Floor Statements

Mr. President, I will be asking unanimous consent here in a second.

To my colleagues on the Democratic side, a lot of people in the country are wondering if we can ever do anything together. We have done some things together but nothing more uniting in the Senate since I have been here than in the response we have achieved on both sides of the aisle regarding Putin's barbaric invasion of Ukraine.

We have 85 cosponsors, giving President Trump the ability to tariff countries that buy cheap Russian oil to keep Putin in the fight. That has been a major accomplishment. We also have a bill making Russia a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law that I believe passed through the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously.

Now, what does this bill do? It designates Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism based on the fact that Putin's Russia has kidnapped, for lack of a better word, almost 20,000 Ukrainian children in the occupied territories controlled by Russia in Ukraine.

We had a hearing last week about this, and it was amazing what we learned. Some of these Ukrainian children are being taken from their families in Ukraine and are winding up in North Korea. I couldn't believe it. There are 200 different camps that these kids are being put into to make them Russian. This is one of the greatest outrages of the 21st century or any other century. We had compelling testimony from the Ukrainian Ambassador and the NGOs that follow this that detailed the brutality of Russia's effort to separate Ukrainian children from their families and turn them into pawns of Putin's. Some of these kids were taken as young children and, as teenagers, are now in the fight for Russia. The videos will just break your heart.

Now, how does the bill work? Within 60 days of its passage, if Russia has not come up with a plan to return the kidnapped children--there is no process of reintegration--and if the Russian Government is still attacking civilian infrastructure, then Russia will be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

When you look at international terrorism activities, they include kidnapping under section 2331(1) of title 18. So

this legislation is designed to label Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism for the kidnappings of we estimate up to almost 20,000-- probably more--Ukrainian children in the occupied territories. If this doesn't make you a terrorist state, what would?

For us to turn our backs on this problem I think would be the worst possible signal we could send in terms of world order. I am confident that if we get a vote on this bill, it will pass overwhelmingly because most Senators want to be on record as saying: I did something necessary in the face of brutality.

The one thing I have learned in my time here is that if you appease aggression, you get more of it; if you are silent in the face of evil, it will grow.

To my Democratic colleagues Senators Shaheen, Blumenthal, and so many others, you have been great to work with.

We have tremendous wide and deep bipartisan support for this. I am hoping that the negotiations in Berlin will bear fruit and that we can end this bloodbath in a way to prevent a third invasion, with an honorable and just outcome. I don't think Ukraine can evict every Russian soldier, but having said that, you don't want to reward Putin for this invasion; you will just get more of it. We have to prevent what happened in 2014 and in 2022 this time around.

One of the tools in our toolbox is to label Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism for kidnapping these children. It would make the Russian economy radioactive. There are only four nations that are designated as state sponsors of terrorism under U.S. law. This would be number five. It is a well-deserved label based on the conduct of Putin regarding the Ukrainian children.

In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 246, S. 2978; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; that the Graham substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

No. 1, you are very consistent, Senator Paul, in the sense that you do not believe that standing up to aggression stops it. I do.

When you appease it, you get more of it. In 2014, Putin invades Crimea. We end that conflict only to have him invade again in 2022. You can have your opinions, but you need to listen to what the enemy is saying. If you believe Putin is going to stop voluntarily, you are completely discounting everything he has said and everything he has done.

He is going to go until somebody stops him. Not one American soldier has died in the effort to stop him in Ukraine. We have provided weapons. We put sanctions. We have done a lot of things, but the war keeps going.

Senator Paul advocated for getting out of Afghanistan, Syria. You name it, he wants to leave. The problem is that the people you leave behind want to kill you. Senator Paul doesn't believe that radical Islam is dedicated to the destruction of the American people, our way of life. I do.

Under his model, if you leave them alone, they will leave you alone. There is really no reason for us to be forward-deployed because we are safe if we just ignore them.

If you ignore Putin, there goes Taiwan. All the negotiations--I appreciate them--they haven't worked. We are negotiating, and Ukrainians are dying.

How many Ukrainians have died since these talks have been going on?

To my friends in the Trump administration, you have an obligation to bring this war to an end for the good of the civilized world. I appreciate your going to Berlin. I hope we come up with security guarantees that will prevent another invasion like in 2014 and in 2022. I hope America will say the third time around: Putin, you come into Ukraine after we have a cease-fire, then you run into the ``coalition of the willing'' and the United States. And if you don't say that, Putin will come back.

So the worst thing you can do is not understand the times in which you live. People didn't understand Hitler. These arguments made today were all made in the thirties, and 50 million people died when people in power, like us in the Senate, don't understand the world in which we live in. Putin has raped and murdered en masse Ukrainians who just wish to be Ukrainians.

To Senator Paul, if he gets away with this, there goes Taiwan. But you will do nothing for Taiwan. I don't know if you would do anything if they actually went into Kentucky. The point is, the rest of us believe you are the outlier. There is nothing about the Washington establishment here. It is about common sense, learning from history, having a half a brain when it comes to dealing with aggression.

If you think ISIS is going to leave you alone because you want to leave them alone, that is insane. If you think Putin will stop until somebody stops him, you have missed a lot.

So what are we trying to do? We are trying to make it hard to do business with Russia. China is the No. 1 purchaser of Russian oil-- cheap; the No. 1 purchaser of Ukrainian oil--cheap; the No. 1 purchaser of Venezuelan oil. What does that have in common? China is propping up all these dictatorships. Without China, India, and Brazil buying Russian oil--cheap--Putin would have no money, virtually, to prosecute the war. So we are trying to make it hard to prop up Putin's war machine.

A ``state-sponsored terrorism'' designation against Russia would matter. It would cripple his war machine because he would be radioactive in terms of doing business. And if you turn your back on a regime that kidnaps 20,000 children, takes them away from their family, appropriates them to Russia, then, boy, have you lost your way.

If that is not terrorism, if that is not something Americans should care about, what the hell should we care about? We are labeling the conduct of Putin for what it is: ``state sponsor of terrorism.''

So let it be said that in 2025, almost everybody in the Senate, except two or three, believes that Russia should be a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law, not to go to war with Russia but because of their conduct of taking 20,000 children away from Ukrainian families, putting them in camps in Russia, and sending some of them to North Korea.

If that is not something we should push back against, God help the world. If Putin gets away with this, the world will--only time will tell what would happen.

To my Democratic and Republican colleagues, thank you for working together with Senator Blumenthal and myself.

Senator Shaheen, you have been terrific.

Thank you for letting Russia know if this war doesn't end honorably and justly, we are going to crush your economy. We are going to come after your customers.

Putin will go as far as he can go until somebody stands up to him. That is what I have learned when it comes to Putin.

And as to the U.S. Senate, this is one of our finest moments. This is one of our finest hours when we came together to create legislation to punish a country that would kidnap children of another country, rape and murder and pillage.

Thank you very much. I turn the floor over to Senator Blumenthal.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to LTC Anna Ko for her exemplary dedication to duty and service as an Army Congressional Fellow. Lieutenant Colonel Ko currently serves in the Army Congressional Budget Liaison Office.

Lieutenant Colonel Ko was born in the Republic of Korea and moved to New York City when she was 9 years old. In 2007, she attended Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, GA, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army's Logistics Branch. She earned a bachelor's degree in TV production from the City-University of Brooklyn and a master's degree in legislative affairs from George Washington University.

Lieutenant Colonel Ko has served in a broad range of assignments during her 18 years as an Army officer, including company executive officer; battalion and brigade operations officer; company commander; and an aide-de-camp to a deputy commanding officer. She has served in multiple countries, including the Republic of Korea; Afghanistan; and Poland, in support of Atlantic Resolve. Prior to her selection to the Army Congressional Fellowship, she served with the 1st Infantry Division as the division supply and services officer, battalion executive officer, and support operations officer for the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team.

This past year, I had the privilege of working directly with Anna in her role as an Army liaison, and she escorted me on multiple congressional delegations, including to Turkey, Lebanon, and Israel. Her professionalism, performance, and commitment to the mission are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and made a lasting impression on both Members of the U.S. Congress and their staff. Throughout her career, Lieutenant Colonel Ko has positively impacted soldiers, peers, and superiors alike.

Working with Lieutenant Colonel Ko during the 119th Congress has been a genuine pleasure. Our country has benefited from her extraordinary leadership, judgment, and passion for the Army profession. On behalf of the State of South Carolina, the U.S. Senate, and a grateful Nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending LTC Anna Ko on her service to our Nation. We wish Anna all the best as she continues her journey in the Army.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I object to a lot of stuff being said, but let's just start with sort of the facts.

You said this was a lawful subpoena. What did I do wrong? What did I do to allow the government to seize my personal phone and my official phone when I was Senate Judiciary chairman? What did I do?

There was an order issued that said if I was notified of this breach of my privacy, I am likely to intimidate witnesses or destroy evidence. Based on what?

There are 10 of us involved here. What did we do to justify having Jack Smith issue a subpoena for the phone records of a branch of government--the Senate--where all of us had to decide whether or not to certify the election?

So, no, it wasn't lawful. You have determined it was. You don't get to decide; a court does. We are not going to let the Democratic Party decide my fate; we are going to let a judge decide my fate. But I have to get in court and prove my case.

To the majority leader, was this provision socialized with the minority leader?

Was this provision socialized with committees of relevant jurisdiction?

Was this issue sent to the Ethics Committee?

OK. So this wasn't Republicans doing this; this was people in

the Senate believing what happened in the Senate need never happen again.

What happened in the Senate? There is a statute right on point that governs data to be released by the Sergeant at Arms, and it says in that statute: Notwithstanding a judicial order, data from the Senate cannot be released by subpoena or even a judicial order without the body being notified because of the separation of powers issue.

That statute was violated, and there is no remedy. What are we trying to do to make sure this doesn't happen again to me or you? The reason I think Senator Schumer went with Senator Thune is they are worried about the body here.

We have a contract with Verizon--the Senate does--that requires us to be notified if any Senator's phone records are requested or any member working for the body.

There were 197 subpoenas issued in Arctic Frost. There are 430 Republican groups--Turning Point USA, the Republican National Committee, the Republican Attorney Generals Association, the Conservative Partnership Institute, Mark Meadows, Stephen Miller--400- some groups that were targeted.

What was going on here? What was Jack Smith up to? What was he trying to do? I think what he was trying to do is use lawfare against Donald Trump. Within 3 days of saying ``I am running again for President in 2022 for the 2024 cycle,'' Jack Smith was appointed special counsel. Within 8 or 9 months, 91 charges were levied against President Trump in New York, Manhattan; Atlanta; Washington, DC; and the bluest of blue.

I wound up getting subpoenaed by Fani Willis in Fulton County and spent $1.2 million going to that grand jury, having to testify what I did as Judiciary chairman.

If you will remember, on January 6, I was actually here. I think I did my part to make sure we certified the election. I voted to certify everything.

So what is going on here? Nobody actually knows.

And to the two leaders of the body, thank you for making sure we are going to do something to protect the Senate not only from what happened to us but what could happen to anybody in the future.

This is really outrageous. You want to use that word. I am really outraged that my private cell phone and my official phone were subpoenaed without cause, that a judge would suggest that I would destroy evidence or tamper with witnesses if I were told about what was going on. I am sure the other Senators--Hagerty, Hawley, Sullivan, Tuberville, Johnson, Scott, Lummis, Blackburn, Ted Cruz, at least one staff member, the Speaker of the House. Now we know Kevin McCarthy-- they asked for his phone records the day he was sworn in as Speaker, and AT&T apparently gave them to them.

What is going on here? What did we do? This is why we need to go to court and have our day in court, and the burden will be on me that I was wrong. But there is no doubt, if you were the jury, I would have no chance. You have already judged what we are doing. You made a political statement.

So you are not the person to judge. I am not the person to judge. It is the judge.

All of us who were wronged need to have a remedy to that wrong, and we are creating a chance to go to court for what happened to us and in a fashion to make sure it never happens again. This was coordinated with people in the Senate in power. This wasn't an attempt to enrich anybody. It was an attempt to deter that what was wrong, in my view, never happens again.

I am willing to work with my colleagues about the $500,000. I am going to sue. I want to let you know. I am going to sue Biden's DOJ and Jack Smith. I am going to sue Verizon. It will be a hell of a lot more than $500,000.

This is twice that this has happened to me. I was hauled into court in Atlanta for no good reason. I spent a million dollars. And the crime is being friends of Trump, being supporters of Trump. This was an abuse of the law. This was weaponization of the law.

It is just not me. I am going to open up the ability to other people who had their phone records subpoenaed--I think, unfairly--at least, a chance to make that case. There are 197 subpoenas with 400 groups. I am going to create a statute that anybody that was in this situation could make a claim. They will have to prove the claim.

We are not going to shut this down. We are not going to act like it is OK when it is not. We are not going to say it is legal because you are a Democrat and I am a Republican. We are going to have a judge determine whether or not it was legal. I don't think it was legal at all because I know me. I have done nothing wrong here. I wasn't conspiring with anybody to overturn the election. I did my part to make sure 2020 ended the way it should have.

So to my majority leader, thank you for working with Senator Schumer. And to Senator Schumer, thanks for trying to work together to protect the body. We will be working together to find a resolution that may be more accommodating. But as for the idea that I am backing off and I am going to let this go, you can forget that.

It is just not me. It is not about me and what happened to me alone. It is about how this happened to any of us, and it should never happen to any of us again. You have to have a reason to do what they did that I can't fathom.

This is a separate branch of government. Do you really want the Department of Justice coming after U.S. Senators' phone records when there is no warrant involved, when there is no alleged crime involved?

You are just fishing around. This is what we are talking about. That scares me. It offends me. And I am going to do something about it.

So I object. I think this provision can be changed in a way to be more acceptable to people, but we need to open up the courts to people like me and others that had our rights violated, I believe. But it will be up to the judge.

What we are trying to do is remedy a wrong. I think that is why Senator Schumer and the committees of jurisdiction understood why we needed to create an avenue.

It is me today. It could be you tomorrow. If you are at home, if they could do this to a U.S. Senator, what could they do to you? Maybe the Department of Justice doesn't like your post, doesn't like your political activity. They want to shut you down and find out who you have been talking to. This is scary stuff.

To Senator Thune, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side to find a way to make this section more acceptable, but I am not backing off. I am not going to accept repeal because we need a way forward.

To my friends in the House, you need to start worrying about your Members. The former Speaker and two Members I know of had their phone records spied upon. So we have our work to do to clean this mess up in a way to provide remedies to those who may have been harmed, but not just sweep it under the rug.

Arctic Frost will not be swept under the rug. I will not go quietly. I will keep pushing back on behalf of myself and others in like situations.

Majority leader, I think you have a proposal here.

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

Madam President, so here we are on a Saturday. It is beautiful outside.

Every day gets better for us.

If you are trying to get through the airport today, probably not true. If you are working for the government and not getting paid, not a good day for you, not a good day for us, not a good day for the country.

This is going on way too long. Too many people are being damaged for no good purpose.

We are not going to be extorted, held hostage. You are not going to terrorize the country to make us do something that makes no sense. I would like to work on healthcare, but we are not going to extend the debacle called ObamaCare.

So ``every day gets better for us.'' You need to ask yourself in America: Is that true for you?

I don't think so.

Let me tell you who has a good day today: healthcare insurance companies.

In 2024, UnitedHealthcare made $817 million per day under ObamaCare. So it is definitely a good day for them. Cigna, $677 million; Anthem/ Elevance, whatever they are, $480 million; Centene, $447 million; CVS, $358 million; Humana, $322 million; and Molina, $112 million a day.

That is what healthcare companies get under ObamaCare every day. So when Senator Schumer says, ``It gets better for us,'' I guarantee you, every day we keep this system in place is a great day for the healthcare insurance companies that have been making out literally like bandits under ObamaCare.

In case this job doesn't work out for any of us, do you want to go into the healthcare business? A big upgrade.

At UnitedHealth Group, the CEO made $26.3 million; Cigna, $23.3 million; Molina, $21.9 million; Centene, $20.6 million; Elevance Health/Anthem, $20.5 million; CVS, $17.8 million; Humana, lagging still at $15.6 million. These people are doing very well.

The problem is health insurance companies do great every day from ObamaCare. All these healthcare CEOs are doing fantastic, but you, the consumer, not so much. You were promised, when ObamaCare passed in 2010--President Obama said: Every family in America who participates in this thing will have about a $2,500 savings in premium reductions.

It has been like a 100-percent increase. He didn't just miss it a little bit; he missed it a lot. This thing is unsustainable.

Why do you call something the ``Affordable Healthcare Act'' when, every 5 minutes, you are asking me and the Presiding Officer to dump $350 billion in it to keep it afloat?

It is not affordable. It has never been affordable. The only people winning from this are healthcare insurance company CEOs, and it needs to stop.

And why is the government shut down? The government is shut down because our friends on the other side are insisting we continue this program for another year. I am not going to continue it for another day. I am not going to pour tens of billions of dollars through ObamaCare and the healthcare insurance companies with the result being your premiums have been increased by 100 percent. We are going to stop that.

We would like to work with you to come up with a better deal. Here is the good news: It wouldn't take much to make it a better deal.

But if you are wondering what kind of deal it has been for healthcare companies: UnitedHealthcare Group, 1,177 percent increase in their stock prices since ObamaCare. Look at these numbers. I mean, 822, 414, 490, 859, 604, 595 percent increase in stock prices after the passage of ObamaCare. These are the big winners, not you.

And we are going to break this healthcare cartel. We are going to take this money that is flowing to insurance companies, and we are going to try to get it directly to you the consumer, so you can have more purchasing power and, actually, over time, create more competition and lower your healthcare prices, something ObamaCare is not doing.

And to illustrate my point, I am going from no charts to a bunch of charts. This is big change in my life.

Even I can understand that. That is like a rocket ship compared to the rest of the economy.

So what have we discovered in the last few days? We have discovered that the subsidies under ObamaCare are a windfall for insurance companies. We have discovered that every day we talk about healthcare as it is today, they are making a gob of money, hundreds of millions of dollars a day.

We have learned that these health insurance companies have had stock prices increase unlike any other sector of the economy, and it all happened after ObamaCare.

They promised you lower premiums; your premiums have doubled.

What has happened? The big winner is insurance companies, and insurance companies are doing the Democratic Party's bidding. They are signing up people for ObamaCare that haven't made a claim in 3 years.

For every person they can find, they get money. So they have got incentive just to stack this thing with people, whether it is good healthcare or not.

So what did President Trump say today? He said he recommended to all the Republicans: Stand your ground. Break this cycle. Take the money away from health insurance companies, and let's flow it to the people to give them more purchasing power and stop the money-sucking health insurance companies from taking tens of billions of dollars out of ObamaCare.

So the Affordable Care Act is not affordable. There is a better way. We are going to insist on that better way.

And to my Democratic friends, we are not going to extend this program for a year because that would be unfair to the taxpayer; that would continue a healthcare system that is out of control. It would enrich health insurance companies even more. We are not going to do that. We are going to replace this broken system with something that is actually better for the consumer to meet the goal of lowering healthcare costs.

So you have to understand terrorizing the public is not going to get us, as Republicans, to continue a very bad healthcare bill. We are not going to do it. We will talk to you, President Trump will, all of us will about how getting better value is possible, how lowering premiums is possible. But you have got to change the fundamental precept of ObamaCare, which has proven to be anything but affordable.

That is like the Inflation Reduction Act. All it did was cause inflation.

The Affordable Healthcare Act has become unaffordable. ObamaCare is growing faster than almost any other thing in healthcare because it is designed to enrich healthcare companies. The more people they sign up, the more money they get.

And it is not about quality. It is about stacking as many people as you can under the umbrella of government-run healthcare. And, apparently, it doesn't matter if the government-run healthcare is working.

It does matter to us. We would like to get a better return on investment.

So I want to congratulate President Trump. He has gotten into the game today. He has given us a pathway forward. I am going to heed his advice and counsel. I am not going to extend the unaffordable healthcare--ObamaCare healthcare--program for another year or another day.

There is a better way. President Trump talked to me this morning, and he would like to sit down and see if we can come up with a better solution. I know we can. But we are not going to do it while the government is shut down.

This is day 37, 38--whatever day it is. Every day is hundreds of millions of dollars to these insurance companies. Every day that we have shut the government down, it is families who work for the government that have no money. We are hurting our national security. We are hurting morale. It is getting dangerous to fly. So stop it. End this madness.

We tried to shut the government down to build a wall. We eventually built the wall because it is a good idea. But shutting the government down to build the wall wasn't a good idea.

So I would urge you, my Democratic colleagues: Keep working with us. Open this government. Let's find a way to provide better healthcare that doesn't enrich insurance companies.

Let's see if we can break this cycle of all the money going to insurance companies. They are getting filthy rich off this. Let's see if we can take the money and actually give it to people to buy better healthcare, to lower costs, and create competition.

Mr. President, in case you are listening out there, I think you have come up with a good idea. Count me on board.

To my colleagues on this side, this is a fight worth having.

To my Democratic colleagues, let's open up the government and act like adults and see if we can get this problem in a better spot. We will never do it with the government shut down. The only thing that is going to come from the government shutdown is misery, pain, and heartache.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this is the first time I have spoken on the floor about the government shutdown. Like a lot of people, I have been hoping we could find a way forward and sort of stop the disruption and madness that it is causing throughout the country.

I want to say to my colleagues who have been working together to find a solution to open up the government: I really appreciate your efforts very, very much.

I know, in this polarized environment, it is hard to reach across the aisle, but this moment dictates that we try. I have had some discussions, and I know a lot of my colleagues--Senators Britt and Collins and many others--have spent a lot of time--Markwayne Mullin-- trying to find common ground to open up the government so we can move forward and have a debate about healthcare and maybe find a solution-- apparently to no avail.

There is a group of my Democratic colleagues who believe that ``every day gets better for us.'' That is Senator Schumer. They, I guess, apparently feel emboldened by the election.

The question I have for the country: Is every day getting better for you?

If you are trying to get to an airport or fly somewhere, I would say not so much. If you are a government employee working and not getting paid, not so much. There are a lot of services that are being disrupted out there because the government is shut down.

The truth of the matter is both parties have had government shutdowns trying to get a policy win. One time we shut the government down, as Republicans, to get money to build the wall. We eventually got the money to build the wall because it was a very good idea, but it didn't happen through the shutdown. So I learned that shutting the government down trying to get a policy win is probably not good government.

Our Democrat friends, whatever day it is, they are shutting your government down--our government down--to try to make Republicans do something on healthcare we are just not going to do. They are trying to repeal elements of the working families tax cut, the Big Beautiful Bill--whatever you want to call it--that would prohibit healthcare funding going to illegal immigrants.

They are trying to repeal many of the things that we think are just good reforms--over a trillion dollars--pulling back a trillion and a half dollars to go into programs we think are not good investments. Investing in a program where illegal immigrants can get free healthcare just gives you more illegal immigration.

One of the things that we are trying to deal with is that Medicaid has grown 50 percent in the last 5 years, and we are trying to put it on a more sustainable path.

Helping rural hospitals--they want to take the provision out of the bill that would give $50 billion to rural hospitals to help with Medicaid reform. So we are just not going to do that. That is never going to happen, nor should it.

So what do we do next?

I think the first thing we need to do is understanding that the statement ``Every day gets better for us'' is a lie--``us'' being the United States. Every day that this thing drags on is bad for America. It is dangerous for America. It is dangerous to our national security-- the people in the FBI and the CIA that have to work, no matter whether they get paid, simply to protect our Nation. So this madness really needs to end.

I think there are plenty of people over here that try to go forward and have a debate on healthcare and maybe find common ground, but not this way. The one thing I learned, in my time up here, is that taking hostages--political hostage-taking--shouldn't be overly rewarded. Political terrorism should never be rewarded.

And what you are doing over there by not finding a way forward is you are terrorizing the country for your own political benefit. You really are. You are engaging in political terrorism. You are making it hard for people to do things they need to do and have to do. You are making it hard for people to get services they need because of your political desire to beat us.

Well, I will tell you what; that needs to stop. So to my leadership here, you

all have done a great job--Senator Thune particularly--by saying: We will talk, but we have got to open up the government first. I really appreciate what Senator Thune has done in that regard.

But I want my colleagues to know, the longer this goes and the more people you hurt and the more you try to extract from your political hostage-taking, the less votes you are going to get from us, starting with me.

I am not going to give in to this. We are not going to reward people who do this. I understand trying to find common ground and getting something to give something. But you have gone way too far, and you are hurting way too many people, and you are asking for things that are really absurd.

So don't think you are going to open up the government with a handful of Democratic votes if this continues. You are going to need much more than that because you are going to lose me. I am not going to play this game any longer. This is bad for the country. And if we do it now, it will never end.

So, Senator Schumer, I couldn't disagree with you more. ``Every day gets better for us.'' You clearly need to get out of Washington and talk to people outside the wacky left. You are disconnected with real life in America. Every day this goes on doesn't get better for us.

What are you asking us to do? You are demanding that we increase spending by a trillion and a half dollars from savings we obtained from the working families tax cut bill. We are not going to do that.

But the main thing that is driving this debate is a desire by Democrats to continue a program called ObamaCare that is not well designed. It is costing way too much. It is not delivering for the American people.

We are not going to do that.

Senator Welch, a good friend, noted yesterday that the Affordable Care Act hasn't lived up to that billing, and there are things we can do on healthcare to lower costs to make life more affordable. But my statement is that the Affordable Care Act is unaffordable, and we are not going to reauthorize it because you demand we do so, because it makes no sense to keep throwing good money into this program.

Now, President Obama told us back in 2010, if we pass the Affordable Care Act--which is the ``Unaffordable Care Act''--families would have a $2,500-a-year decrease in their premiums for healthcare.

Well, that has turned out to be a big flop.

Healthcare premiums have gone up 100 percent from 2013 to 2019. So the Affordable Care Act is anything but, and they are asking for $350 billion over a decade to keep these subsidies in place that they chose to do in a partisan way.

They are due to expire. If they were that great, why did you let them expire? The bottom line is, you are trying to hold us hostage as Republicans, making us invest in a program that is just not a good deal for America. No matter what you call it or how you want to sell it, you are selling a bad product, and that product needs to be discontinued as it exists today.

Who is the biggest winner of the Affordable Care Act? Not consumers. A dramatic increase in premiums--we didn't lower premiums by $2,500 per family. They have gone up 100 percent in just a matter of years.

Now you are wanting to continue subsidies that create subsidies for the ObamaCare that nobody in the private sector has. The average person in America is paying about 25 percent of their premium that works for a company.

What they are trying to do is have most people pay nothing and allow people making up to hundreds of thousands of dollars to get subsidies for their healthcare. We just can't afford that.

Senator Klobuchar talked about a husband and wife that retired early from a union job that had a combined income of $130-some thousand, and that their premiums will go up. Well, the question is this: Do we need to be subsidizing premiums for people that make $130-some thousand that have defined benefit plans plus Social Security?

The question becomes: What makes sense? What can we afford? What is the best way we can help the American people?

I will tell you the best way to help the American people is to stop the madness when it comes to ObamaCare.

What has happened since the passage of this bill?

Let me tell you what has happened. Healthcare companies--insurance companies in the healthcare space--have had their stock go up since 2010 by over 1,000 percent.

Now, what you want us to do is continue these subsidies that go to insurance companies that drive up the cost of healthcare. We are not going to do it. We are going to try to find a better way to use the money to give it to consumers so they can buy healthcare of their own choosing to create competition that doesn't exist to get the better healthcare outcome and save some money in the process.

So Democrats are insisting that Republicans continue the practice of taking your hard-earned tax dollars and making healthcare insurance companies incredibly, filthy rich.

Look at this chart. This is the S&P 500. These are different companies in the space. But the main healthcare companies that benefit from ObamaCare have seen their stock increase by 1,000 percent, with no end in sight.

UnitedHealthcare, 1,177 percent increase in stock; Cigna, 822 percent; 414 percent; Humana, 490 percent--they need to up their game. M-O-L-I-N-A--whoever they are--859 percent; C-E-N-T-E-N-E, 604 percent; Aetna, 595 percent--since the passage of this bill.

We are not, as Republicans, going to continue what you created, a windfall for health insurance companies, inflationary mechanisms in healthcare without an end.

We are going to stop and fix what you created in 2010, which is an out-of-control, inflationary approach to healthcare that rewards insurance companies over anybody else.

You told a big lie to the American people when you passed this bill-- that their premiums would go down by $2,500 per family. They have gone up 100 percent.

We are going to stop the madness. We are going to come out with a proposal that will have a different outcome than this. We are going to come out with a proposal that allows this money to go to people to make better choices for them to create competition that doesn't exist. And the big loser will be the insurance companies. The big winner will be the consumer. And President Trump stands ready to work with you on the other side to get an outcome we can all live with.

We cannot live with this, folks. We cannot live with ObamaCare and these subsidies as designed because they are creating runaway inflation in healthcare. They are rewarding the biggest healthcare companies in the country at the expense of the taxpayer.

We are going to break this cycle. Now, how long will that take? I don't know. But I know this: I am not going to be forced to continue this wasteful, inefficient program called ObamaCare because you tell me I have to, to open the government. I will not.

And we will have an election one of these days, and we will see how this plays out over time. We will see what the American people want. Do they want to continue throwing money at insurance companies like this, with increased costs to the taxpayers and people that participate in this program? Or would they like something new and different that would break the endless reward to healthcare companies and start rewarding consumers to get better outcomes in lowering their premiums?

We will have a debate about that one day. We will have an election, probably, over that. But what we are not going to do is be held hostage for you to get your way, for me to vote to authorize a program that is failing, that was a lie. And I am going to do what I can to fix this.

And if you want to continue to shut down the government, holding me and others hostage to continue this garbage, we are not going to do it. We will be rewarding the worst possible behavior in politics. You will just get more of this.

So here is my advice to my Democratic colleagues: Work with people who are trying to find a way forward to reopen the government, to have a conversation about how better to deliver

affordable healthcare, working in a bipartisan manner, and we will get to where we need to go as a country.

We will not give in to political terrorism and hostage-taking. Your desire to keep the government shut down is terrorizing Americans. Americans are losing vital services. Their lives have been turned upside down because you care more about continuing a terrible program than you do them. We are not going to give in.

I promise you I will work with you to get a better outcome. I promise you I will vote no to your political hostage-taking, and let the chips fall where they may. You are overplaying your hand. You are doing a lot of damage to good people that just want a better life and some certainty in their life.

I try to work with you when I can on the other side. Sometimes we argue, and I try to argue effectively. But I will not be part of this process any longer. You are destroying the lives of Americans for a political desire that is unreasonable.

You are asking me and others to continue a program that is fundamentally broken, that is inflationary. And the only winner of ObamaCare are the largest healthcare companies in America that are making excessive profits off a healthcare system you designed, and all you want is more people signed up on this program. And you are rewarding the insurance companies for finding more people who are making a fortune. And the delivery of healthcare is costing more, and the quality is going down.

We are not going to do this. We are not going to give in to this. So my approach is a nightmare for the healthcare insurance companies.

Our approach will be the biggest loser will be healthcare insurance companies. The biggest winner will be consumers who will have choices they don't have, to date, and money they can have that they don't have, to date, to buy a better product. That is what this is about. The insistence of the Democratic Party to excessively reward healthcare insurance companies who are doing their bidding to sign up people on government healthcare that is inefficient and is not working.

You don't care it is inefficient and not working. You just want more people, and you are using the insurance companies in the healthcare space as your agents, as your proxies, and they are willingly doing your bidding.

To the insurance companies in the healthcare space, your days are numbered when it comes to this crap.

To my Democratic colleagues, you want a debate on healthcare, let it begin right now. Look what you are doing with taxpayer dollars. You are not relieving the cost of healthcare to working people, you are increasing their premiums. You are making healthcare more inflationary, and the only people that really are winning big are healthcare insurance companies who are willingly playing this game. And they will never stop.

Why would they? Why would a healthcare insurance company turn their back on this program when they are making a killing?

Well, I don't know what is going to happen or when it is going to happen, but I know this: I will never vote to continue this madness. If you are insisting that I have to continue this program, I will not. I owe it to the people of South Carolina and the country to break this cycle.

We owe it to the people of America to open up our government and have a logical discussion about making healthcare more affordable and breaking the cycle of runaway inflation.

You are on a course that is going to disrupt American people's lives to get an outcome that is terrible for the country, which is continuing ObamaCare the way it is constructed. You will not be successful.

I will make sure there are enough Republicans over here to say no to your plan to hold us hostage and continue to terrorize this country. You have gone too far.

If I were you, Senator Schumer, I would rethink because I am telling you, every day is not getting better for you because every day is getting worse for the people in this country who interact with the government, who travel, who are working and not getting paid. It is getting worse for them, and you are demanding something of me and others that we will not give in to. We will not be held hostage to continue ObamaCare that has been a miserable failure.

We will not be held hostage to continue to give money to healthcare companies, insurance companies, to enrich them at the expense of the American people.

So I don't know when it ends or how it ends, but I know what the outcome will be with my vote. We are going to break the cycle of rewarding healthcare insurance companies at the expense of the consumer. We are going to stop this madness with my vote.

I hope we can find a way forward, but that way forward will not include what is going on today. So I will be voting no to the idea that we will continue these subsidies--rewarding healthcare insurance companies insane amounts, driving up premium costs, and getting bad outcomes--to open up the government. I reject that, and I will vote no to that. And the demands you are making grow every day. You are overplaying your hand, and you are hurting people. Stop it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will be speaking here for a few minutes about the upcoming War Powers Resolution vote.

First, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Wall Street Journal editorial about the War Powers Act, if I may.

I have been asked a lot about this. In a prior life, I used to be a Judge Advocate in the Air Force for about 33 years-- prosecutor, defense attorney, and a military judge for a very short period of time. I enjoyed it very much, so this part of the law has been part of my life.

The body is going to have a big vote today, and I think it is a consequential vote.

Simply put, here is my understanding of the Constitution and how Congress and the President and the courts interact when it comes to making war.

No President has the ability to put America in a state of war. That is reserved for the Congress. It says in the Constitution only Congress can declare war.

When you look at the history of the country, we have declared war-- Congress has--five times in the last 250 years. So declaring war is an unusual thing by the Congress: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. So I would suggest that declaring war is something America doesn't do a lot, and there is probably good reason. When you declare war, it affects insurance contracts. It is a legal state that has a lot of consequence to it. We have done that five times as a nation.

I wonder how many times a Commander in Chief has used military force to defend a nation without a declaration of war--hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the last 250 years.

The norm in this country is that military conflicts are not carried on under a declaration of war. Military conflicts, which there have been a lot of--Korea, Vietnam, on, and on, and on--are engaged in by a Commander in Chief who feels a need to use military force depending on what the threat is.

The question before the body is, Can the Congress stop a military conflict declared by the Commander in Chief because we don't agree with their decision, and without our approval it must end? The answer, unequivocally, to me is no.

Under the Constitution, the authority to be Commander in Chief resides exclusively with the President. The power to declare war is exclusive to the Congress.

Now, what could the Congress do constitutionally if they disagree with a military action that is not a declaration of war? We could cut off funding. The Constitution reserves the right of the Congress, beginning in the House, to appropriate money. So if there is a military engagement out there--you just pick the topic--and as a Member of Congress, you think America should not be in this conflict, constitutionally, you could terminate funding. And that would be a constitutional check and balance on the President's ability to use military force.

The second thing you could do, as a Member of Congress, if you thought the President was doing something wrong by using the military, is you could do an Article of Impeachment, somehow create a high crime or misdemeanor; that the use of force in this circumstance is a high crime or misdemeanor and impeach the President.

Those are two things that Congress can do to check and balance a President.

But one thing we can't do, in my opinion, is to substitute our judgment for that of the Commander in Chief about a military operation because if that is the case, then you don't have a single Commander in Chief; you have 535 Commanders in Chief.

There has never been in the history of the country a termination of military activity based on the idea of Congress did not approve. There have been a lot of military operations authorized by Congress. There have been a lot of military operations not authorized by Congress. The question of the War Powers Act is what we are talking about.

In 1973--the frustration with the Vietnam war--Congress passed a statute that required the Commander in Chief to notify Congress about engaging in hostilities within a specific period of time, to make reports to Congress at the end of a defined period. I think it is 60 days. I can't remember. If Congress hasn't approved those hostilities, then they must be terminated.

I think the War Powers Act is an obvious constitutional infringement on the ability of the Commander in Chief to conduct military operations because the War Powers Act, at its heart, takes away the ability of the Commander in Chief to decide military matters, and it resides with us.

If you can terminate a Commander in Chief's decision through the War Powers Act, then that constitutional authority has been taken by us, the Congress. And that would be a disaster for this country.

I would argue that the War Powers Act is, on its face, unconstitutional. Reagan and a bunch of other Presidents have said the same thing.

The day that we terminate a military operation based on the idea that we haven't authorized it, then we become the Commander in Chief, we the Congress. That power has been taken from the designated Commander in Chief and usurped by us. That would be a disaster for our country. It would create paralysis at a time of need.

Presidents have informed us of military actions under the War Powers Act, arguing the act is unconstitutional. I would continue to do that if I were a Commander in Chief. I would inform the Congress. I would brief the Congress about what I am going to do or not do using our military--just, I think it is good public policy.

But the vote we are going to take this afternoon is basically we are going to vote, as the U.S. Senate, to terminate actions taken by President Trump regarding drug cartels. I think the day we do that, then we are saying to the world that, really, the Commander in Chief is the Congress, not the President. And if you don't like what President Trump is doing with drug boats and other activity in the Caribbean or anywhere else, you could pass a law saying no funds can be used for the purposes of these operations.

I have been told by my colleagues: Well, that is hard.

Well, it is meant to be hard. The President can veto any law we pass, and the only way we can override that veto is to get two-thirds of the body. It is meant to be hard. It requires us to find consensus.

To my colleagues, please do not be confused about this. Never in the history of our country has a Congress terminated a military action because they did not give permission to the Commander in Chief. Never in the history of the country has the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress has the power to terminate hostilities simply because they disagree with the President--because the day that becomes the norm, then you have taken the power of the Commander in Chief away from the President, and you have conferred it upon us.

This is a big vote. This is a consequential vote. What I am saying, I think, makes eminent sense. By making the Commander in Chief a single person--the President--sitting atop the military, you create a structure and order. If to get military action up and running and sustained you had to have a vote of 535 people, it would be chaos.

If you don't like what the President is doing, then, again, the remedy is to use your constitutional tools as a Member of Congress, which is funding, not replacing your judgment for that of the Commander in Chief. I have said that about Obama, Clinton, everybody. That is just my view.

In 1989, President Bush, 41, used military force to take down Manuel Noriega, the leader of Panama. And he was indicted and put in an American prison for being a drug lord, a drug kingpin. That was done without authorization of Congress. I think President Bush, 41, was right to take Noriega down. We can't tolerate nation states in our backyard becoming narcoterrorist centers.

That takes us to Venezuela. President Trump has decided that these drug boats being operated by narcoterrorists, emanating from Venezuela, are a national security threat to our Nation. I think he is right in his assessment.

All of these boats coming to our shores, heading for our shores, have drugs, and drugs are killing more Americans than any terrorist group out there.

Fentanyl comes from China through Mexico. But cocaine production was up 85 percent over the last 4 years, and cocaine has destroyed a lot of lives in our country. So these drug boats are being interdicted by the military because President Trump believes that narcoterrorism is a national security threat to our country, and he is using the military in that endeavor, not law enforcement. I think he is right.

Some people say have the Coast Guard stop the boat. Well, the Coast Guard is military, and it is civilian. I like the idea that our Commander in Chief is telling narcoterrorist organizations: You are not only a foreign terrorist organization, but when you engage in threats to our country--a boat headed to America full of drugs--we are going to take you out. That is going to stop the flow of drugs.

We secured the border, but we now need to go to the networks that produce the products and distribute the products that eventually come to our shores and kill Americans.

As to Venezuela, I would argue it is a narcoterrorist state. It is not a sovereign country in the sense of international law; that the leader of Venezuela, Maduro, is an indicted drug dealer with a $50 million bounty from the United States; that the recent election was stolen by Maduro. He is not a legitimate President under the laws of Venezuela, and he is not recognized as being legitimate by a multitude of international bodies.

I would say that Venezuela, in the hands of Maduro, is an existential threat to the people of the United States; that it is a narcoterrorist state, run by a drug kingpin that is used as the base of operations to send deadly drugs into our country, and it needs to stop. And whatever power that President Trump would like to use to stop that, I think he has the authority under the Constitution. And if we don't like it as a Congress, we can defund the military operations; we can't replace our judgment for his.

Finally, Maduro and Hezbollah have a long connection. The Presiding Officer of the Senate is a great Senator who understands national security. He was Ambassador to Japan and has been a great addition to this body.

Hezbollah connections to Venezuela go way back. Hezbollah is a Mideast terrorist organization, Shiite, connected to Iran, that has a lot of American blood on its hands--241 marines killed at the end of a runway in Beirut in the 1980s by Hezbollah. They are running out of money because President Trump has really isolated Iran as their benefactor. So now they are upping their game by associating with Maduro.

Maduro now has a business relationship with Hezbollah at a level we haven't seen before. Funding this terrorist organization from narcoterrorist activity in Venezuela threatens America's interests in the Middle East. This is not a hypothetical connection; it is a real connection. So I am hoping that the body will understand that what President Trump is doing is not only lawful but necessary.

We have a drug caliphate in our backyard. We have Mexico; we have Colombia; we have Venezuela; and we have Cuba. These are all nations-- some of them allied with us--that have enormous drug problems, and they have lost their sovereignty in Mexico over parts of the country. But I am focused on Venezuela.

Venezuela truly is not a legitimate government under Maduro. He stole the election. He is an indicted drug dealer. It is not legitimate. It is a threat to the United States.

So I am glad to see that President Trump has put narcoterrorist drug organizations and countries that support them on notice that we will fight back to protect our people. As these drug boats flow toward us, I think President Trump sees it as a killing machine. If a boat full of al-Qaida guys were coming to the United States, what is the right answer? Blow them up before they get here. If you have a drug boat full of drugs, run by narcoterrorists associated with Mideast terrorists, blow them up before they get here. But we have to do more than blow up the boat; we have to go to the problem on the land: Who loads the boats? Who makes the money off the boats?

So I don't know where this is going in Venezuela, but I know this: President Trump has said that Maduro's days are numbered. They should be.

What I like a lot about President Trump: He is a man of peace until he is not. He is seeking peace all over the planet. He stopped eight conflicts. He will be the first one to tell you that. I like the idea of a President wanting to make peace, not war, but he is a man not to be trifled with.

I think he decided early on that narcoterrorism emanating from our backyard is not going to be tolerated any longer.

There is a new game in town. You do this at your own risk.

I just want to let him know and the country know that not only do I think he has the legal authority; I think he is doing the right thing.

You are saving a lot of lives by stopping this boat traffic from getting to our shores, and if you need to take down the organization that funds the boats and supplies the boats, that is a direct threat to the United States, associated with Mideast terrorist organizations, tell us what you are up to, but do what you have to to protect America.

So at 5 o'clock, we are going to take a very consequential vote. I would urge my colleagues: Whether you like President Trump or not, whether you agree with him about politics, this is bigger than you, and it is bigger than him.

I did the same thing for Obama. When he went into Pakistan to kill bin Laden, I didn't think for 1 minute Congress had to authorize that action. He was taking out a mastermind of terrorism. That made us safer. It was in a

sovereign country called Pakistan that was no longer reliable when it came to policing bin Laden. I supported that operation because he had the legal authority, and it was the right thing to do. I supported President Bush 41. I supported Reagan when he went into Grenada to take down building Cuban influence, where Cubans were beginning to have a footprint in Grenada that was adverse to our national security interests when Cuba was aligned with Russia and other bad actors. So we have had a policy of policing our backyard.

But on this vote--Senator Kaine is a good friend--we just see things differently. He is saying that in America, there is really not a single Commander in Chief. He is saying that in America, you can't conduct hostile actions unless the Congress as a body approves it.

What he is saying is what the Constitution rejects. If they wanted us, as the Framers of the Constitution, to give approval to continue hostilities, they would have done so. They resided in us the power to declare war, and that is the power reserved to us, but that doesn't mean the President can't use military force when necessary to protect our Nation without a declaration of war. And the reason I know that is true: We have only declared war five times in 250 years, and we have had hundreds of military operations--some authorized and some not.

So to my colleagues today: Please understand this constitutional check and balance. It has served our country well for 250 years. We live in polarized times. Don't let your emotions drive you into doing something that would weaken our Nation. I can't think of anything more critical to weakening our Nation than to have Congress be the Commander in Chief; us; 535 people who have a hard time deciding when to go to lunch.

So I am hoping that this resolution--well-intended--will be voted down not because I like President Trump but because I believe the constitutional structure that was created a long time ago has served us well as a nation, and if we vote to change that structure, we will do great damage to our Nation and our national security.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled rollcall vote occur immediately.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Minister Ron Dermer for his exceptional service and dedication to duty as the Minister of Strategic Affairs for the State of Israel.

Minister Dermer was born and raised in Miami Beach, FL. He earned a degree in finance and management from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, as well as a degree in philosophy, politics and economics--PPE--from Oxford University.

From 2005 to 2008, Minister Dermer served as Israel's Economic Attache in the United States. Beginning in 2009, he then spent 4 years as a senior advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. From 2013 to 2021, Minister Dermer served as Israel's 18th Ambassador to the United States. Following his ambassadorship, he briefly left public service and served as a nonresident fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America and later as a partner at Exigent Capital Group. In 2022, Minister Dermer returned to the Israeli Government as Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs and a member of Israel's Security Cabinet.

Working with Minister Dermer during my time in Congress has been a great honor. He has been one of the most effective voices for the State of Israel and his extraordinary career has been defined by his commitment to fostering peace and stability within the region. I consider Ron Dermer's contributions to the U.S.-Israel relationship and security of the Jewish state to be on par with any military or political leader that has ever served the State of Israel. Furthermore, Minister Dermer has played a critical role in strengthening the relationship between the State of Israel and the United States, and I know the State of Israel has benefited from his extraordinary leadership and judgment. It is my honor to join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending Minister Ron Dermer on his service to the State of Israel. We wish Ron all the best as he continues on to his next chapter.

Madam President, there are a couple of topics that I would like to talk about. The first is the government shutdown.

I don't know what my friends on the other side expect. We will talk about the Affordable Care Act at the right time, starting with the idea that it is not affordable. You created a law without any Republican votes. You had the subsidies, and they expire. That was your choice. Most of us believe that the ObamaCare Program you created is very expensive, and we are not going to extend it. We would look at trying to make it better. The President has a brilliant idea of how better to use the money to help consumers.

Senator Marshall just left. So, whether you open the government up or not, I am not going to change my vote. I am not going to vote to authorize these subsidies as they are. I am not going to vote to repeal the good work we did under the Big Beautiful Bill. So let's open up the government and talk. If you don't want to do that, then a lot of people are going to have their lives turned upside down for no good reason.

I do not feel like we should be held hostage here to get a legislative outcome to open up the government. We tried that as Republicans: You have got to build a wall or we won't open the government. It was probably not a good idea for us. It didn't work out well for us. If nothing else, learn from what we did.

So I am hoping the government will open soon. It is a dangerous time to have the Federal Government not functioning in the security space, and it is a danger for air travel, but if you haven't noticed, the world is a pretty dangerous place.

Let's add one more vote to the total.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Volvo Cars on 70 years in the United States and the 10th anniversary of its plant in South Carolina. For decades, Volvo has been a strong partner in advancing America's automotive progress with innovations such as the three-point safety belt, now standard in every vehicle.

With more than $1.3 billion invested in U.S. manufacturing, the Volvo Car Charleston Plant stands as a powerful example of how global partnerships have bolstered South Carolina's economy. Today, the plant produces their flagship EX90 SUV for markets around the world, helping to strengthen exports and create good-paying jobs at home. Volvo Cars also recently announced it will add the XC60 mid-size SUV to the South Carolina production line. Volvo Cars has 283 retailers in 48 States, employing more than 11,500 people.

Again, congratulations to Volvo and its employees for 10 years of manufacturing in South Carolina.

Mr. President, it is my honor to introduce Rabbi Berman, who just gave the prayer and who is president of the Yeshiva University.

Thank you for your blessing this morning.

In his prayer, Rabbi Berman reminded us that America's strength lies not just in power but purpose; not just in might but in our pursuit of the good. He has lived that principle. He is a global faith leader, distinguished scholar, educational visionary who is shaping contemporary discourse at the intersection of faith, ethics, and higher education.

As the fifth president of the Yeshiva University, he has redefined the role of faith-based universities in the United States. He gave the benediction at President Trump's inauguration.

Yeshiva University, for more than a century, has been contributing to the common good and advancing the goals of faith with purpose. It is one of the flagship universities in the entire world for the Jewish faith, and he has brought his aperture there to bring us all together.

Finally, I want to recognize the need to succor. You said: Why are we here? I am here because Anita said I needed to be here to recognize Rabbi Berman. Anita is a fellow South Carolinian. She is a trustee at Yeshiva University, and she has contributed to our State, to the values that serve us in education, that bind us together. Anita called me about you and she was dead right.

Welcome and well done. God bless you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will oppose this and will make a point of order here in a second.

This amendment would prevent Congress and the President from using the congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act's fast-track process for considering rescissions in fiscal year 2026 and beyond.

Under the Merkley amendment, rescissions can only be included in appropriations bills, which would need 60 votes. And the law in question allows a fast-track provision for rescissions. Senator Merkley's amendment would do away with that.

This amendment is subject to a point of order for violating Section 306 of the congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires legislation dealing with the Budget Committee's jurisdiction to be reported or discharged from the Budget Committee.

Point of Order

The pending amendment No. 3114 contains matters within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction. I, therefore, raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to Section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act.

In the spirit of the endeavor, I will give you 15 seconds.

Well, I will one day get 15 seconds, and I will give it to you when I do.

I don't have anything else to say.

Mr. President, section 3001 of H. Con. Res. 14, the fiscal year 2025 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 H.R. 1, as enacted on July 4, 2025, fulfills the conditions found in section 3001 of H. Con. Res. 14. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations for the reconciled committees and other enforceable budgetary levels to account for the budgetary effects of the legislation. This adjustment reflects the estimate of the law provided by the Congressional Budget Office on July 21, 2025.

This adjustment supersedes the adjustment I previously made for the processing of amendment No. 2848 to H.R. 1.

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