short, which sometimes is difficult for me to do, basically, in the One Big Beautiful Bill, we have given employers all across America more money so they can, in turn, help their employees by giving them more money to pay for childcare. We don't talk about it enough, but parents with kids will start feeling that immediately.

We also have a third program at the Federal level that we beefed up in the One Big Beautiful Bill. It is called the child tax credit. It is really the simplest of the three. Basically, if you have a child in America, we will give you a certain amount of money to defray the cost of raising that child.

Now, look, children are worth it, OK? I don't need to talk in just purely financial terms. I love my son more than life itself. I remember, when I was young, my dad used to tell me: Son, you will never know love until you have a child.

He would tell me--he said: Son, it is not like the love for a spouse or the love for a dad or a mom or a sibling.

I just can't describe it, Dad would say.

And I would say: Ah, Dad. OK, you know.

Well, he was right, and you can't know that until you have a child. So I don't mean to talk about children just in financial terms, but it is expensive to raise children. We increased in the One Big Beautiful Bill--right now, we give parents $2,000 per child to defray the expenses. We raised that to $2,200 a child. But more importantly, had we not acted--we not only acted, but we increased the child tax credits. But had we not acted, it was going to go back to $1,000 a child. So I think it would be fair to say that we increased the child tax credits from $1,000 to $2,200.

I don't want to get too partisan, but I was very disappointed that my Democratic colleagues--not a single solitary one voted for this.

We also increased the adoption tax credit. We basically decided to give more money to people who want to adopt children.

I could go on, but I won't. I could talk about the Dependent Care Assistance Plan. I could talk about the paid

family and medical leave credits. But the point is, this is one of the reasons we passed One Big Beautiful Bill, and I don't want anybody to think that we in Congress--at least our side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle--are not aware of and are not trying to help with the cost of living.

This is just one small part of the One Big Beautiful Bill. Let me tell you what else we are doing. We are doing a lot of stuff, but I will just mention one in particular: housing.

You know, it wasn't that many years ago--I think maybe 10 years ago, 15 years ago--that the average age of a first-time homeowner in America was 29. You know, most people who wanted to buy a home bought their first home when they were 29. Today, it is 39--damn near middle-aged-- because the cost of housing has gone up.

Now, that is great if you already have a home and you bought it early enough. God bless you. I am happy for you. You know, you built up equity, and your home is worth more. But it is terrible for our young people who want to buy a home and they just can't. It is not just the downpayment. It is not just the mortgage rates. It is the price of the home.

Now, the Federal Government, the U.S. Congress, is not in charge of housing. That is not part of our job description. That is an issue for local government--State government, yes, but especially local government. Why? Because the supply of housing is determined in large part by municipalities, by cities and counties.

If you increase the supply of housing, the cost is going to go down.

One of the reasons homes have become so expensive is because we don't have enough houses for people to buy. The other reason is that people who have bought and locked in cheap interest rates don't want to sell. But I digress.

The main reason is that we don't have enough housing. If we had more housing, the price would go down, and you wouldn't have to wait until you are 39 years old, for God's sake, to be able to buy a home.

But we at the Federal level can't tell our colleagues in local government--or we shouldn't try to tell them--how to increase the supply of houses. That is their job.

One way to increase the supply of housing is to change your zoning laws. A lot of our local governments--a lot of them--make it terribly, terribly, terribly difficult to build. They do. It is not just the fees and the permits and the regulations; it is the zoning laws.

You know, we all need zoning laws. I am not saying we don't. But there is no appetite by many folks on the city council and many mayors to increase housing starts by relaxing the zoning laws.

I don't want to be the one to tell them how to do their business. That is their business. I don't want to have the Federal Government get in the middle of zoning laws. That is up to local government because they are closest to the people.

But we have a bill--it has passed the Senate twice. It is in front of the House of Representatives right now. There are one or two Members of Congress over there that are holding it up, and I hope they will let it go. But we passed it twice. In fact, this bill is called the Build Now Act. It is a bill sponsored by myself and Senator Warren from Massachusetts. I have had it put on the crypto bill that we are going to mark up tomorrow. We have passed it twice, and it is in front of the House now, but in case something goes wrong over there, I am going to send it to them again through the crypto bill.

What does it do? It doesn't tell local government how to do their job; it just tells them: We will give you extra money if you will do your job.

Every year, the Federal Government sends about--I don't know--$3 billion in cash to our local governments. We call it community development block grant money. But it is free money. We give it to the cities. We give to the counties. There are very few strings attached.

The local governments love it. They love community development block grant money like the Devil loves sin. I mean, it is just free money. They can pretty much spend it on what they want. And we give it to them every year, $3 billion, just like clockwork.

What Senator Warren's and my bill would do is, it says to our friends in local government: We are not telling you how to do it, but if you will increase housing starts, if you will allow the private sector to build more houses--how you do it is up to you. You change zoning laws, whatever you do. We are not going to tell you how to do your business. But if you will encourage more housing built by the private sector and increase housing starts, we will give you extra money from that pool of $3 billion from community development block grants.

That is the good news.

The bad news for local government is--because you are saying: Well, heck, we are already giving them $3 billion, Kennedy. Did you just parachute in from Pluto? We have a huge deficit. You want to add more?

No. Senator Warren's bill and my bill wouldn't cost anything because, yes, we will reward with extra money those counties and cities that increase housing starts. Where are we going to get the money? We are going to take it from the cities and counties that don't increase housing starts. So the net effect is going to be a wash.

Now, we are not telling local government how to do their job. They don't have to do a dadgum thing if they don't want to. But if local government will work with us to increase housing starts, it will be good for them and good for us. If they don't want to work with us, they don't have to, but those that do work with us will get extra money, and those that don't will get less.

I know this will work. I have seen it with my very own eyes. You have, too, Mr. President. Just look at Austin, TX. About a year or so ago in Austin, it was the hottest housing market in the country. Prices were going through the roof. Why? Because Austin had all these people that were moving in, wanted to live in Austin.

You know, I always have loved their expression and their slogan in Austin. It is ``Keep Austin Weird.'' Austin is a great place. The University of Texas is there. It is just a great place.

Now it is a hub for technology, and people were moving into Austin from all over the country. The supply of houses was remaining the same, and the cost of housing was going through the roof. Nobody could afford a house, and nobody could afford an apartment.

Well, Austin said: You know, this is very uncool.

They changed their zoning laws.

They said: We are going to relax our regulations to try to increase more houses and more apartments.

Do you know what? They did. They did. And the price of homes, but just as important, the price of rent has gone down dramatically.

You increase supply, and price will go down every single time.

You know that. I know you know that, Mr. President. You have been very successful in business.

Most people who weren't playing frisbee in the quad near Econ 101 know it too. So that is what our bill would do.

So I just wanted to come to the floor and say to the American people: Look, I get it. We get it. You know, I wish there was a magic wand and we could just fix it, but we are trying. And it starts with the One Big Beautiful Bill.

We need to do more. We have passed the housing bill that will help if we could get our friends over in the House of Representatives to just take it up and pass it. There is talk of a third reconciliation bill, and I am all for it.

There are things we could do in a reconciliation bill if we could get it past the Parliamentarian. One idea I have: insurance. It is killing people. It is just killing folks. And it is not just homeowners insurance, it is flood insurance, it is car insurance, it is all kinds of insurance.

What I am about to say is going to give all of our insurance commissioners--they are all going to have a grand mal seizure when I say this, but what I think we ought to do--right now, if I want to buy insurance, I have to buy it in my State. I can't say: Man, the quote I got on my homeowners is too high. I want to see what kind of deal I can get in West Virginia or Alabama.

You can't do that. You can't buy insurance across State lines. Craziest thing I have ever seen. Craziest thing I have ever seen.

I want to introduce a bill--I may try to put it in our reconciliation package--that says: Henceforth, you can buy insurance across State lines.

I am sorry that the insurance commissioners are upset, but, you know, enough is enough.

We have--and you know this, Mr. President. You have dozens of ideas. I have them. We all have them. We are working on them.

I just wanted to come to the floor tonight and point that out to the American people, that we get it. We get it. And I am sorry for that worry and that fear among a lot of middle-class Americans. I am sorry for that anger. But we are working on it, and we are trying, and we are taking some steps to try to make your lives better.

That is it. My work here is done for the evening. I don't know what I am supposed to say next, except--what? Let's go home? Is that what you are saying?

Well, we are done. I am done. I can show myself out.

Whatever the magic words the Parliamentarian is telling me to say, I want to say it, and we will be recessed until we are supposed to come back. How is that?

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

Mr. President, I rise for two reasons: First, I talked last night about carbon capture--carbon dioxide capture--injection wells in Louisiana. I am not going to regive that speech.

Carbon dioxide, while a naturally occurring gas that God created-- when you breathe, what you blow out is carbon dioxide. The world couldn't exist without carbon dioxide. Plants couldn't conduct photosynthesis. But carbon dioxide is also a gas that is heavier than air, and it rises. And it is also dispersed throughout our atmosphere.

And while there are many good things about CO2, as we call it, one of the bad things is that carbon dioxide acts as a blanket over our world. And what happens when you are in bed, under a blanket? The blanket holds in heat. And carbon dioxide acts as this blanket, and it holds in the Earth's heat. And that can--that can affect your climate and your temperature. That is what all this discussion about carbon dioxide is all about.

A number of years ago, Congress decided to encourage companies that produce carbon dioxide. And one of the ways you also produce carbon dioxide, I should also add, is by burning fossil fuels. So a petrochemical plant, which uses natural gas when it produces the chemicals, it also produces CO2, or carbon dioxide, just like I have been producing it as I have been breathing while we are talking.

In any event, Congress passed a statute and said: We want to try to minimize the production of carbon dioxide, which can affect our climate when we burn fossil fuels.

So Congress came up with this idea of paying companies money to capture that carbon dioxide so that it is not released into the atmosphere--and, boy, do we pay a bunch of money. It is about $30 billion in spending every year. We are paying it to private companies to capture this carbon dioxide. It will be about $30 billion that we are spending by 2030.

One of the things that companies do when they produce the carbon dioxide and they want to capture it--after they capture it, they have to do something with it. One of the things that many of you probably know is that they drill-well inject it underground. In my State, that is very controversial. Some people support it. Some people don't.

I am not here to debate the merits of carbon capture and what we call carbon capture sequestration. All I am saying is that under Louisiana law, if you own property and you don't want a company drilling a well and putting carbon dioxide under your property, you should have the right to say no.

My legislation--Louisiana passed a statute. I am not saying they were right or wrong to do it, just like I am not debating the merits--or lack thereof--of carbon capture and sequestration. All I am saying is that under my State law, if a company captures this carbon dioxide and wants to drill a well and inject it beneath the surface and if they want to put it on my property and I don't want them to put it on my property, then they come to me and say ``I want to drill a well and inject carbon dioxide,'' I am entitled to say ``Yep, you got it. Happy to help'' or I am entitled to say ``I don't want you to do it.'' They say ``Pretty please?'' and I say ``The short answer is no. The long answer is hell no.''

Under my State law, those private companies can force me to let them drill that well. We call it expropriation. Some States call it eminent domain. It is just like if a State wants to put a road through your property and it can't put it anywhere else, they can take your land, but they have to pay you for it. Well, in my State, the legislature says they can do the same thing with the drilling of these wells.

All I am saying is, in the great State of Louisiana, we go about this business of debating carbon capture and climate change and that sort of thing. If you own property, which, under my State constitution and the Federal Constitution, is an inalienable/unalienable right--you have the right to own property in America--and if a company wants to drill a well on your property and put carbon dioxide down there and you don't want them to, then you ought to have a right to say no, and the State can't make you, and the companies can't make you. And that is all I am saying. That is the only point I was trying to make last night.

If the powers that be in my State start bullying people--I am not saying they will, but if they start bullying people and taking their property when they don't want to give it up, in order to inject carbon dioxide beneath their

land without their permission or consent, then I am going to have something to say about it because this money that we are paying companies to do that is from a Federal statute. It is called, I think, a 45Q tax credit. And do you know what? That 45Q tax credit can be changed. I can't make the legislature pass or not pass a law, but I sure can offer a bill to change that amount of money that we are paying companies to do this if they are going to force people and take their land in order to put in these wells.

I wasn't very clear last night. I think I was tired, and it was late, and I was also in a hurry to get home to watch ``Wheel of Fortune.''