Floor Statements

Mr. President, we will be starting the process here soon.

I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote in relation to Calendar No. 417, S. 2.

Mr. President, let me tell you sort of why we are here. We are trying to dig out of a hole created by our colleagues on the other side during the Biden administration that was a nightmare for America's national security, for our economic well-being. And the wake of open borders and irrational and irresponsible Biden immigration policy is wide and it is deep.

What have we been able to achieve in less than 2 years? During the Biden years, we had 5,110 people come across illegally every day-- apprehended. That is the ones we apprehended. Where are we at today? Zero. Pretty good.

So what do you get for your money? You go from 5,110 people to zero. What do you get for your money if you are a taxpayer out there about ``is there anything in this for you''? Yes. You are less likely to be a victim of crime that results from out-of-control illegal immigration.

Just in my State alone, in April 2026, a 12-year-old boy and a 9- year-old boy from Spartanburg were killed by an illegal immigrant in a drunk-driving car crash; 156 pounds of fentanyl that originated in Mexico smuggled across the southern border--the largest seizure in South Carolina history and enough to kill 36 million people. Hopefully, that will be harder to do in the future.

In June 2025, 72 illegal aliens at a Charleston nightclub run by a member of a cartel were arrested.

A University of South Carolina student, 21-year-old Nathaniel Baker-- a student--was killed in a hit-and-run crash by an illegal alien.

A mother of two was murdered in Rock Hill by a group of six illegal immigrants.

In February 2025, the DEA arrested four suspects from Sumter involved in money laundering for two Mexican cartels.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

What are we doing here? We are going to be spending $69.5 billion to accomplish two things: to fully fund the Border Patrol and ICE through the end of President Trump's term.

Why are we here? Through the normal appropriations process, Democrats would not give the Border Patrol or ICE one dime. We had reforms, we had agreement, and it just didn't work. We tried to reach common ground through Senator Britt and Senator Collins--pretty well known for trying to reach a deal.

We were unable to get a deal because you rejected reforms. You are more worried about the lunatic base than you are protecting people from rampant crime and drugs pouring into our country.

So most Americans are with us, not with you. Most Americans want to stop the madness. Most Americans want a secure border and want an immigration system that is rational. They want ICE to go after people that shouldn't be here illegally. And can we reform ICE? Yes.

So you are going to get $38.6 billion to ICE so they can do their job, train new agents, and have $108.5 million allocated to a fund for child exploitation investigations. One of the great crimes associated with illegal immigration is that kids are smuggled into this country for child sex rings. And we are going to have $108 million to beef that up; $22 billion for the Customs and Border Patrol to hire new people, to modernize the system; $3.5 billion for improvements to border security, including air and marine operations, efforts to combat trafficking; $5 billion for DHS to ensure the Agency has sufficient funding to carry out its needs.

What you get is a secure border versus a broken border. What you get is ICE being able to do its job instead of being closed for business.

To my Democratic colleagues, you are on the wrong side of this issue. You will find out in November.

What we are doing has to be done. I hate that we are having to use reconciliation to do this, but we have no other choice. Plenty of us were willing to work with the appropriations process to reform Border Patrol and ICE, but that didn't work.

So we are left with the task of doing nothing or doing something. Through reconciliation, we can do something, and we are going to do it.

We are going to fund the Border Patrol and ICE at $69.5 billion. That will get us what we need to finish out President Trump's term. So this is one less thing America has to worry about it.

If you don't see threats that stream to our national security increasing, you are deaf, dumb, and blind. The threats to our country are going up exponentially, not down.

Is now really the time to shut down the Border Patrol, given what is coming out of the Middle East? Is now really the time to shut down the Border Patrol to let more drugs into our country?

Is now really the time to close ICE for business and have nobody out there rounding up some of the bad guys that need to be rounded up and taken out of our country?

Really, we are having to fix a problem that has been created because our Democratic colleagues have lost their way, in my view, as to what it takes to make America secure.

It takes controlling one's border. It takes having law enforcement Agencies that can function to control illegal immigration to have a sovereign nation.

If we don't do what we are doing today, then the Border Patrol and ICE would continue to go without money.

People are being laid off. Systems to protect us from Ebola and other pandemics coming to our country will be shut down.

Is now the time--

Is now the time to shut down your border? No. Now is the time to give the money they need to finish the job that is so important to the rest of us. I look forward to this debate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before I make a point of order, I want to let every American know that if you believe you were the victim of a weaponization of the government and your life was turned upside down, there is a process available to you called the Federal Tort Claims Act. And I may use it myself because I feel like I am in your boat. I did nothing wrong but had my life turned upside down.

As to this amendment, the pending amendment would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the Judiciary Committee section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority or outlays. Therefore, I raise a point of order under the measure pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5779, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, if you have heard of the SAVE America Act, we are about to vote on it.

Senator Schmitt and Senator Lee, this is your idea, blessed by President Trump.

The Senate is going to vote in a minute on several things.

We say you should have a photo ID before you vote to make sure we have voter integrity. We say, over here, you have to be a citizen before you vote. We say, over here, biological males should not be playing girls' sports. We say, over here, that a minor should not be allowed to transition their sex. If you can't smoke as a minor, that makes sense to me.

So, to the medical community, you should not be performing sex changes on minors. They should wait until they are old enough to make that decision.

That is what we say. All you-all are going to oppose it.

If you don't want a photo ID, you are probably into cheating. There is no other reason to say you don't have to have an ID. It just makes cheating easier. Who wants a noncitizen voting in our elections? If you are against that, that makes me wonder.

Biological males playing girls' sports is not good for anybody, and a minor should not be allowed to transition their sex. That is the biggest change you could make in your entire life. You shouldn't be allowed to do that as a minor.

This is what we say.

What do you say?

Mr. President, my friends are about to vote down four very commonsense ideas, and we will talk about this in November during the election.

Motion to Waive

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution disciplines that apply, I move to waive all points of order for the purpose of the pending measure.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, almost 19 hours later, we are actually going to talk about the bill and what is in it. There is $69.5 billion that this amendment covers: $38.6 billion for ICE--the training, equipment, and support for ICE; $108.5 million allotted for child exploitation investigations; $22.6 billion for the Border Patrol--the hiring, training, equipment, and personnel; $3.5 billion for improvements in border security; and $5 billion to help DHS through 2029.

What we are about to do is fund the Border Patrol and ICE through the entire Trump term because you wouldn't help us. America will be safer.

I ask for the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. President, section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 33, the fiscal year 2026 congressional budget resolution, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise committee allocations, budgetary aggregates, and the pay-as-you-go ledger for legislation considered under the resolution's reconciliation instructions.

I find that S. 2 as reported by the Senate Budget Committee fulfills the conditions found in section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 33. Accordingly, I am revising the allocation for the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and other enforceable budgetary levels to account for the budgetary effects of the legislation. This adjustment applies while the legislation is under consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables providing details about the adjustments be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 33, the fiscal year 2026 congressional budget resolution, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise committee allocations, budgetary aggregates, and the pay-as-you-go ledger for legislation considered under the resolution's reconciliation instructions.

I find that the Graham amendment No. 5453 fulfills the conditions found in section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 33. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations for the relevant committees and other enforceable budgetary levels to account for the budgetary effects of the amendment.

This adjustment supersedes the adjustment I previously made for the processing of S. 2 and shall apply while the amendment is under consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables providing details

about the adjustments be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff members on my staff and Senator Merkley's staff be given all- access floor passes to the Senate floor during consideration of the bill: Meghan Green, Lillian Meadows, Conrad Meek, Mike Jones, Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, Josh Smith, Tyler Evilsizer.

Mr. President, S. Con. Res. 33, the fiscal year 2026 congressional budget resolution, included a provision authorizing the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget to file enforceable levels in the Senate in the event the budget was agreed to without the need to appoint a committee of conference on the measure. The Senate adopted S. Con. Res. 33 on April 23, 2026, and the House agreed to the resolution without changes on April 29. As such, I am submitting the required filing.

Specifically, section 4101(b) of the fiscal year 2026 congressional budget resolution requires the chairman to file an allocation for fiscal year 2026 for the Committee on Appropriations and an allocation for fiscal years 2026, 2026-2030, and 2026-2035 for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations.

Section 2002 of the fiscal year 2026 budget resolution included reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on the Judiciary. Each committee was instructed to increase deficits over the 2026 to 2035 period by not more than $70 billion. Pursuant to section 3001(b) of the resolution, I am holding the corresponding amounts in reserve until the consideration of reconciliation legislation.

For purposes of enforcing the Senate's pay-as-you-go rule found in section 4106 of the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 71, I am resetting the Senate's scorecard to zero for all fiscal years.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are going to start reconciliation. I think we all know what that means; that is Latin for ``a long night.''

But why are we here? We are here to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security, the ICE division and Border Patrol, are funded.

Now, why are we here? Our Democratic colleagues have refused to provide funding for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great threat to our country.

So what are we doing? We are trying to use the reconciliation process to get money to secure the border and not shut down enforcement of our immigration laws.

Our friends on the other side sat on the sideline and watched the Joe Biden administration allow 11 to 15 million illegal immigrants to come into this country in a 4-year period. We have been dealing with that mess ever since we have been in charge.

ICE--count me in for reforming ICE. We tried to have some reforms, but you refused. You refused to give a dollar, guys, because, in your view, ICE is the problem. I think the illegal immigration invasion that was allowed by Joe Biden and condoned by you is the problem. It is not the ICE agents that are the problem; it is the millions of people who came here illegally, and only God knows who they are and exactly where they are.

So we are not going to stop trying to enforce immigration laws. We have to. We are trying to clean up a mess, a national security threat.

Let me be really clear. In 2022, 2023, and 2024, we had a tremendous spike of people that came into the country under Biden on the Terrorist Watchlist. We don't know where all these people are. It went from, like, nothing to a bunch. Everybody in the world was told: If you can get to the American border, you are home free. Good guy, bad guy; good gal, bad gal--they came. They came by the millions.

One reason they came is because there was a policy called sanctuary cities. It is really sanctuary States. There are about 15 States that refuse to enforce Federal immigration law. There are cities that will not turn over an illegal immigrant to the Federal Government for deportation when they are eligible to be deported. It is creating chaos.

There are 10,000 criminals who were released by sanctuary policies who went on to be arrested for additional crimes and $9 billion in fraud stolen by Somali immigrants in Minnesota alone. Fifty-nine percent of illegal immigrant households are on government welfare programs, costing taxpayers $42 billion a year.

These sanctuary cities create a magnet. People all over the world believe that if you can get to one of these cities or States, you will never get deported. Why? Because the people running those cities and those States refuse to turn illegal immigrants over to the Federal Government--laws that were established long before Donald Trump became President of the United States. Some of these people they refuse to turn over are dangerous--very dangerous.

Abdul Jalloh comes in illegally in 2012; 30 arrests, including rape, malicious wounding, and assault. ICE submits a formal detainer to deport Jalloh. The request is blocked by the Virginia attorney for Fairfax County, a Soros-backed prosecutor and defender of sanctuary cities who ignored the detainer. In May of 2025, he is arrested one more time for stabbing an individual in the leg, but he is released again. In February 2026, Jalloh brutally murders Stephanie Nicole Minter.

Look at this. If that doesn't disgust you, something is wrong. This is disgusting. This is what happens when you have sanctuary policies. This is what happens when people fail to enforce Federal law.

The Virginia attorney for Fairfax County refused to work with the Federal Government. This guy stayed out. In May, he commits a crime, stabs a guy in the leg. In February 2026, he brutally murders Stephanie Minter.

That happens all the time, way too much.

Last week in Spartanburg, SC, two boys were killed by an illegal immigrant in a drunk-driving car crash. He was a ``got-away.'' He came across the border, and he literally got away. He was able to take advantage of lawless open borders to enter the United States undetected.

The victims were 12-year-old Dereon James Robinson and 9-year-old Mikhail'Lee Smith--killed by somebody who shouldn't have been here to begin with, an illegal drunk driver.

In April 2025, a University of South Carolina student was killed in a hit-and-run crash by an illegal alien. Fernandez-Cruz, a native of El Salvador, illegally crossed the U.S.-Mexican border on an unknown date but was arrested by the Border Patrol in Hidalgo, TX, on December 24, 2016. He was released the next day, which I guess was Christmas, and issued a notice to appear as DHS initiated removal proceedings. The victim was 21-year-old Nathaniel Baker. They had him and let him go.

In March 2025, a mother of two was murdered in Rock Hill by a group of six illegal immigrants. This heinous crime was committed by a gang of six illegal aliens in a random robbery attempt that ended deadly. The victim was Larisha Sharell Thompson, 40 years old, a mother of two.

On and on and on--I can read you too many of these things.

Laken Riley was a young lady killed in Georgia. The man was detained at the border--her killer, Jose Ibarra--and was released because they had no bedspace in 2022. He went to New York, found his way back to Georgia, and killed this young lady. He was loose because of the lack of detention space.

All I can tell you is that--what are we trying to do to make sure this never happens again? It happens over and over and over. So we are here tonight to do something Democrats won't let us do that must be done.

Seventy billion dollars will be allocated to fully fund the Border Patrol and fully fund ICE through the entire term of President Trump's second term, for 3\1/2\ years--one and done. I wish we could do more, but we are going to do for 3\1/2\ years. We are going to give DHS--the Border Patrol and ICE--the money to pay their people and to conduct operations to make sure what I described never happens again.

Why are we here? We passed everything in the appropriations bill in a bipartisan manner except this. Our Democratic friends wanted to pick a fight about this. No money for the Border Patrol. No money for ICE. No reforms of ICE; just no money.

We are not going to let that stand. We are going to fix that. So Republicans, starting today and hopefully by the 1st of June, will create a process so that we can get the money that ICE and the Border Patrol need to keep your families safe, to enforce illegal immigration violations--ICE--to have money and people on the border at a time when terrorism is through the roof.

We are having to do this through reconciliation because the appropriations process failed only here. These are the two accounts we couldn't get money for. It says a lot about the state of play where our Democratic colleagues are. In their world, not paying the Border Patrol seems to be an acceptable outcome. Really? With terrorism rampant all over the world, a war with the largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, heated up and fully running? Really?

ICE. We tried to have--we had reforms, but you said no to the reforms. You said no money at all. Putting these people out of business really is dangerous when you have millions of people still in this country illegally.

So, tonight, we are going to start the process to pass a budget resolution that will instruct two committees--Homeland Security and Judiciary--to report back to us a reconciliation bill that will be $70 billion in spending. That will allow the Border Patrol and ICE to be fully funded through the rest of President Trump's term so we can be safe.

I am sad we are having to do this, but you gave us no choice. The day that you said no to funding the Border Patrol and the day you wanted to put ICE out of business is the day that, as the Budget chairman, I and my colleagues acted. We are not going to let this happen. We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will.

Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE in a time of great peril and we are going to fix that and it starts tonight. And in the coming weeks, we are going to get it done.

We are going to make sure that the Federal Government honors its obligation to protect the American people.

And there is no bigger responsibility of the Federal Government than to secure our own border, to enforce our laws that have been on the books for decades. This is the primary job of the Federal Government. We will be talking about everything but this over the coming days, tonight, and into the future.

This needs to be done. And I am not saying other things don't need to be done. But this has to be done. It will be done. We are going to get this right. We are going to fully fund for 3\1/2\ years the Border Patrol so they have money they need to pay their people to protect us, and we are going to continue to enforce immigration law by fully funding ICE. We are going to do that, and we are not going to fail. We cannot fail. The world is too dangerous to fail.

So to my Democratic colleagues, you have taken a path that blows my mind in this regard. Don't you see the same world we do? Reform makes sense. We had reforms. You threw them out because, I guess, the hardest of the hard on your side insists not one dime for the Border Patrol, not one dime for ICE.

The American people are not where you are at, and I hope the American people will understand tonight that we, the Republicans, fixed this problem, and we couldn't find a partner on the other side. Sad but true.

We are going to succeed. We are going to fix this problem. Working with the Trump administration, we are going to secure that border. It is the most secure I have ever seen it in my life. What President Trump has done is amazing.

We are not going backward. What the Democrats want us to do is not fund ICE, not fund the Border Patrol, to go back to the policies that reigned during the Biden years. We are not going back to the Biden years. We are going forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am not on the Rules Committee. That deals with the dummy thing.

I ask unanimous consent that there be up to 10 minutes for debate, equally divided, prior to any amendment offered by Senator Kennedy.

Mr. President, I yield back all debate time on the Republican side.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5281, and I ask it be reported by number.

Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit- neutral reserve fund relating to ICE conducting apprehension, mandatory detention, expedited deportation of adult illegal aliens who have been convicted of rape, murder, sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States.

Over 4 million people, illegals, who came in during the Biden years were released into the United States. Jose Ibarra was one of them who killed Laken Riley. We have arrested 380,000 illegal aliens with criminal records over the past 12 months.

President Trump has prioritized detaining and getting out of our country or putting in jail illegal immigrants who rape, murder, and abuse minors, and this would give us more resources. Everybody in this body should be for this. These people need to be caught, put in jail, or kicked out of our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of the S. Con. Res. 33, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2026, the majority and the Democratic managers of the resolution, while seated or standing at the managers' desk, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text displayed on wireless personal assistant devices and tablet devices.

I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of the

budget resolution; further, that the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the resolution, if necessary, consistent with amendments adopted during Senate consideration, including calculating the associated change in the net interest function and incorporating the effect of such adopted amendments on the budgetary aggregates for Federal revenue, the amount by which the Federal revenue should be changed, new budget authority, budget outlays, deficits, public debt and debt held by the public; further, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each voting consideration of S. Con. Res. 33.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff members on the lists I am sending to the desk from my staff and from Senator Merkley's staff be given all-access floor passes to the Senate floor during consideration of S. Con. Res. 33.

Mr. President, you are entitled to your opinion. This is a free country. Whether you like President Trump or not is up to you. Your view of the war is up to you. But you are not entitled to your facts. You are entitled to the facts. And here are the facts. To my Democratic colleagues, I challenge you today to prove that I am wrong.

During the negotiations to find a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear problem, President Trump sent Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to negotiate with the Iranians. They say all they want is peaceful nuclear power--the Iranians. They have been saying that--and they should be entitled to enrich like other countries, like us, a bunch of nations--enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, and they claim: Why not us? Because you cheat.

The IAEA--not me, not Lindsey Graham--you have had a history of not living up to what you say about your ambitions, that your enrichment facilities are not designed to produce peaceful power, but a weapon.

So during the negotiations, Witkoff and Kushner offered the Iranians: Listen, if you will give us your highly enriched uranium, we will guarantee you a lifetime fuel supply for free, that you can have all the spent fuel you need to operate a peaceful power program you don't need to enrich, and if you want to enrich for medical purposes, very limited, fine, but you can't have an enrichment program that would lead to making bomb-grade material because you are not reliable.

And I would go a step further. It would be like letting Hitler have anything. See, the difference between me and, I think, a lot of people here--maybe most of my Democratic colleagues--I think these guys are religious Nazis. Hitler wanted a master race. He wrote a book. Nobody believed him. He literally wanted to kill all the Jews, and nobody believed him. The Ayatollah is the same. The regime is built around the cult of death. They want three things to purify Islam. They are Shiites. Their No. 1 enemy is Sunni Arabs. They think they have got the faith wrong--that they are traitors to the faith. They hate Sunnis because they are not true to the faith, and Saudi Arabia believes it.

So they want to purify Islam, bend it to their will, make every Sunni reject their view of Islam and accept the Ayatollah's view. That is what they say, not me. I believe them.

No. 2, they want to kill all the Jews, and they openly say it. They are not hiding their disdain for Israel. They actually talk about it. They put ``Death to Israel'' on, like, milk cartons. These people are serious, and we should take them seriously.

Like in the thirties, people didn't want to believe that Hitler meant what he said because they were tired from World War I, and they said: Oh, he is just all talk. He wants this. He wants that. He wants more German-speaking territory. He is not completely crazy. You know, he is sort of just doing the Hitler thing.

Well, he was completely crazy. Now, I don't know why he wanted to kill all the Jews. I don't know why Hitler thought the Aryan race is the only pure race on the planet, but a lot of people are dead because we got that wrong. Let's don't do that again.

We are playing like World War II never actually happened, and you are rewriting this regime's history. From 1979, what have they done until today to make you think they don't believe what they say? What behavior have they exhibited that they really do want to be normal?

So during those negotiations when they said no to every offer under the Sun, they said something that was a fatal mistake for them: Oh, by the way, we have 460 kilograms of uranium at 60 percent. Now, why did they tell us that? They were trying to intimidate us and letting us know that if we don't bend to their will, we will have a problem.

Now, what is the problem? The difference between 60 and 90 percent enrichment is weeks, not months or years. And when you get to 90, that is weapons-grade enrichment. That material can be turned into a nuclear weapon. Mr. President, 460 kilograms at 90 percent is enough to build 10 nuclear bombs. And I am talking weeks, not months, to go from 60 to 90, and they were threatening to do it.

What did President Trump do? Instead of begging them not to, instead of giving them a bunch of money bribing them not to, he blew up their enrichment facilities so they couldn't

get to 90 percent. It is called Midnight Hammer. Mr. President, I am glad you did, and it is clear to me nobody in the Democratic Party would have done that.

The question for my friends on the other side and critics within my own party: How could they have 60 percent enriched uranium at 460 kilograms without cheating? Everything you wanted to do to contain these people failed. The JCPOA--every agreement that has been offered to restrict Iran's nuclear program failed if, in fact, they do have 460 kilograms of uranium at 60 percent.

So here is my challenge: If you don't believe that is true, come to the floor and tell me why I am wrong. We know that the material at 60 percent is under all the rubble of their enrichment facilities, and we are worried that somehow somebody is going to get it before we do.

It is a fact that they had produced enough uranium at 60 percent. That means they were cheating because there is no commercial purpose for uranium to be enriched at 60 percent--none--zero. You don't need that to run a nuclear power program. You need nothing beyond 20. To go to 60 means you are a threshold nuclear nation. Why 60? It is just a small jump to 90, and they want to intimidate and blackmail the world.

When they told us that: We have got this much at 60, Trump said: Well, that is all you are going to do because I am going to take enrichment off the table. And thank God he did.

Their enrichment program has been obliterated, and they couldn't go to 90. I think they will come back at it one day if we don't deal with it now. So that is Midnight Hammer.

Epic Fury. What happened after we blew up the enrichment facilities? Within weeks, they were actually, the Iranians, trying to start over again, going deeper. What was the lesson they learned from Midnight Hammer? We are not deep enough in the ground.

And here is the most telling thing: They were trying to create a new enrichment capability that did not require an air shaft. Now, why is that important? The bombs that were used that were dropped on the enrichment facilities went through the air shaft--penetrated and blew up the facilities deep underground. That is a testament to our air power, that the air shaft opening was about the size of a refrigerator, and we dropped bombs through those air shafts to obliterate the enrichment facilities they had.

Instead of learning their lesson and ``let's sit down and talk about peaceful nuclear power,'' they went the other way. I think that is a fact.

So Epic Fury. If you do not see this is an imminent threat, then you are blind for your hatred of Trump. There are people on the left and people in my own party that are more afraid of Trump being successful than the Ayatollah having nuclear weapons. That is sick. That is sick.

When Obama took out bin Laden, I clapped like a seal. Every time he wanted to go into Syria, I was there with him and John McCain. I have tried to be bipartisan on such things. I never have ever introduced a resolution against a Democratic President under the congressional War Powers Act to limit their ability to protect the Nation ever because I think it is unconstitutional. I have never done to a Democrat what you constantly are doing to this Republican President. And when a Republican tried to do that, I objected.

If you don't like what President Trump or any other President is doing in military matters, cut off the funding. We have the power of the purse. We could stop funding for these operations, and that would be constitutional. What we can't do, in my view, is become the Commander in Chief.

You can't have 535 people becoming the Commander in Chief, and that is what the War Powers Act does. After 60 days, if Congress doesn't approve, military action stops. Basically, under the Constitution, you can be Commander in Chief for only 60 days and Congress takes over. That is not what they had in mind.

Let me tell you what the Founders had in mind: a single person--the President--to be Commander in Chief and Congress to have the power of the purse and regulate the land and naval forces. That is the balance we have had all these years, and the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because it destroys that balance.

But it doesn't mean Congress is out of the game. Literally, if you had a resolution or an appropriation bill denying funding for Epic Fury, I wouldn't agree with you, but you would be on sound constitutional grounds.

Now, why do I oppose this? Not just because I think it is an infringement on the power of the President and an overstep by the Congress. I think it would be really, quite frankly, dangerous not to finish this thing out.

In 18 or 19 days, we have done a number on the ability of Iran to build ballistic missiles to hit us and our allies. And if you don't think they would, put yourself in the same category that miscalculated Hitler. What is it about the Iranians that you think they really don't mean what they say?

So we have destroyed that ability to build those missiles to come after us, and they were building 100 a month before we did this.

The second thing is, they have been funding Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, proxies. Hezbollah has a lot of American blood on its hands. It killed 220 marines and sailors back in the 1980s when we were in Lebanon trying to help with that civil war. They attacked our barracks. They have a lot of American blood on their hands from Afghanistan, IEDs made in Iran. So these people have been at war with us since 1979. Finally, we are pushing back.

Instead of doing deals that don't work, we are trying to eliminate the threat in a responsible way.

What happens next in Iran? I think the people will have a chance down the road to decide that--not me, not you. We are not going to invade Iran. We are not going to do the Iraq-Afghanistan thing. There is no reason to. What we want to do militarily is eliminate the threats: They can't fund proxies, they can't build nuclear weapons anymore, and they can't build missiles that would terrorize us in the region and Europe.

When we accomplish those three things, here is what I think will happen: We will build on what President Biden started, which is normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Now, why is that big?

Senator Booker has been great on this. He has gone with me when Biden was President. I was a Republican trying to build on the Abraham Accords, see if we could get Saudi and Israel to normalize, which would be the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It would be the biggest change in thousands of years. And I would be willing to help President Biden-- I was. And we had a bipartisan team. I was part of it.

Well, October 7 came along to stop that. Now, we were very close to having a breakthrough on normalization under President Biden, Tony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and Brett McGurk. I went over there eight times, I think. We were close, but October 7 was designed to stop what we were trying to do.

It was a nightmare for the Iranians, I think, for the Arabs and the Israelis to make peace because it changes the region forever, leaving them behind. So October 7 was an attack by Hamas, but it couldn't happen without Iran stopping normalization. And it has worked to a great extent.

The tolerance for a two-state solution in Israel is pretty low after October 7, and the Arab world is pretty inflamed because of Gaza. But we can't let Iran win the day.

So here is what I hope we can do: keep this military campaign going-- weeks, not months; continue to degrade the ability of the IRGC to terrorize their own people, to wreak havoc in the region. And we are going to take some blows. They still have a lot of drones, they still have missiles, but less every day.

Gas price is up--no small thing for somebody trying to raise a family on a limited income. But I believe with all my heart that you pay now or you pay later with this regime.

We were a couple of weeks away from the Ayatollah and his crowd having weapons-grade material for 10 bombs. You think things are bad now? I can only imagine what the world would look like if this madman and his regime actually had nuclear weapons. One, I think he would use it. If you don't believe he would kill all the Jews, that would be a mistake. Certainly the Jewish people believe that.

This idea that we were drug into the war by Israel--that is the oldest game, literally, in the book: If it weren't for the Jews, we would all be better off. It is the Jews that are always getting us in trouble.

What an offensive thing to say. Israel consulted with us. We do have common values, and we have a common enemy. They don't just chant ``Death to Israel''; they chant ``Death to America,'' the Iranian regime, and they have our blood on their hands, not just Israeli blood.

So the idea that somehow President Trump got hoodwinked by the Jews is like--enough already. If you know anything about President Trump, nothing could be further from the truth, and you are just giving life to the idea that has been around for like 2,000 years for the Jewish people. Enough.

So what I hope will happen: We will be steady. For the American people, there is going to be some pain.

The region: You are going to get hit again. We have lost soldiers. God bless them. God bless the wounded--a couple hundred. And casualties may increase.

But the only thing I can tell you about the military from my time being around it, which is most of my adult life: The worst thing you can do to a military unit is ask them to sacrifice and not finish the job. Do you want to help the military? Let them finish the job they believe in, that is necessary. And you get nothing for finishing second in a war with mad people, crazy people.

If you don't think the regime is built around a cult of death, then you missed a lot. They want a religious world that they run. They want a religious master race, not an Aryan-ethic master race. They want to dominate the world through their faith, and that should scare you.

I don't intend to bend to their will. I don't think Sunni Arabs are. You know what. Most Iranians don't buy that, but they have been killed by the tens of thousands. They have had it too.

So I think we are close to weakening the regime to the point that we can start again with normalization talks between Saudi and Israel, which would be the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict--the biggest change in 2,000 years. If they can't do another October 7, then I think we may get there, building on what was done by the past administration.

So just think about it. We are not going to get a normalization deal that doesn't have a Palestinian component because MBS, the leader of Saudi Arabia, can't recognize Israel until he finds some dignified solution for the Palestinians that Israel can live with. And he wants a defense agreement with us because he wants to come our way--not Turkiye, not Pakistan. A mutual defense agreement.

Well, to my Democratic friends: Entertain the idea of helping us get there, but you should insist that there is something there for the Palestinians. And we all have a chance here to make history.

In a few more weeks, not a few more months, we should be at the point, in my view, that we can start where we ended before, and Iran's efforts to deny real peace to the region will have failed.

Kharg Island. Seldom in the history of warfare has a country or a warring opponent had a single point of failure. All their money comes from oil and gas in Iran--the regime--and all the infrastructure virtually is on a single island. If you control that island, you control the destiny of the income to continue this war.

And remember what I said: I don't know what President Trump is going to do.

As to this resolution, I have a lot of admiration for Senator Booker. We are going to be friends, and we will work together where we can. I think this is the wrong signal at the wrong time. I never believed it was constitutional. I never did it with a Democratic President.

But we do not need to do this because if we stop now, then we are going to pay a heavy price later. The worst possible outcome is for those 32,000 people to go to the streets and die for nothing. The worst possible outcome is to suffer and not get it right. They have a pair of 2's, and we have a full house. It is not a card game, but we are in a good spot.

To those who have lost their lives and been injured: You died in the service of your country, making the world safer, and that is what military people sign up for.

To those who have been injured: You have been hurt trying to stop something that matters.

This is not a foolish endeavor. This is something that had to be done because they were going to break out if we didn't stop them. We were really a couple of weeks away from them having enough uranium at 90 percent to make 10 bombs, and the world would have changed in the blink of an eye.

So I am going to oppose this resolution. I am going to support President Trump's plan to continue to defang the regime. And I will join with my Democratic colleagues if they would like, and if Saudi Arabia and Israel want to talk about changing the Mideast forever, I would encourage you to do what I did. Let's all work together to bring about the biggest change in 2,000 years.

The reason we didn't get there in the last administration was because of October 7. It wasn't any fault of anybody else. This attack was designed to stop everything we tried before. And it would be a shame and a tremendous missed opportunity in history to let the Iranians deny the region something I think they really want: to move forward, not backward.

I will end with this. To the American people: I know it is tough. I know the economy, on the gas front, is hurting. But I do believe this with every ounce of my being: If we had not done this, they would be on the path, the Iranian regime, to a nuclear capability, and they would use it. Eventually, they would use it or give it to somebody who would. They are no different than Hitler except this: Hitler wanted a master race to run this world, and he was denied--only after about 50 million people died. This regime wants a master religion to dominate this world. I don't know why, but I believe them. And we are so close to getting this right.

Since 1979, this regime has been built around a cult of death. A 16- year-old girl was killed last year for not having the headscarf on right--drug off the bus and beaten to death. The people have been in the streets, slaughtered by the tens of thousands.

Let's not let this moment pass. Let's, in a responsible way, keep weakening this regime, giving the people down the road a chance to have a new Iran, stand with our allies, finish the job. And if you do it right, a gateway to peace will open up.

The biggest thing you can say to those who sacrificed or were hurt and died: Because of what you did, you created an avenue for peace that is going to change the world.

So I will be voting no, but I am going to do more than vote no; I am going to support an outcome that will change the world. The day this regime no longer can wreak terror and havoc will be a good day, and we are close to that. The day when we can get back to the peace table between Saudi Arabia and Israel will be a wonderful day.

The center of Islam, Senator Booker, is Saudi Arabia. That is where the holy mosques of Mecca and Medina are. And this young man, MBS, has made a decision to go a different way. Now, I have had my problems with him, but I really do think he has made a decision to go a different way that will benefit the region and the world.

I hope the Israeli people understand: If you want true peace, lasting peace, you have to deal with your neighbors.

The Abraham Accords tells me they are willing to deal with their neighbors.

Let's don't let October 7 be the final chapter. Let's make sure we punch through what happened on October 7 and we punch through right now to get the conflict in a spot where we can truly have peace.

Last thought: You will never have peace in the Mideast and we will never know peace here at home until this madman regime, the Ayatollah and his henchmen, organized around a cult of death, can no longer hurt us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Nebraska Senator Fischer, and I thank the Presiding Officer for all the leadership you have provided in this crucial time.

What I would like to do to start with is read a letter that was sent by Admiral Cooper to all of those participating in Epic Fury. As a commander, he wanted to let everybody know, in these operations, sort of what is at stake. If I can, I will read it:

To America's extraordinary sons and daughters deployed

around the Middle East,

By order of the President of the United States, we are

embarking on a mission of profound consequence. The time for

preparation is over. The time for action has arrived.

As we move from deterrence into active combat, I write to

tell you how honored I am to serve with you--the most

exceptional Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, Guardians and

Coast Guardsmen on this earth.

Some of you are stationed in the Middle East. Many of you

have deployed overseas on short notice. Others have been

extended on deployment for this [crucial] mission. You

represent the strongest, most lethal warfighting force the

world has ever known. You all selflessly serve our . . .

country and make us . . . very PROUD.

Since 1979, the Iranian Regime has killed and wounded

thousands of Americans . . . and continue to threaten

Americans and our friends. Today, by your courage and grit,

you will change the course of . . . history.

My guidance for you is simple:

Be Relentlessly Lethal. In the heat of conflict, remember

who you are. Let your conduct be as professional as your aim

is precise.

Take Care of Your Teammates. The men and women on your

flanks, in front of you and those at your [side] are your

Guardian Angels. Be [there].

Steady Your Resolve. Combat is inherently chaotic. The

hours, days and perhaps weeks ahead will challenge you. There

will be noise and confusion. Fall back on your training. It

is the best in the world.

You are the shield of the free world, and today, you are

its sharpest sword.

As the eyes of the world fix upon [you], stay safe, and

Mr. President, that letter was sent to everybody involved in Epic Fury. Six people received this letter that have been killed in action.

This letter is a statement by the commander that what you are doing is righteous, what you are doing is long overdue, what you are doing will make your country safer, and the eyes of the world are upon you.

I would like to say this: I have never been more proud of our men and women in the military than I am now. That is true every day but particularly now. They have been tested by the sting of battle. Six have fallen, and God bless them.

The best thing you can do for a military unit when they suffer losses is to make sure the struggle continues and the sacrifice is not in vain. That is what they want. They accept the risk of injury and death; they cannot accept and should not have to accept anything less than victory.

So a couple of days into this conflict--3 or 4--we have lost six, and more may follow.

To the families of the fallen: Your loved ones died nobly in the service of their country.

The enemy that we are facing, Iran, is the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. They have been killing Americans by the thousands since 1979.

In 1983, 220 marines, I think 18 sailors, and 3 members of the Army were killed in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a proxy of the Iranian regime, in a bombing against the Marine barracks. We withdrew. We never held those responsible accountable. I love Ronald Reagan. He was a great President. But that was his biggest mistake.

So we are here to settle the account with the Iranian regime, after months of trying to negotiate an outcome to avoid conflict that would prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon, would lessen their ability to produce missiles that could hit our homeland and terrorize the region, and to stop their funding of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. It was clear during those negotiations that Iran is wedded to its agenda.

The Ayatollah is a religious Nazi. He is no more likely to give up his agenda than Hitler was. What does he want? Listen to what he says, not what I am saying. He says ``Death to America,'' and he means it. Well, he can't say it anymore because he is dead, but there are others in Iran who keep saying it. He wants to purify Islam--the regime does. They are radical religious fanatics that believe there is only one way to worship God, and that is through the Shia way. The Sunnis in Saudi Arabia are the worst offenders in their eyes.

So they have a goal to purify the faith of Islam, to create an international caliphate built around an extreme ideology. That extreme ideology will allow a 16-year-old girl to be taken off a bus and beaten to death because she didn't wear her headscarf right. That happened. There are cameras all over Iran--particularly Tehran--making sure that as a car goes by, the woman is covered.

These people are fanatics. They throw gay people off buildings. They will not tolerate any other form of religion. They killed 32,000 people in the last couple of months who have had it with the Ayatollah.

People are tired of living the way they have to live. They are tired of having daughters killed for just not wearing their headscarf right. They are tired of an economy that is broken and a regime that just wants to destroy the region and is built around a cult of death.

People ask me what happens next. There is zero chance that the Ayatollah and his henchmen would ever be our friends. There is zero chance they would give up their religious fanatical ways. We tried for months, to no avail.

Those that follow, I think, will be better for us. Why do I say that? If you look at the protesters and consider them no different than the Ayatollah, then that is an affront to them. They are out in the streets risking their lives not to have more oppression but to have less. Do you really think these people who have taken to the streets want to continue this regime as we know it? Isn't that an offense to them?

But when the regime falls--and it is not if; it is when--the people of Iran will have a new chance, I hope, to start anew. I don't know what will happen, but I know it will be their decision. It is not our decision.

America is not going to go in and run Iran; we are going to try to take down a terrorist regime that is bent on our destruction. They have been building missiles--100 a month. The goal is to hit us. They have been supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis since 1979 to kill Americans. The IEDs used in Iraq and Afghanistan, coming out of Iran, maimed and killed thousands of American servicemen, and they were made by the Iranians--the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Quds Force. This regime is a cult of death.

October 7 was designed to stop Israel and Saudi Arabia making peace-- the biggest change in 1,000 years. I worked with President Biden and his team to build on the Abraham Accords, to have Saudi Arabia recognize Israel, which would end the Arab-Israeli conflict. We were close, but the October 7 attack that killed 1,200 innocent Israelis, slaughtered people, raped women, and

cut children's heads off in front of parents was designed to stop that process.

Since October 7, Israel has been a state of constant war and conflict. Hamas is just about done, and President Trump, after trying through diplomacy, made a decision to call the question on Iran. I talk to him a lot.

Midnight Hammer was a very successful military operation to degrade and obliterate the nuclear ambitions of the Iranian regime, and it worked. But it wasn't very long after that they were right back at trying to restart it.

I think President Trump came to conclude that there is nothing he can do; there is no deal to be had with the religious Nazis. And thank God he concluded that. Can you imagine, a year from now, if we had left this regime intact--100 missiles a month, more capability?

The money from the JCPOA agreement with Obama and Biden was used to fuel their war machine, not roads, bridges, and hospitals. The regime couldn't care less about the people. They have a religious agenda to dominate the world.

Hitler wanted a master race, believing the Aryan race was superior to everybody else, and he literally wrote a book about killing all of the Jews. Nobody believed him. They should have.

This regime, since 1979, has openly embraced a cult of death, and they have acted on that cult of death.

President Trump, after a sincere effort to bring this conflict to a peaceful conclusion, concluded that to continue to allow this regime to move forward would put America at unacceptable risk, and he was right.

So here is where we find ourselves. Operation Epic Fury is off to a great start. The Ayatollah and his inner circle are dead. They are dead because they chose not to negotiate. There was no deal to be had with Hitler in World War II, and there is no deal to be had with the religious Nazis.

Everybody in Iran is not a religious Nazi--quite the opposite. Most people in Iran are dying for a better life, and some have literally died to have a better life.

So this operation is ahead of schedule. Its goal is to make sure this regime now and in the future cannot produce missiles to hit America, continue to hold the region hostage, that this regime will no longer be the largest state sponsor of terrorism, being able to keep Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis up and running.

So that is the goal, is to take their capability off the table, and the ultimate capability they want is a nuclear weapon. My goal is to have people in charge of Iran who don't want a nuclear weapon to blow the world up, who don't want a bunch of missiles to terrorize America, who want to live in peace.

When this regime collapses, the Prime Minister of Israel said, a gateway to peace will be open. I talked with him this morning.

So the big payoff for taking this regime down now before they get more lethal and about imminent threats--do you really want an imminent threat before we act? If somebody is threatening your family--to kill your family, to burn your house down--do you want to wait until they get to the gas station or the gun store?

Since 1979, they have told us who they are and what they believe. It is now time to deal with who they are, what they believe, and what they have done.

So this operation will continue. Every day, Iran grows weaker, and we grow stronger. The ability to generate missile attacks is going down, not up. There will be pain before this is over. The likelihood of more casualties is real. But the reason our men and women are over there is to protect us over here.

When you take the eye off the ball in the Mideast, they will come here--9/11. You had 19 people trained in Saudi Arabia, of all places, that were able to generate 9/11.

When you ignored what happened in Afghanistan, you did so at your peril. The Taliban gave al-Qaida a safe haven in Afghanistan, and from there, they trained, and they attacked us on 9/11. I made a promise to myself that I will do everything I can to never let that happen again.

So if you want to stop radical Islam from blowing you up over here, you need to fight them over there, and you need to have partners if you can. There is no better partner on the planet than Israel. They hit above their weight, they do everything we ask them and then some, and they ask very little in return.

I do believe the Arab nations in the region that have been viciously attacked by the Ayatollah's regime--that they are soon going to get in the fight--at least I hope they will. You will have a coalition of regional countries, the United States--some support from Europe-- sinking the ship, the largest state sponsor of terrorism. The mother ship of terrorism is Iran. That ship is sinking, and the captain is dead.

It is just a matter of time. Israel is committed. President Trump is committed. This is a righteous cause that makes us safer here at home. And the big benefit from bringing this regime down, ending this reign of terror, is that we can get back to the peace table, that we can renew our effort to try to bring peace to the region in a historic fashion.

If the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under Crown Prince MBS would go back to the table to try to find a peace deal with Israel, it would be the biggest change in a thousand years. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the keeper of the two holy mosques, Mecca and Medina--the most holy of the holies in Islam. For that country to move forward consistent with conservative Islamic principles but embracing the world and recognizing the Jewish State as a legitimate member of the region would be breathtaking. I think it will happen the day this regime in Iran falls, that there can never be another October 7 undercutting peace.

So to my Democratic colleagues: This operation is working, is ahead of schedule, and you should all pray that it is successful.

President Trump for months tried to negotiate, with no results--not for lack of effort. I have known this for a long time. The Ayatollah is not a man you can deal with. The Ayatollah is a man you need to make sure can't kill you and your family. He is Hitler on the religious side. What he wants for the world is a master religion. Well, his dreams are going to be denied, and the Iranian people are going to have a chance to start over. If they want to start over being a friend to America, we will be their friend. If they want to continue to threaten us, we will continue to push back.

So why am I here on the floor. There is an effort by my good friend from Virginia Senator Kaine to terminate the operation.

The War Powers Act was passed years ago by the Congress saying that after 60 days, any military operation not approved by the Congress must come to an end. That is just blatantly unconstitutional. That creates 535 Commanders in Chief.

The Constitution designates the President as the Commander in Chief not for 60 days but for however long it takes to be Commander in Chief.

The Congress can stop military action by cutting off funding. If you don't like the war in Iran, say: We will not pay for it. We have the constitutional power of the purse. We can't become the Commander in Chief after 60 days. You will ruin the country. Can you imagine Congress being the Commander in Chief? Can you imagine the debate we would have about what ships to send and what troops to send? It would be a nightmare. The Founding Fathers understood that. They designated a single entity in the Constitution--the President--as the Commander in Chief. They gave power to Congress to declare war.

Does it mean that you can't have military conflict unless Congress declares war? No. We have declared war five times in the history of the country: World War II, World War I, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, and the War of 1812--five conflicts where Congress said: We are in a state of war. We have had over 130 conflicts since the War Powers Act where Congress never authorized anything.

The norm in this country is not to declare war by Congress. But for the military to be used by the Commander in Chief, sometimes authorization from Congress is requested, sometimes it is not. More than not, it is not requested.

The President, as Commander in Chief, has the ability to use our Armed Forces to protect our Nation, and Congress, if we disagree with that choice,

has the ability to terminate the action by taking the money away. That is the check and balance that was created a long time ago. The Founding Fathers never envisioned that after passage of 60 days, the President would be replaced by 535 people.

So the War Powers Act, back during the Vietnam era, was an unconstitutional, in my view, infringement on article II power. I said that for Obama. I said that for Biden.

When President Biden thought about going into Syria after the chemical weapons attack, I, along with Senator McCain, said: Do it. You don't need congressional authorization. You have all the power you need.

Clinton went into Haiti. I mean, there are just a lot of examples of Democrats and Republicans using military force. President Bush 41 went into Panama to take down a drug kingpin.

The norm is not declaration of war; the norm is for the President, the Commander in Chief, to use military force as they believe appropriate. The role of the Congress is to check and balance that decision by cutting off funding if you choose to.

We are going to have a vote at 4 o'clock. The reason I want my colleagues to reject the War Powers Act is that you will set in motion a system where 535 people, after 60 days, become the Commander in Chief, grinding this Nation's ability to defend itself to a halt.

If you want to stop this war, say: We will not pay for it.

I will not agree with you, but at least it would be constitutional.

So I will end where I began. The letter written by Admiral Cooper to those serving in harm's way reminded them of the history the Iranian regime has toward us, the American people, our men and women in uniform.

Since 1979, they have been killing Americans. They have been killing their own people. They have been slaughtering people in the name of religion. It is time for that to end. It is time for this regime to fall. It is time to open the gateway to peace.

To my Democratic colleagues: What you are proposing would create chaos for every Commander in Chief that follows. You had a chance to deal with Iran. You gave them money. You were fooled by who these people are.

President Obama gave them billions of dollars, believing that they were normal people.

To my Democratic colleagues: The Ayatollah was never a normal person. Those who are around him are not normal. These people are nuts. These people are religious fanatics. If you don't get that, you are going to continue the cult of death.

To those in World War II who thought Hitler was normal: Boy, were you wrong. How many chances did you have to stop Hitler, and you just blew it because you thought he really didn't mean to kill all the Jews, that he could be reasoned with. About 100 million people later, you got it wrong. We are not going to do that again.

To my Democratic colleagues: You have misjudged Iran from day one, and in your world, you give them money, hoping they will do better. In my world, we are going to bring them down. We are going to destroy this regime to protect America, to free the Iranian people, and to open the gateway to peace.

To those who argue that we shouldn't do this: What solutions have you offered? What have you done to bring down this regime, to stop it? You have done nothing but fuel it, give it money, thinking they would use it wisely. Boy, were you wrong, were you foolish to give this group a bunch of money, thinking they wouldn't use it to build a war machine.

This foolish behavior is over. We now have a President--Donald J. Trump--who understands that the people we are dealing with in Iran--the regime--are a bunch of religious fanatics; they are religious Nazis. We are about bringing them down with our Arab partners.

The Arabs in the region have been terrorized by the Iranian regime, and they are going to join the fight, I hope, soon.

The biggest thing going for us are the Iranian people. We finally have boots on the ground--them.

Three things have happened, and I will conclude. The Iranian economy is in shambles because of the sanctions and because President Trump put a tariff on anybody buying Iranian oil, and their money is drying up.

Midnight Hammer--us, Israel--in the past has depleted and degraded the Iranian military to the weakest they have been.

Finally, the people have risen up, and you turned your back on them. You talk about Gaza. You talk about what has happened to the Palestinians. I understand. Innocent Palestinians being killed--I know it is hard to watch. I think Israel had to do what they had to do.

Not one word. Have any of you said anything about the protestors? Have any of you come out and said: I hope you win. I hope you are successful.

If I were you, I would keep doing--what would you do in Iran? Would you be out there with them? I hope I would. I don't know if I would be that brave.

What they are doing today is what we did a long time ago. We rose up and said: Enough of tyrants.

These people, the protestors, are the best among us all. What have you done to have their back? What have you done to encourage them? Nothing. All you want to do is talk about what we can't do. You want to make sure the oppressor stays in power. If we have to depend on you to fight evil, it never will be fought.

So the differences between us and our Democratic colleagues could not be starker. They want to stop this. I want the regime to collapse. I want to get behind Admiral Cooper and give him and his people what they need to take this regime down, working with our allies in Israel, because if we don't do it now, we will regret it.

When it comes to the Ayatollah, you pay now or you pay later. He is gone, but the regime has not yet collapsed--but it will.

This is the biggest decision I think we can make as a country--to finally take on this evil in Iran.

Like World War II, you ignored evil to your own peril. You thought Hitler was normal. He wasn't.

This guy and those around him--the Ayatollah and the cult of death-- they are not normal. They will only be stopped when better people are risking everything to stop them. That is how it always works. Bad people are taken down because good people finally have had enough.

So let it be said when they write the history of these times that I am with the protestors.

You are righteous in your demands. America is here to help you. Help is not on the way anymore. It has arrived.

Vote no to this War Powers Resolution. It is an affront to our constitutional democracy.

And to my Democratic friends, you should be ashamed of yourself, not embracing the righteous nature of the Iranian people's demands.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, so DHS apparently is going to shut down. Hopefully, we can get it back open. What is this all about? Obey the law?

You know what. I have an idea for you if you want people to obey the law in this country: Do away with sanctuary cities.

Senator Murphy is from Connecticut. It is 1 of 12 sanctuary States. What does that mean? Local officials, State officials, refuse to work with the Federal Government to turn people over to the Federal Government as required by Federal law. So you want to obey the law in Connecticut? Stop being a sanctuary State.

You want to fix immigration? Have policies that make sense.

You all act like, for 4 years, Biden wasn't President. Every Democratic Senator aided and abetted the Biden administration with a massive invasion of this country. You turned the other way. You never said a word. You let Biden obliterate our border. You let him send people into the interior on planes, trains, and automobiles. Only God knows what happened, who is here. You sat by, and you did nothing.

And here is what I have learned about my friends on the Democratic side: They are never going to agree to deport anybody because all their proposals make it pretty much impossible to deport anybody.

Body cameras, that makes sense. If you want to find out how to make ICE more professional, count me in.

But your proposal is to require a judicial warrant to deport somebody. Can you imagine how many judges you would need if you got 15 million illegal people here, to go get a warrant from a judge? This is not a criminal proceeding. This is an administrative proceeding. The President, as the Commander in Chief, has the ability to detain and deport people administratively. You don't need a Federal judge.

You are trying to create a mechanism so we will fail cleaning up your mess. We got elected to clean up your mess.

We are going to hold ICE agents accountable if they went too far. Tom Homan went to Minnesota to turn the heat down. Great.

Democratic politicians all over this country have been turning the heat up. You are wedded to lousy, dangerous policies.

Senator Murphy, why don't you get Connecticut right with Federal law?

Here is what has happened: We got 12 sanctuary States, 200-plus sanctuary communities, 25,000 people--ICE has requested a detainer, ignored for 2 years. States have refused to work with ICE for 25,000 people that have a detainer at the Federal level.

Sanctuary city law is a magnet for future illegal immigration. Sanctuary city policies are full of fraud like in Minneapolis. They bring out the worst in the system, not the best, and it breaks down law and order.

We have been talking for weeks about you wanting to fix things. You are blocking a debate. I can't believe I am here. I thought we were going to work together to try to find out how to reform ICE and also address the bottom-line problem, which is sanctuary city law abuse. That is the problem--not ICE, not Miller, not me, not Noem--policies that have been in place that entice more illegal immigration.

Every Democratic Senator turned the other way during the 4 years of Biden. You didn't do anything to bring reason to chaos.

How many of you spoke about Laken Riley? Talking about children being abused, how many thousands of people have been raped and abused, stolen and mistreated because of this invasion of illegal immigrants from virtually all over the world with people from gangs, you name it. So you never talk about the victims.

Just want to talk about TV in Minnesota. I am all for these ICE agents being reviewed. I am all for making them more professional. But I am not all for stopping the mandate that President Trump was given, which is to deal with illegal immigration and the criminal elements therein.

So I have legislation, S. 3805, and it says: If a State or local official does not turn over to the Federal Government an illegal immigrant who is facing criminal charges, been convicted or facing criminal charges, then that State or local official can go to jail.

You have an obligation under Federal law to turn these people over. Sanctuary States and cities--25,000 ICE detainers denied. Twenty-five thousand people that should be deported have not been turned over to the Federal Government because of these 12 States and these 200 sanctuary cities. Let's get to the root cause of the problem.

I am going to ask unanimous consent that we vote on S. 3805. That would make it a crime for a State or local official not to turn over to Federal authorities a criminal illegal immigrant, somebody who is charged with a crime or convicted with a crime. And if you don't turn them over, you would face punishment. That will stop illegal sanctuary city policy. If people knew they would go to jail for breaking Federal law, I think they would stop.

You have had weeks, and we are not even debating. You are never going to change. If you want to have immigration policed, our Democratic friends will never be there for you. They turned their back on you and your family and allowed this Nation to be invaded by 10, 15, 20 million people--who the hell knows.

We are trying to fix it. We are trying to fix it, and we are not going to give up. And until you change the policies, you never stop illegal immigration.

If there are 12 States that have sanctuary status, they will keep coming. All they have to do is get to one of these States. It is magnets for future illegal immigration. It breaks down law and order, and it needs to stop.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 318, S. 3805; further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend Senator Padilla.

No. 1, we are going to have an election in November. Senator Padilla says that sanctuary policies are not part of the problem. I think they are. I think the American people believe that, when 12 States refuse to cooperate with the Federal Government when it comes to enforcing Federal law, they become sanctuary States and cities, and it entices more illegal immigration.

Do you know why we are not voting on my amendment? It is because most people don't agree with him, and they are afraid to vote. The only reason we are not voting on my amendment is that you would have to go back and tell the country why you voted against stopping sanctuary city policy, which is one of the biggest magnets of illegal immigration that leads to massive fraud and the breakdown of law and order.

The parties are in two different places. Democrats and Senator Padilla believe that sanctuary policies are no problem. The Republicans, including me and President Trump, believe we will never have orderly immigration until you get to the root cause of the problem. You have got 12 very liberal States and 200 cities that refuse to work with the Federal Government to turn over people who are subject to deportation.

I have an amendment that is being blocked that would make it a crime for a State or a Federal official who has custody of an illegal immigrant who is facing criminal charges or who has been convicted of criminal charges not to turn him over to the Federal Government to be handled and deported. They don't want that vote. You are never going to stop sanctuary cities until you make the people in charge of the State and the city pay a price for ignoring Federal law.

To the American people, you are not wrong to believe sanctuary city policy is bad for your country. Democrats are wrong to support it and want to continue it.

So what do we hear on the floor today? Not only is it that they don't believe it is a problem but that they wish to continue it.

This is why I want a vote. We are going to have a vote on this. You want to continue these policies. You don't think they are a problem. I want to end them. Let's have a vote, a debate and a vote. You bring up any amendment you want to bring up about making ICE better, defund it. Whatever you want to bring up I will vote on, but you are denying me a vote today on the root cause of the problem because you have absolutely no interest in recognizing it to be the root cause of the problem.

As a matter of fact, the Senator said I am wrong to believe that sanctuary policy is bad for our country.

No. You are wrong. You are wrong to have turned your back on the 15 million, 10 million, 20 million coming into our country for 4 years. You are wrong to sit by and watch these States obliterate the law. There are 25,000 people that local governments and State governments refuse to turn over to ICE who are eligible to be turned over, and there are 8 million people in these illegal sanctuary States and cities.

This is a debate worthy of the U.S. Senate and of a great nation.

Is Senator Padilla right that sanctuary policies are not bad for the country and that they should continue or am I right that we should reform ICE but that we also should end the biggest magnet to illegal immigration out there, I think, which are 12 States that violate, routinely, Federal law?

There are 12 States wherein, if an illegal believes you can get there, you are never going to leave the country. If we don't fix this problem, we will never fix illegal immigration. In the Gang of 8 bill, we actually fixed this problem.

So what have I learned?

I have learned that I can't get a vote on an amendment that would require State and local officials to obey the law or go to jail themselves when it comes to criminal illegal aliens.

My amendment says, if you have got a criminal in your custody and you don't turn the criminal over to the Federal Government, as you are supposed to, you could go to jail. They should go to jail. We can't have that vote. We can't have that debate.

This is a phenomenal day for the U.S. Senate. We have got the Senator from California overtly saying: We have no desire to change sanctuary policy. We think it is OK. Then we have got me and all of us on this side saying that you need to end this; that this will continue.

I am sad and disappointed we didn't have a bunch of votes today. Why aren't we voting? Because they blocked it. Why aren't we defunding DHS? Because they don't want to talk and fix the problem.

So here is the deal: No matter what--no matter how this ends--I am going to stay on this until I can't stay on it anymore. I want a simple vote as a U.S. Senator to have a debate as to whether or not sanctuary city policy, State policy, is bad for America or good for America. I think it is terrible for America.

For those engaging in sanctuary city practices, you are hurting the other 38 States. You are creating chaos for your country, and you should be held accountable.

One last thought: There was a clerk of the court in Kentucky who was a very religious woman. She did not want to recognize a gay marriage in Kentucky. She issued marriage licenses. The Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was the law of the land. She refused. I said she needed to do her job. She went to jail for 5 days, and she should have because you can't let your personal opinion take over your government function. You can't just obey the laws you like.

It is the same thing here--and every liberal clapped when I did that. It is the same thing here. If you have got a Governor or a mayor who will not turn over a criminal illegal immigrant, as required by Federal law, they should go to jail.

I want a vote. I want a debate. I am not going to let this go. The battle lines have been drawn.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, thank you to my colleague Senator Schmitt. Well said. Well done. That was a very logical argument about what is at stake.

I want to tell you where I am. I am an appropriator, and I can never remember putting a hold on an appropriations bill ever before, and I will tell you why I have done it, but I also want to acknowledge the appropriations process and Chairman Collins. We have a package of bills that are bipartisan. From a fiscal conservative side, they spend less than the CR.

To all of the people in our conference who demand the appropriators do better, we delivered, but you have given no acknowledgment. You keep saying stuff that is unrealistic. You push the system in a way that nobody can deliver. Politically, you are dumb as a rock. I am not going to mention you; you know who you are--but you probably don't if you are that dumb.

We are asking sometimes to make points that are not good for the Republican Party or the country. Might be good online. Might help you raise a few bucks. But I am tired of that. Count me out.

Senator Collins, you have worked with Democrats and Republicans, and before us is a package of bills that I have supported. Why am I holding? What happened?

What happened in Minnesota has to be addressed. Senator Schmitt laid out the choices.

I am arguing to both parties: We need to do a little soul searching here. The man who was shot--I have seen the video. It needs to be investigated. I am sure it will be.

There are things being done on the ICE side that a lot of Americans are uncomfortable with. I get that.

To my Democratic colleagues, if you want to try to make it more professional, count me in. If you want to have more accountability, count me in. But your rhetoric--count me out.

If you were from a foreign country, Senator Schmitt, listening to the debate on the cable channels, you thought we were the gestapo. Have you had any stories about a guy getting his finger bit off?

The ICE agents and the Border Patrol and all Federal law enforcement involved in this have been slandered and smeared.

And to the Republican Party, where have you been?

Count me in for holding them accountable.

Where are you at, leaders? Where have you been?

These people are patriotic. They are away from home. These crowds follow them to their hotel. They intimidate their families. The people pushing this are nuts. They are not normal.

The man who got shot--investigate, but do not tell me that he didn't have an agenda. Look what happened 10 days before. Maybe excessive force; let's look. But don't play a game like the people out in the streets that are harassing ICE--that they are not part of the problem.

The real problem is not Kristi Noem. You can say whether she has done a good job or not. Stephen Miller. The real problem is that there are 12 States in America that openly defy Federal law.

Why are we dealing with this?

During the 4 years of Joe Biden, you obliterated our borders. You let anybody and everybody that could get here get here. You created chaos. And a lot of Americans have been destroyed by your illegal immigration policy, and all you want to talk about over there are the cops.

Senator Schumer, you blame me; I blame you. I worked with you on comprehensive immigration reform. It is not, I can't get there. But when you got in charge with Biden, you did everything conservatives were afraid of. You ignored the law.

Has anybody mentioned Laken Riley lately? The Laken Riley Act was a great piece of bipartisan legislation by Senator Britt from Alabama. We all came together to say: No more Laken Rileys.

Well, what are we talking about? Laken Riley was killed by an illegal immigrant who was in detention in Texas and released because they had no bedspace.

Under the law, the DHS Secretary cannot mass-release people; they have to do it on a case-by-case basis. They were releasing people by the thousands.

This young lady is dead because they had no place to hold him, and they let him loose, knowing he might be dangerous. He makes his way to Georgia, and he murders her.

One year ago yesterday, we signed into law the Laken Riley Act.

To the Republican Party, why didn't we talk about that? Why didn't we remind the American people that part of what we are doing here is to not go back to the Joe Biden ways? We made a mistake here. We are on the run in an 80-percent issue, and I am tired of it. We should be reminding the American people: We are different than our colleagues on the other side. We are not going back to Joe Biden policies.

You can be unnerved by what is happening in Minneapolis--I get it-- but the problem is, you want bandaid solutions.

We are going to have a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2 weeks as to whether or not we should criminalize the act of local and State officials who willfully disobey laws on the books because it is good politics for them.

If we could go back in time, we probably should have put George Wallace in jail for defying civil rights. These laws were on the books long before Trump. What is the right answer when a State or a mayor says ``I don't like this Federal law. I am not going to do it because it is good politics for me''? I think you risk going to jail.

We cannot live in a country this way, where you get to pick and choose the laws you don't like. You can't have 50 State immigration policies. Sanctuary city policy is killing this country.

To the 12 States that are doing this: Stop.

How are you ever going to fix illegal immigration if there are pockets of the country that, if an illegal immigrant can get there, they are home free? That is what Senator Schmitt was saying.

If you want to reform ICE, count me in, but if you don't get to the root cause of the problem, then you are really not serious about solving it.

I will not lift my hold on this bill until I get guaranteed a vote on my legislation that would criminalize the conduct going forward. And what conduct am I talking about? State and local officials openly defying Federal law that has been on the books for decades, incentivizing more illegal immigration, massive taxpayer rip-off, and a breakdown of law and order.

To these 12 States: You are screwing it up for the rest of us. You need to change your policies and comply with the law that has been on the books for decades, and there should be a punishment. To me, what you are doing is you are inciting chaos. You are putting people's lives at risk. You literally should go to jail if you will not enforce the law, abide by the law.

What a novel concept: You break the law, you go to jail--except you are an elected official, I guess. We have an exception. If you are doing what liberals like, then you actually can break the law.

No, you can't.

I want a vote on it. And if you have a better idea, count me in. That is my idea. If you can think of a better idea, let me know. If you have ideas about reforming ICE to make it more professional, count me in. But what we will not do in 2 weeks is leave unaddressed the root cause of the problem, and that is 4 years of the Biden administration, 11 million people coming to the country--only God knows why they are here and where they are from--and the chaos they have created.

Laken Riley is one example of too many where somebody died because of stupid, dangerous policies.

President Trump, like him or not, is trying to lower the temperature in Minneapolis. Tom Homan, good job. But he is not going to quit, and I am not going to quit. I am not going to give up on undoing the damage. I have had it.

I have worked with Democrats and Republicans to fix illegal immigration. Now you are doing everything to make it worse.

I am not going to sit on the sidelines and not get in this debate and say: Sanctuary city policy is dangerous. It is insane. It needs to be fixed.

You can convince me ICE can be made better. I don't think I will ever

convince you to abandon sanctuary cities because you are wedded to it on the Democratic side.

Let's have this debate. In 2026, if you want to go back to Biden, vote for the Democrats. In 2026, if you want to try to get the country back on a rational footing, vote for us. We are not perfect, but they are not either.

So what would it take to lift my hold? A vote, not an outcome. I am like any other Senator. I don't demand a lot, but I am demanding that my solution to fixing sanctuary cities at least have a vote.

You are going to put ideas on the floor to make ICE better; I want to put an idea on the floor to get at the root cause of the problem, and that is not unreasonable. Vote any way you want. I am asking this body to guarantee me that vote, and we move forward.

Second thing. What happened with Jack Smith? Here is what happened to me. I didn't know--but now I know--that they literally started asking the phone company about my phone calls, professionally and personally, during a period of time when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, by subpoena. No one has ever suggested I broke the law. This actually really bothers me. If I were a Democrat, I would be bothered too.

The original Arctic Frost provision was signed off by Leader Schumer and Senator Thune, and it was seen as--to have an ethical problem. Not my intent. I fixed it. I changed the language so it would comply. No enrichment by me or anybody else. But I am not going to give up on the idea that we should abandon holding Jack Smith accountable.

The House. You took the Arctic Frost language of the Senate and took it all out. You could have called me about the $500,000. I would be glad to work with you. You jammed me.

Speaker Johnson, I won't forget this. I have a lot of good friends in the House. If you think I am going to give up on this, you really don't know me.

So how about this idea to my House colleagues? Why don't we expand a private cause of action to the 430 Republican groups that may have been abused by Jack Smith? Nothing to do with me. You took the provision, and you gutted it. You took the notification provision out telling Senators or Congressmen if they are asking for your phone records when you are not under criminal investigation, you should know.

Senator Peters and I are this close to finding a bipartisan solution to protect the body in the future. It is Republicans today, could be Democrats tomorrow. We should all want to be notified as Senators and a separate branch of government that the executive branch is looking for our phone records unless we are charged or investigating a crime. That is just common sense. They took that out.

There was a stampede in the House. Everybody said, well, it passed unanimously in the House. I couldn't care less. What you did, I think, was wrong. You overreacted. We will fix the $500,000. Count me in, but you took the notification out. I am not going to give up on that.

I am demanding a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate to an amendment that requires notification to a Member of Congress if their phone records are being looked at by the executive branch, unless they are under criminal investigation. That is a fishing expedition. We should all be against that.

I am going to demand a vote on the floor that groups, not Members of Congress, who may have been harmed by Jack Smith, have a private cause of action--Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA, the Republican National Committee, the Conservative Partnership Institute, the America First Policy Institute, Save America PAC, MyPillow--430 Republican-aligned groups and individuals, 197 subpoenas against these groups and what they were doing.

To the House, if you expect me to deny these people a chance to have their day in court against Jack Smith, you are talking to the wrong guy. I am urging the Speaker, give these people and anybody else we find, 430 groups, a chance to hold Jack Smith accountable in court. Nothing to do with me. If you don't do that, you are giving a pass to what I think is the most abusive investigation maybe in the history of the country by Jack Smith.

Within 3 days of President Trump announcing, ``I am going to run again,'' they have a special counsel and within 6 months, they have 90 felony charges in the most liberal districts in the country. I believe it was a coordinated effort to make Trump unelectable. I believe it was lawfare, and I am going to pursue my beliefs.

As to me, what have I done to justify this? He says he can defend what he did to me. Great. Get a good lawyer. See you in court. What did I do wrong? I am the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I am asking questions.

When it came to January 6, I think I was more the solution than the problem. I took this floor and said: Enough. I don't think the election was stolen. There may have been some abuses, but I am done.

What happens? I find out during all this time, they are looking at me for being involved in a plot to steal the election when I am the biggest advocate. Enough. You actually used my name to Verizon. See you in court.

To the government, Donald Trump is suing the IRS for $10 billion because somebody in the IRS may have leaked his records. You should sue. If our government can't be sued by people--only by people not in it, then people like us are lambs to the slaughter. If they ever say that because you are in the government, you have no rights; that because I am a Senator, my right to use my phone without being interfered with no longer exists, that is insane.

I am going to pursue the damage done to me, hoping it will better others in the future.

I hope, after all this is over, people will not be going on fishing expeditions to find out who a Senator was calling and why they were calling ever again unless they believe that Senator has committed a crime; is that too much to ask?

This is a defining moment about what is the root cause of problems on immigration. Senator Schmitt is right. People have made mistakes in Minnesota. But the reason we have this chaos is that 12 States are pursuing policies that are insane: I will not enforce Federal law because I don't like it, and it is popular.

Those days are over.

If a conservative--if you start doing that stuff--we had clerks of court that would refuse to do laws around marriage. I had an opponent in the 2016 race. I didn't last long. He did better. There is some lady somewhere saying: I am not going to recognize this certificate of gay marriage because it violates my religious beliefs.

That was her job, right?

One guy said: I think she is right. I will go to jail with her.

And I said: We will miss you.

I am not going to jail for that. I have my own views. But if you are a public official, you don't get to have your own views and be a veto.

On the right, there were a lot of people wanting to make a point: I don't agree with gay marriage. I won't follow the law.

Well, you could go to jail too. That is my point. Our political desires have to have some boundaries around here.

I am willing to lift my hold. I am willing to vote yes. I actually like the products. I am asking for two simple things. Give me a chance to express myself on what the solution to our problems on immigration are. I am not asking for an outcome--for a vote. I have a bill. I want to vote on it.

As to Arctic Frost, I want to have a chance to have a vote on a version that would expand private cause of actions for nonmembers of Congress who may have a claim against Jack Smith to be able to improve it. I want to work with Senator Peters to see if we can find a way to give us notice so that the next administration can't fish for whom we are talking to. They have to actually have a real reason. That is all I am asking. I think those are reasonable things.

I will end where I began. To the appropriations process, it is a miracle we have done it the way we have done it. It is actually what we have been hoping for. Everybody who has been complaining in our conference, ``let's get back to regular order,'' well, when we try to get back to regular order, they won't let us.

``Let's do less spending.'' We checked that block.

Well, that is not enough. We actually have, Senator Tillis, appropriations

below CRs. All of a sudden, we are still the bad guys. People have said: Let's go to the floor and debate. They won't let us get to the floor. So there are people in our conference--I have just, like, had it. We have to have regular order.

To our leadership, you are my friends. We are playing not to lose. They on the other side have the courage of their convictions. They are coming out here with 21 things that we should do to stop abuses in Minneapolis. We are just sitting around looking at each other worried. Hold the people accountable in ICE who may have broken the law. But stand up for those in the field trying to protect America and have the courage to say it is not about Kristi Noem, whether you like her or not; it is not about Stephen Miller, whether you like him or not; it is a deeper, bigger problem. That is a debate worthy of a great country.

To my Republican colleagues, we need to up our game. I am not asking you to do things that I think are unachievable. Have a vote. If we lose, we lose. But I am frustrated, and there are a lot of people out there frustrated that the moment is not being met. I think it is time to reevaluate.

To my Democratic friends, you think you have the upper hand? You may for the moment, but what you are asking for is really too much. Part of your problem is, you haven't really acknowledged the Laken Rileys of the world and all the people who have had their lives upended. That is not balance. You are probably right about ICE reform. But none of you-- no protesters--nobody up in arms about this young lady being murdered and thousands others like her.

In 2 weeks, we will have the debate. I will lift my holds. All I ask is to have a voice in that debate. Down the road, all I ask for is to give access to people I think were harmed by Jack Smith. They will have to prove their case--nothing to do with me--and protect the body against fishing expeditions. That is what I am asking for. I hope we can get there.

I will end where I began. It is not about the appropriations process. I actually think we have done a damn good job beyond what I ever expected.

Now, the Arctic Frost amendment. Nobody talked to me. I talked to Senator Collins. We will get that right.

Final thought. I told Senator Thune, what does it matter if a single Senator says the entire House is wrong? We should respect that Senator and let them have their say. I have been told the White House doesn't like this, and I told the White House last night, I don't care if you like it or not. I literally texted my friends at the White House: ``If I were you, I would not call me tonight.'' And they didn't call me.

I don't work for the White House. They are my political allies. I am close to President Trump. I don't work for him. I don't work for the House. I have been in the House. I enjoyed it. I like this better. Why do I like the Senate better? Because one person has a say. So when I heard that, well, the House passed it, I think they made a mistake. I think they went too far.

The $500,000 thing, let's fix it. But you took it all out because there is a rush to judgment and a political stampede.

So don't ever come to me ever again and say: You are just one voice. That is not a good reason to not let me know what is going on or to deny me a chance to have that voice.

To every Senator in this body, when they started this stuff a long time ago--250 years ago--they made you special. There are things we can do that nobody in the government can do as a single Senator. I am not giving that right away to any friend or foe in the White House. I am not letting the House take that right away from me. I am not letting the leadership take that right away from me. You know why you should sort of be in my camp? It could be you tomorrow.

Senator Tillis, you have done some things by yourself that you thought were right. We need more of that, not less of that.

Senator Collins, you got ripped by the President and took it in a way that I think people of Maine should be proud of. I don't know what was said, but it was reported as pretty tough, and you stood your ground. I don't agree with you about the vote, but I know with Susan Collins, here is what I get. She will listen. She will make her mind up. If you think you are going to change Susan Collins by a phone call, you really don't know her very well. She does it with a smile. Problem-solving-- there is not enough of it.

So this is a time for all of us to reflect. I never do this. I never hold things. I never say: I have to have my vote or else. I am doing it now because I think it will reset. I think it will reset the debate. I think it will be good for my party to up our game. I think it would be good for the Democrats to have a challenge on their hands.

I do.

Yes. Thank you. Is that a question?

OK.

The answer is yes.

Yes, I do believe it too, but I haven't slept in a while.

But this is just normally not me. Senator Collins and I talked before. If we do this--if we can't get appropriations through until we solve a policy debate--we are never going to appropriate again. Today, it is immigration. Tomorrow, it could be abortion. The next day, it could be regulatory reform. Senator Collins is very worried that policy debates need to be done in authorizing committees.

To my authorizing committees: What have you done lately?

To Homeland Security Senator Johnson: What did we do?

These committees are becoming political jousting. Authorizing committees have to be bigger than making points. And you get mad at the appropriators. Well, do your job. Senator Risch is working well with Senator Shaheen, but we haven't reauthorized the State Department in, like, 25 years. So this is a dangerous model.

To my Democratic colleagues: You would be cheering on putting the clerk in Tennessee--or wherever she was--in jail for not recognizing gay marriage because she disagreed with the Supreme Court. You would be cheering: Put her in jail. But you are going to defend some mayor who says: I will not cooperate with the Federal Government as I am required to by law. That

is politics for you. You are all politics all the time. I have worked on immigration. Senator Tillis has worked on immigration. Senator Collins has. When you got in charge, you blew by everything you said you weren't for.

Well, let me end on this--and I have made my point, I hope.

Laken Riley was murdered--dead today--because immigration policy was constructed to the point they had too many people and not enough beds and they let the man go. He was released because of a lack of detention space, not because of some merit under the law. She is dead. A year ago today, we signed the law. There are a bunch of cases like Laken Riley-- raped, murdered, dead.

There are two sides of this debate. I get what you are saying about ICE going too far. I am with Senator Schmitt. God bless these people for being willing to do it. And as for the ones who did it wrong, hold them accountable. I am passionate about cleaning up this mess. It is a mess that needs to be cleaned up, and President Trump is adjusting with Homan.

But I am not going to give up on the idea of the root cause of the problem. It is not Trump. It is not Miller. It is not Noem--all the people you hate. The real cause of the problem is you have instilled into your base that it is OK to defy the law when you like it. Twelve States are ignoring Federal law because it is good politics for those Governors and those mayors. Like the clerk, you don't have the ability to override a law or a Supreme Court case because you don't like it. If you don't like the decision of the Supreme Court on gay marriage and you are a public official, quit your job. You have got to follow the law. If you are a mayor or a Governor and the law is clear, follow it, and if you don't follow it, then you are committing a crime. We are never going to have law and order until we insist on it.

I appreciate this moment. I appreciate my colleagues for listening to my frustration. I am ready to move forward. My requests are reasonable. I celebrate the accomplishments of the Appropriations Committee, but this debate that we are going to have in 2 weeks is long overdue. I would just ask to have a seat at the table and a voice.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, as a matter of fact, I have been here a while. I can't think of a time that I felt the need to object.

You are entitled to your opinion of me.

How do you get in this group of eight people? Jack Smith went after my phone records. I am the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We found out later that this politically motivated hit job against President Trump by Jack Smith got eight of us, and there are probably more.

What did I do to deserve this, Senator? I will just tell you. I don't know where you were at January 6. I was here. I was probably the leading voice on this side of the aisle to say the election is over; Biden won; Trump lost. But you keep talking about Trump because--if there is a case of Trump derangement syndrome, I think it has spread throughout the building.

I didn't riot. I didn't give cover to the idea that the election was stolen--quite the opposite. What was my big offense? Being a friend of Trump's.

What are you trying to do here? Do the right thing? The right thing is to continue to investigate Jack Smith for turning the law upside down, for creating a precedent that should scare every Senator in this body.

The law is pretty clear--there is a statute on point--that the Senate, even with a nondisclosure order, is supposed to notify the Members when somebody wants our phone records. We are a separate branch of the government.

You don't seem to be upset at all because they are coming after Trump and a friend of Trump's.

Now, when we do something, you know, we are out to destroy Trump. And anytime we look at what you all did, you know, we are, I guess, a bunch of crooks.

Now let's talk about me and enrichment. The Democratic majority leader, Senator Schumer, signed off on this. I want the world to know-- and the world is paying no attention because it is blowing up right now--that this provision was coordinated between Senators Thune and Schumer because a lot of people worried that if they can do it to Republicans, maybe they can do it to Democrats.

So the idea that eight of us cooked something up is ridiculous. We talked to your Democratic leadership. The fact that they didn't talk to you is your problem with them.

What happened? We sent to the Ethics Committee what we are doing, and they didn't send anything back. Now they have.

So the bottom line is, Mr. President, this provision was a result of ``We are not going to take it anymore.'' The law was flagrantly violated, I believe, but he has already made a decision--Senator Peters has--that Jack Smith was lawfully in the right here. Have a hearing. He has already decided that Jack Smith was right--right--to find my phone records. Based on what? Being a friend of Trump's?

I will take this to the court. If your goal is to intimidate me, boy, you don't know anything about me. If your goal is to try to cover up a valid inquiry and stop Jack Smith from being

looked at, it ain't happening. I am more determined than ever to find out how Arctic Frost got so off the rails.

Within 3 days of Trump's announcing ``I am going to run again,'' the process started, and within 6 months, he had 91 felony charges in Manhattan; in Atlanta, GA; in Washington, DC; and in Florida. I had to spend $1.2 million to go down to Georgia for the Fani Willis debacle. So this will be looked at.

Was there a coordinated effort between Jack Smith--the special counsel--and the most liberal jurisdictions in the country to knock Trump out of the race by throwing everything you could at him, whether it made sense or not, and his friends? See, I don't know, but we are going to find this out, Senator Peters. We are moving forward.

You have made up your mind. If it were up to you, we would not be looking at Jack Smith. You made a mistake there by defending somebody when you had no idea, actually, what he did.

I think I pretty well know where you are coming from, so I object. I object because we did it in coordination with the Democrats. I object because we let the Ethics Committee know.

The House? The House did it quickly. There are provisions in this bill from the House that his amendment would strip out--the notification requirement. Every Member should want to be notified if anybody in the government, in the executive branch, is looking at your phone records. This provision would strip that out. A private cause of action would strip it out.

I live in America. We all live in America. If you cannot hold your government accountable for violating your rights or potentially violating your rights, you have a very dangerous government. I am no better than anybody else, but I am certainly--hell--no worse than anybody else. So I want to know why the government made a subpoena request that if you tell me about what is going on here, that I am likely to taint the witnesses and act irresponsibly. What have I ever done as a Senator to make you think that is me? There was no factual foundation that I would do anything illegal if you told me. I did nothing illegal except to be Trump's friend, apparently. I inquired as to whether or not I should vote to certify the election on January 6, and I did. I did not know this had happened, but if it can happen to me, then, to my colleagues over there, it can happen to you.

So this unanimous consent request would strip the notification out, and it would strip the private cause of action out. I think that is the wrong signal to send to a government out of control. With the private cause of action, the $500,000 is to try to deter people from doing this again. The bottom line is the private cause of action needs to stay if anybody else in the future gets hurt like this or a private citizen.

There are a bunch of groups out there--all conservative--that have had their phone records looked at, too, but we are not going to give up. No matter what Senator Peters says, we are going to look at it. There is Turning Point USA. There are a lot of shenanigans going on out there with Jack Smith, and we are going to look at it, whether you want us to or not. So I hope they can sue.

As to me, I am a Senator. If this provision--the private cause of action--is seen out of line with what the Senate rules now, I will gladly fix that. But you are off base if you think I am doing this for $1 million. I am going to sue for much more than that, not just to try to make my life whole but to make people pay for trying to--you know, forget my phone records, for God's sake. That will be in court. I will have to prove that. I will make sure--and I will have that in just a minute. There is a provision to change the law so that there is no doubt that I and the eight others won't get a benefit from the $500,000. It won't be personal. But we do want to proceed with our case, and I want other people to proceed with their cases. If we do this right now, Turning Point USA and a bunch of other groups will not have a private cause of action. I want to preserve that private cause of action for a lot of other people who are not Senators.

As to me, I don't know. You are implying that I did something to benefit me in the dark of night. You know, I will remember that, but life goes on. So I object. I object to what you are doing. I object to the fact that you think Jack Smith was legal when you have no idea what he did.

I object.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent request be modified to include the adoption of my substitute amendment, which is at the desk.

OK. Sorry about that.

So, Mr. President, the objection is heard.

Here is what the Ethics Committee said about my proposal, about my modification: that the amendment cures the Senate 37.4 issue previously identified in a letter sent to you.

So I asked the Ethics Committee: Will this amendment cure any concerns that people have about this provision regarding me or any other Senator? It does.

So, if that is what you want to do, I think we have fixed it.

However, with all due respect to my colleague, I am never going to agree to drop the notification requirement. I have had a ton of House Members say: Please, don't do that. All of us here should want to be notified if someone in the executive branch is looking at our phone records. That would be terrible.

The private cause of action goes away. I am never going to agree to drop that. Why? There are a bunch of people caught up in Jack Smith who are not Senators, who may have a cause of action, and they deserve their day in court. As to my cause of action under the statute, I am going to pursue it but in a way that is compliant with Senate rules.

I just want to put everybody on notice: The statute is just one avenue to finding out what happened. There will be others. I will go to the phone company. I will sue Jack Smith's and Biden's DOJ--that is where I am headed--but I will do it in a fashion that is consistent with the rules of the Senate.

But I am not going to drop the private right of action because there are a bunch of people out there other than me.

As to the notification requirement, given the environment in which we are all living, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, I think we need to be notified if the executive branch is maybe doing something it shouldn't do.

So I look forward to working with you, and I appreciate ending this thing the way we have ended it. I will be pursuing my legal rights consistent with the ethics of the Senate, and maybe we could work something out. But, Senator Peters, we live in pretty dangerous times now, and I can see it going bad on our side or on your side. We need to protect these institutions the best we can from things that may come our way. It is me today, but it could be you all tomorrow. And I love the institution. People want to change the rules, you know, to make it like the House. I don't.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do, too, and we will start it here soon.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this is an important debate we are having, and I will give you my view on how all of this works.

Under the Constitution, two things occur: The President of the United States is designated as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, not Congress. So the Commander in Chief is one person, the President. Declaring war is a duty of the Congress. In the case of modern times, it requires 535 people to vote.

The question is, Can you use military force as the Commander in Chief without a declaration of war?

The answer is yes.

There have been five declarations of war in the history of the country: the

Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. Only five times in the history of our Republic has the Congress exercised its responsibility and right to declare war--five times.

Now, does that mean that other actions taken by the Commander in Chief don't exist where there were no declarations of war?

The answer is no. They do exist. We have been able to find 130 examples of a Commander in Chief using military force without a declaration of war by the Congress and also without congressional authorization under the War Powers Act.

One example is in 1989, when President Bush 41 literally invaded the country of Panama. He sent ground forces in, sustaining casualties, to take down Noriega, who was the leader of Panama, who was a drug kingpin. Panama was being used as a drug safe haven when President Bush 41 authorized the military without having congressional approval to go in and take him down--take him out of Panama and put him in an American prison. We used ground forces, and we lost people in that endeavor.

Things like this, President Clinton used and threatened military force to take a military coup in Haiti down and returned power back to the elected leader of Haiti.

I could go on and on and on about how different Presidents have used military force that has sometimes involved casualties without their having congressional approval. So I don't want to hear anybody tell me that this has never been done before. It is actually the norm.

What is odd in America is to declare war by the Congress. The norm is for the Commander in Chief to use military force as he or she deems necessary to protect the national interests.

The 1973 War Powers Act is a congressional statute, not a constitutional provision, that has a series of reporting requirements when military force is used, crescendoing with an approval process by the Congress, and if that approval is not given, the operations must cease.

In my view, it is patently unconstitutional. You are creating, through the War Powers Act, 535 Commanders in Chief. The Members of Congress sit in judgment over the Commander in Chief, and under the War Powers Act, they have a veto under the law. I think that violates the constitutional structure that has been around since the founding of the Republic.

Now, what can Congress do?

If Congress doesn't like a military operation, the Constitution says that it is Congress that appropriates money, not the President. So, for instance, in Venezuela, if you don't want any American boots on the ground, I think you could come forward and pass through the appropriations process a prohibition of funds to be used to have American ground forces in Venezuela. If you don't like the seizing of the oil for the mutual benefit of Venezuela and the United States, you could say that no money could be used on behalf of the American Government to seize the oil. We would win the day because that is the way you check what you think is an out-of-line action by the President when it comes to using military force. You can do those two things.

What we can't do is substitute our judgment for the decision itself. We can't all sit around up here and say: You know, I don't know if we should use troops here or troops there. I don't like the way this thing is shaping up.

That is chaos.

President Trump is well within his legal rights under article II to use military force to advance the national interest, which is to end the drug trafficking dictatorship of Maduro, which every Republican and Democrat condemned, and President Trump finally did something about it. He was flooding our country with drugs, and it was a safe haven for Hezbollah and other drug cartels. Everybody said he should go. Well, President Trump made those words real. He used military force in the advancement of a national security interest of this country: to stop Venezuela from being a safe haven for drug dealers and international terrorists.

He has a plan to rebuild the country and eventually transition it, through an election, to a new regime. Regime change will come to Venezuela through the ballot box. In the meantime, he is threatening military force to people who want to undercut this effort.

He is taking the oil and selling it and creating an account for the benefit of Venezuela, which is basically out of money. He is telling those people who are holdovers from the regime: I want to work with you to get to where we need to go, which is to rebuild the country and have a free and fair election, but if you don't work with me and you try to undercut what I am doing, then you can meet the same fate as Maduro.

Maduro was an indicted drug guy. He had indictments for being a drug trafficker. The argument is that this operation was to enforce the warrant. It was more of a law enforcement activity because he was the President of the country--not legitimate, by the way, and everybody pretty much denied that he was the legitimate President when he stole the election.

So the bottom line here is--the theory that some of my colleagues are hanging their hats on is that this is legitimate because it is actually a law enforcement function. I respect what you are saying, but I don't agree. This is clearly beyond issuing a warrant. This is clearly beyond using law enforcement power. The game plan is not only to take the indicted leader of the country--who is a horrible person--and put him in jail but to change the country in a way that doesn't threaten America in the future, in that it will not, in the future, be a drug haven for cocaine to be dumped into our country, and it will not be a safe haven for Hezbollah and other drug cartels.

That is the goal. Well, that is going to take a while. That is not about the warrant; that is about our national security interests.

People ask about ``America First.'' What does it mean?

Here is what I think it means: ``America First'' means that we are not going to tolerate--in Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba--countries in our backyard that are run by international drug cartel leaders, who are not legitimate in terms of being elected, to poison this country; that we are going to clean up the drug caliphate in our backyard; and that we are going to use a combination of tools to do that, including military force.

So there will probably be another one of these War Powers Act resolutions. I want to tell my colleagues where I am going to be on that: If you don't like what you see coming about threatening force in the future to have a transition to make Venezuela free and fair and if you don't like taking the assets of the country and selling them to prop up a failing economy, then limit the President's ability to do that by denying funding for those operations. That would be lawful.

The War Powers Act, in my view, is unconstitutional because you are not denying funding; you are basically vetoing the decision of the President to enact a national interest, and the national interest is far beyond taking Maduro down and putting him in jail. It is about transforming the country so we will never live again with Venezuela threatening America by dumping cocaine into our country--killing tens of thousands of people--and being a safe haven for international terrorist groups like Hezbollah. They are aligned with Russia. The goal is to make sure that it never happens again, and that will be a process that involves military force, potentially, and diplomatic engagement.

What the Congress, I fear, is going to do is to limit the President's ability to achieve that national interest by misapplying the War Powers Act--by substituting our judgment for his when it comes to how to change Venezuela.

The bottom line is, if you don't want troops on the ground--right now, there is no need for them--and if you think that is a bad idea, then let's pass an appropriations bill that denies funding for that. If you don't like taking the oil, selling it, and putting the money in an account to get Venezuela back on its feet and to help pay us for the operations, then say through the appropriations process: No money can be spent to do that.

That is within our lane.

The idea that we are going to reject the plan of transforming Venezuela that has been drafted by the Commander in Chief because you don't

agree with it means that he is not the Commander in Chief; we are. So, if a congressional enactment can veto the Constitution, then we are really off script here.

A congressional statute has to give way to the Constitution. The Constitution names the President as the Commander in Chief--only the President. The Constitution says that Congress and only Congress can declare war.

After 250 years, what have we learned?

There have been five declarations of war. They are unusual. There have been over 130 military actions without congressional authorization that have used military force to advance the national interests. That is the norm. The War Powers Act throws that into chaos.

So I look forward to future debates. President Trump has all the constitutional authority he needs to execute the game plan against Venezuela and to advance our national interests.

Again, if you don't like what he is doing, there is a constitutional process available to you, and that is to cut off funding. The other process would be impeachment. If you think he is doing something unlawful under international law, you can impeach him. Those are your two options.

So I will be voting against this idea, and I will be voting against this idea in a new form in perpetuity because I think it creates a constitutional imbalance of where the Congress, over time, becomes the Commander in Chief, not the President, and we cannot run this country having 535 Commanders in Chief.

With that, I yield the floor.