Floor Statements

Mr. President, No. 1, I want to applaud Senator Shaheen for all she has done for Ukraine. And, quite frankly, to all of my Democratic colleagues and Republican colleagues, I think we are trying to do right by Ukraine.

So what is right by Ukraine?

We have given well over $100 billion in aid and military assistance. And what are we trying to do here? We are not rescinding the $4 billion that is

available for military support, drawdown authority. We are not rescinding the $300 million that is still available. We are not rescinding the $14.4 billion loan authority available to Ukraine.

What we are doing is rescinding an account of $460 million that has a bunch of things in it, including $300,000 for promoting tourism in the Caucasus; $832,000 to fund social media mentorship in Serbia and Belarus; and $5 million for green transportation and logistics.

I want to help Ukraine, and the best thing we can do to help Ukraine right now is what President Trump is doing. Having the Europeans buy our weapons to give to Ukraine, I think, is good for the American economy, the American taxpayer, and for the Ukrainian military.

But the best thing we could do is what we are doing, and I want to applaud everybody who has joined in with Senator Blumenthal and myself. It is to break China, India, and Brazil from buying Russian oil to prop up Putin's war machine.

If you want to help Ukraine, crush Putin's customers who buy his oil and gas. There are 85 of us who have come together and said to Russia, China, and Brazil--

--if you keep buying his cheap oil, which is blood money, we are going to crush your economy.

That is the best way to help Ukraine.

Mr. President, as to being weary, I feel great. I have never felt better. I have been wanting to do this for, like, a long time, and our ship is about in. So I am a very happy Budget chair.

As to what we are talking about right now, we are not overruling the Parliamentarian because she said it was up to the Budget chairman to set the baseline. The Chair made a decision that was right. The budget resolution gives me the authority--that we all passed--to do this.

In 2008, Senator Conrad changed the baseline to accommodate the farm bill, and the Republican former chairman, Judd Gregg, said: The chairman of the Budget Committee declared the baseline under a new budget. The Budget chairman has a right to do that.

That is what I am doing.

In 2022, Senator Sanders directed CBO to write a new scoring rule changing the baseline to get Head Start money into the budget. So this has been done.

In 2012, in a bipartisan fashion, as the Bush tax cuts were about to expire, they extended them using current policy.

Back home: What I am trying to do--and I am very happy about it--is make sure the tax cuts don't expire 10 years from now. I want you to be able to go to bed tonight and wake up tomorrow knowing the tax cuts you have today are permanent, unless one day my Democratic colleagues change it through reconciliation.

So if you are for open borders, this bill is your worst nightmare because we control the border. If you want higher taxes, which apparently they do, this bill is your nightmare because we are going to keep taxes low. If you want to have a weak military, this is a bad bill for you because we give the military $150 billion. If you think Washington should control spending, this is a good bill for you. If you think the government is running just perfectly and nothing could be changed, this is your nightmare.

So for those big liberal folks--whom I like personally--this bill is a nightmare for you. This bill is good for the American people who work hard. People have got to work when they can. That is a good thing. If you want taxes low, we deliver. If you want to secure the border like President Trump has done, we make it that way forever by having $175 billion spent to get it controlled forever, not just right now. This is a good bill. We are doing nothing that we haven't done before.

Vote yes to uphold the ruling of the Chair. We are starting a process that is long overdue in this town: controlling spending, keeping taxes down, making the military strong, and finally, finally, looking at a way to get efficiency in government. Vote yes.

Vote on Appealing the Ruling of the Chair

Mr. President, CBO tells us that if we adopt current policy for taxes, we will save $507 billion. The deficit will go down by $507 billion if we do this.

In 2012, I was here. The Bush tax cuts were going to expire in December of 2012. President Obama sat down with Republicans, and they came up with a way to extend those tax cuts by not passing them into law. They called it the alternative fiscal scenario that CBO said is based on the current policy. So ``alternative fiscal scenario'' in Latin means current policy.

So we are doing what they did then. We are just doing it without any help from you all because you all will never do anything to make sure taxes go down. So we are going to make sure they go down forever.

Current policy is good tax policy. Stick with the bill you wrote. You are going to be happy to reduce the deficit and make sure people's taxes don't go up tomorrow, the next day, forever. It is good policy. Current policy is good tax policy.

I am done.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2848 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, the other side of the story. But we agree on this: A lot of people worked very hard on both sides of the aisle. Tensions have been high at times, but we are at the end now. And to all those who have made this possible, thank you for your hard work.

I would like to make five very brief points about what I think is good about this bill. It is the most consequential border security package in the history of our country. It is $175 billion. It does several things. It hires more ICE agents, it finishes the wall, and it increases detention beds by 100,000.

Let me tell you why that is important. In September of 2022, Mr. Ibarra, who was convicted of killing Laken Riley, the young lady in Georgia not far from where I live, was apprehended but he was paroled. And why was he paroled?

Subject was paroled due to detention capacity at the

Central Processing Center in El Paso, Texas.

They didn't have a bed for him, so they let him go, and 18 months later, approximately, he kills Laken Riley.

This bill fixes that and a bunch of other stuff.

Thanks.

Vote on Amendment No. 2848

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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 amendment Nos. 2372 and 2814, which passed earlier today, fulfill 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 amendment.

This adjustment supersedes the adjustment I previously made for the processing of amendment No. 2360.

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

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 amendment No. 2848, which passed earlier today, 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 amendment.

This adjustment supersedes the adjustments I previously made for the processing of amendment Nos. 2372 and 2814.

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

Mr. President, I am using and yielding time off the bill.

Mr. President, the debate and eventual voting on the Big Beautiful Bill has begun. Hallelujah. It has taken a while for us to get here, but we are going to have a debate worthy of a great country. We will have what they think and what we think, and we are going to vote on this bill in the coming days. I am excited about that. I have worked a long time with my colleagues to get to where we are today.

So, to the American people, the debate is beginning right now regarding the Big Beautiful Bill. I will tell you why that is good news for you, but let me take a little bit of time to talk about current policy versus current law.

I know everybody is on the edge of their seat at home, but here is what I would tell you about numbers and Budget chairmen. I am not the first Budget chairmen. There have been those who came before me. In 2008,

Chairman Kent Conrad--a really nice guy from North Dakota--used a new baseline in the budget so he could get the farm bill in the budget.

Judd Gregg--a really smart guy, a former Budget chairman--said:

The chairman of the Budget Committee declared the new

baseline under a new budget. . . . The Budget chairman has a

right to do that.

That is what I am doing. I am setting the numbers. The Parliamentarian said that is my job as Budget chairman.

The resolution we are operating under to get us here--we voted to make that the case. So we are not doing anything sneaky. We actually voted to give me the authority to do this, and it passed.

Again, I am not the first chairman to change a baseline for different reasons--one, to get the farm bill in, and on another occasion, Senator Sanders changed the baseline in 2022, when he was Budget chairman, under budget reconciliation to issue a budget rule allowing the numbers to change to get more money for Head Start. So Senator Sanders, as Budget chairman, directed that a new rule be written to get more money for Head Start.

So don't tell me you have never done this before in terms of changing the baseline as Budget chairman.

The Budget chairman, under 312, sets the baseline. This has been acknowledged by Republicans and Democrats. The baseline has been changed in the past based on the Budget Committee chairman's desire, one, to get a farm bill in, and the other, to change the numbers--a new rule--to get Head Start spending. So this has been done before.

But I will be the first to say that what we are doing here is historic in a good way.

In 2017, we passed the Trump tax cuts. They are due to expire in December. Why is that? Before I got here, current law was the way to score or implement tax policy. After 10 years, the tax cuts expired-- current law.

As Budget chairman, I have decided to use current policy when it comes to cutting taxes. If you use current policy, they never expire. So the policies that were created in 2017 would not end in December; they would continue. That is a good thing for the American people, and that is a good thing for the economy because it gives you certainty.

So I made a decision as Budget chairman, working with my colleagues, to look at tax cuts as something important for the country, to give certainty to businesses and individuals, and make sure that after 10 years, they don't arbitrarily go away and have a cliff. I made that decision, my colleagues backed me up, and that is in the budget resolution governing the debate we are here for today.

So why do we want to make the tax cuts permanent? Because if they expire in December, the average family of four in South Carolina will have a $1,700 increase. I don't want that, and I bet you people at home don't want that. So we have to deal with that. That cliff is coming, and not only do I want to avoid that cliff, I don't want to put us in that position ever again.

The tax cuts have generated more revenue for the government than CBO estimated in 2017.

The one thing about our friends at CBO--I appreciate all your hard work; you have worked really hard--when it comes to taxing, they always get it wrong about how much revenue is to be collected.

When you look at the years that have passed since 2017, on the corporate side and on the individual side, the revenue to the government has actually grown because of those tax cuts, and that is a good thing. So cutting taxes means more money for you and your family.

Our friends on the other side, if you are waiting on them to cut your taxes, you are going to die waiting. They are never going to do it. Why are we doing it? Because they won't do it. We could never get 60 votes for this.

The bottom line is, we are going to make these tax cuts permanent. That is a good thing for businesses. Expensing will be allowed, so you can invest in growing your business. You can buy new equipment. You can write it off sooner. That will get more activity in the economy. It is not me saying that; there is a track record.

Mr. President, you have been in business. This stuff works. They don't like it, but it works. If you are in business, and the Tax Code encourages you to invest in your business, you will.

This stuff literally works, and they hate it because it is money that could have gone to the government but went back into the economy. What they don't realize is, actually, the government gets more money. They just keep spending it. We could do better on the spending side, and we are going to do better on the spending side.

So this bill makes the 2017 tax cuts permanent. It avoids a tax increase for your family that is coming in December if we don't act now.

It secures the border. One of the reasons there are more of us than our Democratic friends is how you screwed the country up for the last 4 years. We went from secure borders to completely open borders, absolute chaos. That is why we are winning, and you are losing.

You want to take us back to open borders. We are not going. We are not going back to your policies that allowed 8.3 million encounters at the border, 1.7 million ``got-aways,'' and chaos in cities and communities.

We are not going back to the policies that led to Laken Riley's murder in Georgia, where the man convicted of murdering her was captured several times, released because there was no detention space to hold him in Texas and he left--a free man--went to Georgia, and killed this lady. That has happened too many times, and it is going to stop.

Now, what are we doing to secure the border? We went from lawless borders to the most secure borders in 6 months because of President Trump.

President Trump, you should be exceedingly proud--Homan, the whole team. You have locked that border down. But we want to do it in a way that it will stay locked down for the President after you and beyond.

So how do we secure the gains made by President Trump and his team? We are going to, in this bill, hire more ICE agents to expedite removal of people who shouldn't be here, particularly criminal elements, people who are dangerous. We are going to finish the wall. Not one Democrat-- maybe one--no way would we get 60 votes to hire more ICE agents. No way would we get Democratic help to finish the wall. We are going to go from 40,000 detention beds to 125,000. This securing the border is about $175 billion. New technology along the border and fiber cable so we don't go back to the days of open borders--this is in the bill.

To those of you who voted for us and President Trump to secure the border, we are delivering through this bill. And they would never do what we are doing. I will be the first to admit, when it comes to securing the border, they are never going to do what we are doing. We are hiring more ICE agents; we are finishing the wall; and we are increasing more detention beds so we don't let people out that can go and murder.

I am very proud of this. I wrote this part. This is money well spent. This will secure that border in perpetuity.

President Trump, this is your bill. It is in our bill. Well done.

To my friends on the other side, you had your chance, and you screwed it up big time. That is why we are in charge.

Revitalized our military. The world is a dangerous place. We have $150 billion in this bill to help build out the Golden Dome, to help improve the quality of life of the men and women serving the military by improving their barracks and housing. They need the money--more weapons--to send this bill, and we didn't have to get extorted to buy a bunch of butter to get $150 billion.

We reduced government spending over a decade by $1.6 trillion. We are running a deficit in our national debt of $37 trillion. So what have we done here?

In the last 5 years, from 2020, basically, to now, Medicaid has grown by 50 percent. So what has happened is that Medicaid was originally intended for children and poor families--children--and people who were disabled and couldn't work to provide healthcare.

Count me in for that. Makes lot of sense.

Along comes President Obama. He expands Medicaid to include able- bodied adults for the first time. And what he did was he incentivized States to include these people in Medicaid. For every new able-bodied adult, you get 90 percent of the cost from the Federal

Government, 10 percent from the States, and Medicaid has grown 50 percent. It is going to take over Medicare because of what President Obama did.

So what are we going to do? We are going to try to deal with that in a responsible way.

What about this idea: If you are not a child, if you are not disabled--if you are able-bodied and you don't have any children under 14--we are going to have a 20-hour-a-week work requirement for you to stay on Medicaid.

That is a good thing. It is a good thing for the individual involved to be working. It is a good thing for the taxpayer for them to be working. But that seems to be a crime on the other side to ask somebody to work that can work.

How many people out there listening to this--I don't know how many there are--but are you working every day? Are you going to work with kids? A lot of people do that, by the way.

So one of the reforms in this bill is to introduce a work requirement to the additional population that President Obama put on Medicaid that was never intended under the original purpose of Medicaid. This work requirement is going to save a bunch of money.

Finally, we are addressing the biggest scam I have seen in a very long time. Somewhere along the line, somebody figured out at the State level, if you tax doctors and hospitals and medical providers on the funds they get and take that revenue, you can actually get more Medicaid money. This is a money laundering scheme. It needs to come to an end as we know it.

States have gone up to 6 percent of a provider tax. They take that tax revenue, and they use it to get more money from the Federal Government. The hospitals and doctors don't lose. They get the money back. The State doesn't lose. They get more money. The only group that loses is the Federal Government, and we are deep, deep in debt.

So we are going to reform the provider tax system that I think is abusive--very abusive.

As to Medicaid, it is on a growth trajectory that will overtake Medicare. Now is the time to put commonsense reform in place not only to slow the growth--and we are not talking about cutting Medicaid, we are slowing the growth--but try to create some sense of fiscal responsibility.

So to our chairman of the Finance Committee, you have constructed a package better than 2017. You have included some growth elements in the package that will allow the economy to grow because it will be in business's interest to invest, and I want to applaud you for this growth package.

Now what does this all mean? Current policy, current law.

If you do what I have decided to do, make the tax cuts permanent and you implement these reforms to Medicaid in other areas, you will, over the next 10 years, reduce the deficit by $507 billion. That is CBO, not me.

Now, how do you do that? You grow the economy, and you begin to control spending in a commonsense way. Most people can relate to that because they do it all the time. People at home sometimes have to work extra to meet the needs of their family, and they have to tighten their belt. So what have we achieved here in the One Big Beautiful Bill?

We are going make your border as secure as it possibly can be and never go back to open borders. We are going to put in place border security measures to keep it secure. We are going to make the tax cuts permanent so your taxes do not go up in December of this year, and we are going to add additional pro-growth policies to help our economy.

We are going to reform Medicaid in a way that makes sense, deal with the waste, fraud, and abuse of that program so that there is more money for the disabled and children because the more money you give the able- bodied who can work is less money for children and people on disability.

And one of the most perverse things about what President Obama did is that the reimbursement rates to States are higher for able-bodied adults than they are for disabled people and children--90 percent. So President Obama created a system to entice States--lure them in--to add people to Medicaid that are not disabled, not poor children, because his goal was to put everybody in the country under government-run healthcare. And the government reimbursement is higher for an able- bodied person than it is for a poor child or a disabled person.

We are going to stop that because that is not fair. It is not fair to the taxpayer. It is not fair to the population that we are trying to help.

So we are going to control spending in a commonsense way; we are going to revitalize our military at a time of great need; we are going to secure the border; and we are going to make the tax cuts that expire in December permanent so we don't have to deal with this every 10 years.

It is a big beautiful bill if you believe in cutting people's taxes, securing the border, having a strong military, and controlling government spending.

It is a nightmare--this bill--for those who want to raise taxes, who want open borders, who want a weak military, and never want to control one dime of Federal spending.

This bill is your nightmare if you are for open borders. This bill is your nightmare if you want the government to grow without any limitation. This bill is your nightmare if you want a weak military because it is going to give us a stronger military.

So why do we have this debate? That is what they--through years of effort--have done. The military is always the last thing that gets funded when they are in charge. When they are in charge, you have no border--completely broken, millions of people running through our country lawless.

When they are in charge, there is no limit to growing the government. They entice everybody to grow the government. And when they are in charge, they are never going to cut your taxes in any meaningful way.

The tax rates since 2017--the top rate has been 37. If these tax cuts expire, your taxes--if you are a family of four--will go up by $1,700, and we will go back to the 49.6 rate.

Here is a question for the country: How much should the Federal Government take of anybody's income? What is a fair share?

Thirty-seven percent seems pretty damn fair to me--over a third of what you make, and that doesn't count State and local taxes.

The number they would pick is probably 90.

So is 37 percent fair? I think yes. Most Americans think 25 percent is fair. You know, Jesus wants 10 percent. There is no number they won't embrace. So somewhere between 90 and 10--37 is fair.

This is not rewarding the wealthy; it is creating a number that makes sense. Thirty-seven percent going to the Federal Government is a fair share. It is over a third of what you make. That doesn't count State and local taxes.

This has been long. It is been hard, but we are about done. In a couple of days, we are going to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill. President Trump is going to sign it. Mike Crapo and his staff deserve at least one day off.

I cannot thank you enough for what you and your team have done. To my budgeteers, you have been terrific. You have worked really hard. To CBO and Joint Tax and all these people, hats off to your efforts to get us a quality product.

To all of my colleagues who have rode the boat with us, we are about to reach the shore. And when this boat comes ashore, every family in America can heave a sigh of relief. Your taxes will not go up this December. You will get a Christmas present of not having a tax increase.

To those who have been yearning for a secure border, it will be secure. To those men and women in the uniform, you are going to get some help. You desperately need it. To those who think we should do something about the government's growth in a commonsense way, we have achieved that.

I am very proud of this bill. I am very proud of President Trump. I am very proud of the Republican team that has gotten us to this point.

To my Democratic colleagues, we will work together where we can, but nobody over here ever expects you to do anything about the border because you have proven you can't. Nobody over here believes you are ever going to reduce the size of government because you don't want to.

The bottom line is, we are about to make history, Mr. President. This is your first term. I don't know what comes later for you. I hope you are

here for a long time if that is what you want to be. You are a great Senator. You are a good businessman. You made a real success story: family from Colombia, created a lot of job opportunities.

I doubt if you will ever do anything more important than this.

Senator Crapo, you have been here a while. You are one of the smartest guys I have ever met. Everything you have done in all your life has led to this moment. This is what you were built to do. This is what you were meant to do. You are the right man at the right time to do what this country desperately needs to stay on track to be safe and prosperous.

To all my colleagues who are going to vote for this bill, you should be proud, and you should talk about it because it is going to make us all safer, and it is going to make us all more prosperous.

My being Budget chairman is a quirk in the history of the Senate. This is not my thing normally, but I have really gotten into it. And I have learned a lot thanks to my colleagues, and I am proud to have the honor of being Budget chairman at a time I think it matters the most.

Mr. President, with that, I yield to my good friend.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators, whatever they are, be permitted on the floor of the Senate during consideration of the bill.

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 amendment No. 2360 fulfils 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 updated budgetary effects of the amendment.

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 from my staff and from Senator Merkley's staff be given all-access floor passes for the consideration of the bill: Caitlin Wilson, Lillian Meadows, Scott Graber, Walker Truluck, and Taylor Reidy; and Democratic staff: Mike Jones, Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, Joshua Smith, and Tyler Evilsizer.

Mr. President, this is a debate worthy of the body, and I would like to give my belief about what we are doing here--my opinion.

Senator Kaine has introduced a resolution that basically requires President Trump to come to the Congress before any other military actions can be taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran. I think that would be a disaster for the country. You can only have one Commander in Chief, not 535.

Mr. President, you have been in it. You have been right close to the face of the enemy, and you, probably above all others, know what warfare is like dealing with radical Islam, and I applaud your service as a Navy SEAL.

So it says in the Constitution:

The President shall be [the] Commander in Chief of the Army

and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the

several States, when called into actual Service of the United

States.

Well, they left out the Air Force because, back then, we didn't have one.

Since the founding of this country, it has been understood that the Commander in Chief can act as the Commander in Chief to protect our Nation from threats; that he is in charge of the military. He sits atop of the--he is the civilian in charge of the military, and it is his decision to use military force.

It is Congress's decision to declare war. How many times do you think we have declared war since the founding of our Nation?

I will give you the answer: Five.

Just think about all of the military conflicts that have existed in the history of our country, and we have only declared war five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War against Spain, World War I, and World War II.

So to my colleagues, if Congress has only declared war five times, does that mean all of these other military operations are illegal? No. That is ridiculous.

Because we have power to declare war--us, the Congress only--it doesn't mean the Commander in Chief can't be Commander in Chief.

This country cannot be put in a legal state of war unless the Congress decides to do that, but to suggest that means the Commander in Chief can't do anything without our approval makes all of us Commanders in Chief.

Do you think they had that in mind? Do you think they really meant for the Congress to be the Commander in Chief, not the Commander in Chief?

The logic of this is as follows: Because we have the ability to declare war, therefore, the President can't act unless we agree. You have taken his power to be Commander in Chief away.

The War Powers Act of 1973, referenced by Senator Sanders, is not worth, in my view, the paper it was written on. It was an effort by the Congress back then to limit President Nixon's involvement in the Vietnam war.

The way you do that constitutionally is that Congress has the power of the purse. If we don't like what a President is doing in terms of military engagement, we can stop the funding for that engagement.

Just think of the chaos that would ensue in this country if there were not one Commander in Chief but 535, and we had to sit down and talk among ourselves and debate as to whether or not we should go forward with the military operation in question. That would paralyze this country.

And this leak of the defense intelligence assessment tells you exactly what would happen if they brought this problem over to us to solve.

So it has been clear to me that only five times in the history of the country have we declared war, and we have had hundreds of military operations that the Founders never envisioned. The ability to declare war means the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, cannot act unless we agree because that makes us the Commander in Chief. And that is not what they were trying to do.

They were trying to make sure the country could not go into a legal situation involving war without the body as a whole making that decision. But when it comes to how to use the military, when to use the military, we have a single person who does that. That is the Commander in Chief, and that person can be limited by Congress's ability to cut off funding for military operations they don't approve of.

So the War Powers Act, I think from its very founding, is unconstitutional, but this is a case study of the chaos that would be created if we accepted the proponents' version of this: that President Trump would have to come to the Congress as a whole before he decided to strike the next nuclear facility that maybe we don't know about, or there is some imminent threat to our troops in the region.

That is just not practical, and that is not what the Founders meant. They put a single person in charge of the military, and that was the President of the United States. They made sure that going to war was a group decision. And in this country, we have used that process five times in 250 years.

So not only did President Trump have the constitutional authority to engage in Operation Midnight Hammer; it was an incredible success.

If you look up ``obliterate'' in the dictionary, it means to destroy utterly and wipe out. These three facilities were destroyed utterly, and they were wiped out. They were obliterated.

Now that doesn't mean that the threat from Iran is over. The desire of the regime still exists, and we will have to deal with Iran down the road. But on this vote, I think, we all need to vote no because what we are doing here, if we don't watch it, is having 535 Commanders in Chief. That would paralyze this country.

But something, maybe, we can agree on very quickly: Since the attack, the Iranian regime has gone on a terror campaign against their own people. They have arrested at least 700 people for ties to Israel. Dozens of people been hanged. They were basically drug out of their houses and hanged.

``Iran turns to internal crackdown in wake of 12-day war.''

I will be doing a resolution condemning this regime's action. What they are doing is they are trying to maintain power over their people after this attack. People in Iran are getting fed up with the Ayatollah. Instead of listening to the people and changing the behavior of the regime, the regime is engaged in a terror campaign of extrajudicial killings, imprisonment, and beatings to suppress the people. And I think this body and the civilized world should condemn what is going on in Iran right now.

As to negotiations to solve the Iranian nuclear ambitions, to try to get a deal with Iran that we can all live with, count me in for that. But you have got to remember, the people you are negotiating with, as you talk to them, are killing their own people to try to keep them in control.

I have got one idea. Before we negotiate with Iran, they need to say one thing: We don't like Israel. We don't agree with Israel. But we recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist.

The policy of the Iranian regime is to destroy the State of Israel, purify Islam, and come after us, the infidels. Until they change that policy, nothing is really going to work.

So what I want to hear, before we sit down and talk to the Ayatollah and his henchmen, is that, for the first time ever since the founding of the Iranian regime, they recognize Israel's right to exist. Is that too much to ask?

Finally, this is the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. Eighty years ago this past month, the Nazis surrendered. And one of the hallmarks of the Nazi regime was to kill all the Jews. Eighty years later, we are having a debate about a regime that wants a nuclear weapon to kill all the Jews, and we are wondering what to do.

You know what we should do? We should make sure they can't kill all the Jews. We should make sure that this homicidal maniac, the Ayatollah, who is a religious Nazi, is not allowed

to get a nuclear weapon and reign havoc on the region and come after us.

It is hard to believe that 80 years later, we would be having this debate: What should we do?

To my good friend Senator Sanders, your solution will lead to World War III. You will appease evil.

World War II happened because people like Senator Sanders did not stand up to Hitler. They did not choose wisely, and they did not stop him when they could. That is exactly what is going on now.

Until this religious Nazi regime gives up their desire to destroy the State of Israel, to wreak havoc on the region, and to come after us, chanting ``Death to America,'' then we should stand up to them. I am not advocating invading Iran, but I am advocating being tough--no sanctions relief and don't reward this behavior.

Vote no to Senator Kaine's proposal. Stand up for the Constitution as it has been implemented for over 250 years. And all of us pray for the Iranian people and for our friends in Israel that better days are ahead. And these better days only come with sacrifice.

And as I speak, people in Iran are sacrificing because they just want to live free.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to be recognized to make some comments about the conflict we are watching unfold on our television between Iran, Israel, and now the United States.

Someone asked me: What is this talk all about?

I think a good title would be: ``What is this all about?''

To the American people, what is this all about? Let me tell you what it is all about. It is all about religion.

A fanatical string of Shi'ism is now in charge of Iran, and they have three goals: to purify Islam--about 80 percent of Islam is Sunni; Saudi Arabia is the center of that part of the religion--to purify Islam in the image of the Ayatollah, to destroy the Jewish State, to drive us out of the Mideast because we are infidels.

This is not a democracy. It is a theocracy. If you have got any time on your hands, go on the internet and

check out the theological bases of this regime. You would understand why Israel has to get this right as well as we do.

But it was not always that way. Iran is not inherently a radical group of people, a radical place. As a matter of fact, it is a very cultured place. It used to be one of the real ``Pearls of the Middle East.''

Before 1979, Iran shared intelligence, had economic ties, and military cooperation with Israel and the United States. This is from 1950, where Ben-Gurion--the first President of Israel--is talking to an Iranian diplomat in Israel. Iran had a very vibrant Jewish population. So it has not always been this way.

So what happened? They had a revolution. In 1979 to 1981, there was an uprising in Iran that led to the installing of the Ayatollah as the leader of Iran, the first Ayatollah Khomeini. Now we are on the second one, Khamenei.

What is this thing all about? These are students pouring over the U.S. Embassy. Our Embassy personnel--50 American hostages--were held for 444 days by these nutjobs. They were subjected to intense physical and psychological torture throughout their captivity, such as mob executions, beatings, solitary confinement, and very bad living conditions. This is what they did when they took over. They came after us, held our people hostage, and treated us very brutally.

In 1984, the United States made Iran a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law because of the way the Iranian regime, under the Ayatollah, was conducting himself. They were wreaking havoc throughout the region, and they were doing things against Israel and the United States that justified their designation in 1984 as a state sponsor of terrorism. And that has not changed.

Why are they a state sponsor of terrorism? Because they are terrorists, and they support terrorists.

Hezbollah--$700 million, we project, was given to Iran by Hezbollah. It is almost their entire budget. They are a terrorist group, mainly in Lebanon, of the Shia branch of the tree.

Hamas, who conducted the October 7 attack against Israel--Israel projects that 93 percent of Hamas's military budget came from Iran.

We have the Houthis. All of their missiles and rockets came from Iran.

We have got Shiite groups in Iraq funded by Iran.

Why are they a state sponsor of terrorism? Because they sponsor terrorism all over the world, and they did it with petrodollars from the Iran nuclear deal and other sources of revenue, which was a really bad idea. That is why Trump pulled out.

Here is the reporting over the period here:

Hamas-Iran alliance: Captured documents expose decades-long

terror funding.

When Israel began to liberate Gaza from Hamas and drive out Hamas terrorists, they found a treasure trove of documents showing the history between Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran--suitcases stuffed with cash, U.S. flow of funds to Yemen to help the Houthis.

What else have they done other than funding terrorist groups? They have threatened to kill American officials: President Trump, Brian Hook, General McKenzie, Robert O'Brien, Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. All these people were involved in the Soleimani attack.

Why did we go after Soleimani? Because he was the leader of the more radical elements of their military that had been targeting Americans and he was planning to attack our forces in Iraq and Trump took him out: in 1983, the Beirut barracks bombing, Hezbollah, supported by Iran; Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, a terrorist group supported by Iran.

That is why they are terrorists. They have been coming after our interests. They have attacked our shipping in the Red Sea, the Houthis have. They couldn't fire one missile without Iranian support because that is where all their rockets come from.

Some cast of characters here. The recent new President was sworn in, in Iran. During the swearing-in of the Iranian President, the crowd started chanting: ``Death to America,'' ``Death to America'' during the swearing-in of the new President not long ago, July 30, 2024. It is not quite a year ago.

People wonder what they are up to. Let me tell you what they are up to. They are up to enacting a religious agenda that has no place for anybody but them. If you are a Christian, they want to destroy your faith. If you are Jewish, they want to wipe you off the planet. And if you are a Muslim and you don't agree with them, which most don't, they want to take over the entire faith and make you bend a knee to their view. These people are religious fanatics.

What is this all about? Religion. Do you want any of these people to have a nuclear weapon? I don't. They are religious Nazis.

Are there any telltale signs that may tell us what they are up to? Do you really have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this out? This is a missile in Iran. In Hebrew, it says: ``Death to Israel.'' This is the freaking missile they took a photo of in Hebrew that said ``Death to Israel.'' I wonder what they want to do with that missile.

If you are confused about this regime, you should not be allowed to drive because you are a danger to yourself and others. If you think this is not our conflict, you have missed a lot. You have been like asleep at the switch since 1979. You don't know anything about these people. You are talking gibberish.

If you don't think this is our concern, look what they have done. They have attacked Americans. They have American blood on their hands. They are trying to build a nuclear bomb, and one of their targets is us. How do I know that? Because that is what they say.

Last July, they were chanting, ``Death to America'' while they were swearing in their President. We don't do that here. Why? Because we are not crazy. These people are crazy. The Iranian people are not, but the people ruling the place are fanatical religious Nazis. If you don't think it is our concern, you really have missed a lot. You need to study before you talk.

If that is not enough, the missile that says ``Death to Israel''-- let's see, when was this? Oh, 2015. ``Amid Nuke Talks, Ayatollah Says: `Death to America.' '' This is during negotiations that Obama had.

In 2022, they had 95 pounds of highly enriched uranium at 60 percent. Is there a commercial purpose for uranium enriched at 60 percent? No. In 2025, 3 years later, they have 900 pounds of this stuff. So, clearly, they are not stopping their enrichment program; they are accelerating it, and they are enriching it at a level that has no commercial purpose.

They actually have one reactor in Iran. The fuel for that reactor comes from Russia. They haven't taken 1 gram of their enrichment program to run the peaceful reactor they claim they want. To run a reactor, you need to enrich between 3\1/2\ and 5 percent, not 60. Weapons-grade enrichment is 90 percent; 60 to 90 is like walking across the street.

If you can't figure out what they have been up to, again, you should not be allowed to drive. They are trying to build nuclear weapons. They are making material consistent with a bomb, not a peaceful nuclear powerplant. They chant ``Death to America.'' They chant ``Death to Israel.'' They kill their own people. They are the largest sponsor of terrorism on the planet. They have been that way since 1979.

I wonder what they want to do.

The Ayatollah's nuclear ambitions have been spread and fed for decades now. I take him seriously.

Hitler wrote a book. Nobody believed he wanted to kill all the Jews. They should have. Hitler wrote a book about a master race. People should have taken him seriously. They wrote it off as just talk. They excused Hitler's provocative behavior, saying: He is just saying these things.

Well, we know that didn't work out too well. Last month was the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, the Nazi regime. One of the centerpieces of the Nazi regime was to kill the Jewish people. They put the Jewish people in concentration camps, gas chambers, and they tried to extinguish an entire race of people--our Jewish brothers and sisters--killing 6 million.

Just a few years ago, the Jewish people got back to the numbers before the war. Eighty years later, we are having a discussion about what should we do, as civilized people, regarding Iran. I will tell you what we should do. We should do something different than we did with Hitler--because if we do the same old thing, there goes Israel and, eventually, us.

So their nuclear ambitions are not to build peaceful nuclear powerplants and fuel them. Their enrichment program is designed to make bombs. They intend to use these bombs because they are religious fanatics.

Does anybody doubt that if Adolf Hitler had a bomb, he would have used it? If you doubt that the Ayatollah would use a bomb against the State of Israel, you don't understand his religion.

What drove Hitler: a sick, twisted, distorted view of the master race.

These people want a master religion, not a master race. They want to dominate the world religiously. That is what they are all about. They export terrorism in the name of religion. They support groups that want to take down secular regimes. They want a master religion like the Nazis wanted a master race.

And let me tell you what our friends in Israel are saying: Hell, no. Once is enough.

So what should Israel do? Here is what Israel should do. They should fight back.

To the American people: What would our country do if there was one missile shot into South Carolina or Alabama from a foreign power that killed our citizens? Everybody in South Carolina and Alabama would be wanting to end the terror and go after the people who did it, and it would be the entire Nation.

Why should we expect Israel to tolerate what we wouldn't tolerate? There have been over 1,000 missiles shot into Israel. Since their founding, people have been trying to kill them all. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis have one thing in common: They are all funded by Iran. All the weapons come from the Iranians.

What is this all about? Killing the Jews and, eventually, us and dominating the world religiously. If you think that is weird, then you need to get on the internet and listen to what they are doing. You need to watch their behavior. And they mean what they say. And don't be like the people in the thirties that got it wrong. Israel is not going to get it wrong the second time.

Donald Trump. God bless President Donald J. Trump. I am so glad he won. What has he tried to do? Make peace, not war. He gave the Ayatollah 60 days to find a peaceful settlement regarding their enrichment program. They could have nuclear power, but they can't enrich. There are 20 nations that have nuclear power that get the fuel for their reactors outside of their country. We would have done that for Iran. They were tapping him along. Then 61 days go by, and the rest is history.

They are not interested in peace. They are interested in fulfilling a religious agenda that has no place for us or the State of Israel.

Hitler didn't want peace. There was not a part of a country you could give him to stop him from enacting his sick and twisted agenda. He didn't want German-speaking populations. He wanted the entire world to speak German. He wanted the entire world to fall under his Nazi regime. He was nuts. And it took a bunch of people from all over the world, particularly America, to destroy the Third Reich, and about 60 million people died because we got it wrong in the thirties--6 million Jews.

We are not going to let that happen again as long as I am around, the Presiding Officer, or President Trump and the people of Israel. We are not going to let that happen. We are going to stick with Israel because sticking with them is helping us. They are fighting the people that want to kill us as much as they want to kill all the Jews. Their fight, in my view, is our fight.

Operation Midnight Hammer: After day 60, all the negotiations went nowhere because the Iranians didn't want them to go anywhere. President Trump acted, and it was brilliant, it was bold, and it will live in history. To all those who took part in this, God bless you. We have the finest military on Earth. We proved that yet again. But you can have the best military, and if you don't have the right Commander in Chief, nothing happens. We got the right Commander in Chief married up with the strongest military in history, which will make us safer.

We are not looking to take over Iran. We are not looking to invade Iran. We are looking to make sure that the fanatics who run Iran can't hurt us and can't destroy our friends in Israel. And President Trump did something about it. He sent B-2s to Iran, and everybody thought: Well, what is that all about? Well, they missed the other B-2s that went to Iran and put a hurting on these three enrichment sites.

To the pilots, to the air crews, to everybody involved: Well done. I spent 30-something years in the Air Force, and I have never been more proud. Fly, fight, win.

What is next? They shot missiles at our airbase in Qatar--the Iranians did--today, about 16 or 19. One may have gotten through. I think they called us. But just remember what I said. They shot missiles at us today. They shot missiles at Israel last night.

The strikes a couple of days ago were designed to shut down the enrichment facilities used to make this weapons-grade uranium. I think we were substantially successful, and I have never been more proud of President Trump and our military. And I think we set back their military program substantially.

But here is what we didn't do: We didn't change their desire for a nuclear weapon. We changed the capability to make one. Here is my goal: to have people in charge of Iran who don't want a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel, who will not be the largest state sponsor of terrorism but live in peace with their neighbors and have a good relationship with the United States. That is what I want. And if you don't want that, there is something wrong with you.

How do you get that? Two ways: The religious fanatics reject their agenda; they change their behavior. Maybe that will happen. I don't know. Or you change the people and you replace the religious fanatics with people in Iran who do not want to destroy the world, who do not want to create a master religion, who want to live in peace. And I think that is the vast majority of the Iranians.

If we get this right, stick with Israel, stand up to this bully--this religious, fanatical regime--let Israel do what they need to do, then I think peace is coming.

The Presiding Officer and myself went to Saudi Arabia and Israel to talk about Saudi Arabia recognizing the Jewish State under certain conditions. Before the attack of October 7, we were very close to expanding the Abraham Accords to include a deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel that, basically, would end the Arab-Israeli conflict--an amazing moment in history.

October 7 comes along: a vicious, brutal attack on Israel by Hamas, which is fully funded by Iran--raping women, killing children in front of their parents, and doing things that we really don't need to be talking about on the floor. That was designed to stop reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Israel because, for the Iranian fanatical regime, the worst nightmare is for the Arab world to make peace with Israel and move toward the light. These people want darkness for the world.

So what do we do now? Israel has had it. I talked to the Prime Minister yesterday before I went on television, and I asked him: What would you like me to tell America, Bibi?

He said: Three things. We are profoundly grateful to the American people for what you do to help the Jewish State. We couldn't be here without you. We are profoundly grateful to President Trump for his strong leadership.

He also wanted me to urge the people of Iran to seize the moment to end the nightmare you have been living.

And the third thing he wanted me to tell the American people is: Israel is not going to live this way anymore. They are not going to raise their children in bomb shelters. They are not going to have their life interrupted daily by ballistic missiles coming from religious Nazis who want to kill all the Jews like Hitler. They are not going to put up with that. Regime change is coming to Iran, one or two ways: The regime renounces what they have been doing since 1979 and changes course, or it is replaced.

To expect Israel to do anything else is offensive to me. You are asking Israel to accept as normal being attacked every day and every night by over 500 ballistic missiles? Over 24 Israeli citizens have been killed. The missiles going into Israel are designed to kill children. The attacks by the

Israelis are designed to shut down the regime's nuclear capability. But the targets are changing. They are now going after the police force that keeps the Ayatollah in power, the intelligence services that scare people into submission, the prisons that house dissidents.

Israel has made a fateful decision to go to the heart of this regime, to take these religious Nazis down one way or the other--reject Nazism and the former religion or get new people.

And I am with them. I am with them to the bitter end. I am with them because being with them is in your own interest if you are an American. Being with them is in your own interest if you believe in religious tolerance. Being with Israel means you reject a regime that would take a 16-year-old girl off a bus and beat her to death because she didn't have a head cover. This is evil we are fighting. They are as evil as the Nazis.

Now, 80 years later, we are having a debate about what the Jewish people should do to a group that wants to kill them all? Really? We are debating among ourselves what is too much against a regime trying to build dozens of nuclear weapons to blow people off the planet they don't like or agree with? What kind of world are we living in? To all those who want to hold Israel back, what would you do if it were our country? Would you hold us back? If you tried to, we would run you over. We are not going to live this way as Americans.

So what is this all about? I am going to end where I began. It is about a fanatical regime that took over the country by force, that started out imprisoning Americans, has been trying to build nuclear bombs--multiple nuclear bombs--has been the largest state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, has American blood on its hands, has attacked Israel over and over and over again, has suppressed its own people. It is about a religious agenda.

Why do they do what they do? Religious, fanatical beliefs; a master religion for the world. And if you don't believe that, you have missed a lot. That is what they want, and the only way they are not going to get there is for somebody to stop them.

What did Hitler want? To take over the entire world and create a master race--anybody that didn't fit his definition of the right kind of person was in prison or killed.

The Ayatollah and his henchmen have that same view, but it is religiously driven.

So what happens in the next few days is going to determine the course of history for the State of Israel and the region for decades to come.

To our friends in Israel: Finish the job. Do what you have to do to bring about the regime change that will allow your children to sleep through the night.

To the American people: Wake up. Understand what we are fighting. The Ayatollah is not normal. These are not normal people. Stand with Israel. Standing with Israel, you are standing by your--you are helping your own self; you are helping your own families.

I will make a prediction. Israel is going to win, and this regime is going to fall. This regime is going to fall of its own weight. The people in Iran are going to have their chance, as the regime gets weakened, to rise up and take back their own lives.

I don't know when that day is coming, but it is coming soon. I believe that. I believe that the day of reckoning is here for the religious Nazis running Iran; that their terrorism is coming to an end; that it is going to be replaced by a region that moves together, where Sunnis and Shias and Israelis and all different groups--Christians-- work together to build economies for all those rights.

We live in a time of choosing. I choose to stand up to evil.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Zimmerman nomination.

Mr. President, I am on the floor today with my good friend and colleague Senator Scott. He has a resolution commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Mother Emanuel Church shooting. June 17 was the 10th anniversary, and I just want to thank Tim for all he has done for that church and for the victims of that horrible day.

You have been a real inspiration to the church and to the State, and I am glad to join with you here today.

It is the oldest Black congregation in our State, opened in 1816. The man who did this, Dylann Roof, killed 9 people, seriously wounded another.

He is facing the death penalty. His goal was to go into that church-- invited in, by the way--and shoot people in a house of worship, African Americans, trying to start a race war. He failed pretty miserably.

People in South Carolina embraced Mother Emanuel, the victims. We loved the church, the church family, and I am proud of how our State has rallied around this horrific event.

And to the people who lost their loved ones, there is a hole in your life that can never be filled. The senseless act of violence motivated by sheer hate and bigotry devastated your life. But I do want to let everybody in the country know, Mother Emanuel is still standing, stronger than ever. People in South Carolina came together in a way that I haven't seen in a long time; and by this horrible, terrible tragedy, I think we are stronger than we were before.

This involved a man who had serious issues, was able to get a gun in violation of existing law about background checks. They finally reached a settlement with the victims, and that was done a few years ago.

So the lessons learned for me from this horrible event was that there is no safe place when it comes to bigotry and hate. The churches all over the country, synagogues, houses of worship now have armed guards. I hate we are where we are, but as we look back over the last decade and how this has affected the people of Mother Emanuel and our State, I am here to tell you that that church is stronger than it has ever been.

To the victims and their families, the hole that has been placed in your life by this senseless act of violence can never be fully filled, but we are trying to do our best to fill that void. And to my good friend Senator Scott, thank you so much for your leadership from day 1. And 10 years later, because of your leadership, we are remembering on the floor of the U.S. Senate that tragic day. And I am just honored to call you my friend and colleague.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Andres nomination.

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

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable

budget resolutions for purposes of Senate amendment No. 2307, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, I will be making a quick presentation here and then Senator Ernst will follow, and I just want to compliment her for all the effort she has made to stand by Ukraine and make sure that this war ends in a way that is honorable and just. And we can stop the killing but do it in a way that we don't have future wars because we made a mistake here.

So there are so many things going on in the world right now that are very dangerous. You have Iran close to a nuclear breakout. You have the war in Russia and Ukraine. It is killing 5,000 people a day. Only God knows how many people are actually being killed or wounded, hard to track, but it is just massive. It is a major land war in Europe, and we thought those days were behind us.

We have threats from China. We have got all kinds of things going on in the world. So my advice is, when you have a hard decision to make, make sure you look at it through a moral clarity lens. Make it simple. Russia is the problem, not Ukraine. Ukraine didn't invade Russia; Russia invaded Ukraine.

We need moral clarity on all these issues. Iran is not trying to have civilian nuclear power; they are trying to build a bomb. We need to take them at their word as to what they intended to do over time. They intended to destroy the State of Israel, purify Islam, and come after us. That is what they say. They write on their missiles ``Death to Israel,'' and they call us the ``Great Satan.'' They have 600 pounds of highly enriched uranium--60 percent. That is enough for six or seven or maybe more bombs. They went from 60-percent to 90-percent enrichment in less than a month.

They have one civilian nuclear reactor. How much uranium has been used to run that reactor enriched by Iran itself? Not one gram. Think of all the fuel needed to run the civilian reactor from Russia. So they are trying to stockpile weapons-grade uranium to make a bomb; and they lie, cheat, and steal, and we catch them all the time.

So some moral clarity here. Iran with a nuclear weapon is not only unacceptable, it is the biggest threat to the planet, as I see it. The Arab nations want a nuclear weapon of their own.

And Israel--one Holocaust is sufficient. This is the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. It happened a few days ago. During that war, there was an effort to annihilate the Jews. Founding the State of Israel in 1948 was a significant world event. And there is a saying in Israel, ``Never again.'' They actually mean it.

(Mr. SHEEHY assumed the Chair.)

How about moral clarity from the United States here? We are with Israel. If Israel has to use military force to destroy or degrade the nuclear capability of Iran, we should be with them. I am glad we are trying to find a peaceful solution to the uranium problem. If you can get Iran to dismantle their nuclear program, then that gets us to where I want to go. But they have to dismantle.

Right now, there are discussions between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States and Europe about how to end this war. Putin, in my view, is playing us all. President Trump called for a 30-day cease-fire. Ukraine said yes; Russia said no. President Trump urged Zelenskyy and Putin to go to Istanbul--I was over there--and meet to have direct talks. Zelenskyy went; Putin didn't.

So there was a call a couple of days ago between President Trump and Putin. The Russians now are supposed to submit a terms sheet about what it takes to get a cease-fire. That is supposed to happen in a few days. They are talking about going to the Vatican and having direct negotiations. I am for all of that, but I don't know about how. I think most people feel like I do. We have given Russia plenty of opportunity to find an honorable and just end to this war. They are not interested, and they are not going to change until we up the ante.

So we need moral clarity here. Putin is dragging this out. He believes he is winning on the battlefield. I don't believe he is. He is defying every effort that has been earnest by President Trump to find a solution to this war. President Trump says he wants to stop the slaughtering and the killing. He is right to do so. But this is a time of decision-making. This has gone on too long with too many games being played.

I will tell you in just a minute what the Senate can do. But what we need when it comes to Russia-Ukraine is moral clarity. When President Trump focuses on an issue and takes a firm stand, it always works. He is standing up to China and the world who has been ripping us off on trade. He has a policy now that whatever you charge us on tariffs, we are going to charge you. It is called reciprocal trade. He has imposed tariffs on China.

Everybody in this body goes home and talks about how China rips us off. Trump is actually doing something about it. China steals our intellectual property, they manipulate the currency to get them a trade advantage, and that needs to come to an end.

When President Trump focuses on fixing a problem--righting a wrong-- he gets good results because the world now is calling Washington wanting deals. I think you are going to see a lot of good trade deals to right the wrong of trade abuse because President Trump stood up and insisted we get a better outcome.

The border. When he got in office, one of his top priorities was to fix a broken border. Look at what has happened. The lowest daily number of border encounters fell to less than 200, the lowest in history. He turned it all off because he was firm and resolved with Mexico and others. His border policies have worked. He has shut down a broken border, literally, in months because he had the desire and the will to do it, and people responded. And we are getting a great result at the border because of his determination and his will to do so. We went from 7,200 in March down to 200--that drop is amazing--because of his policies.

China, I just talked about. He is taking China on, and I am hoping we can reach a deal with China that will level out the trade playing field. China is talking to us; we are talking to China. The world is responding to President Trump's tariffs. We are going to get a bunch of good trade deals. And I very much appreciate that.

What did he say about Iran?

You know, it's not complicated formula. Iran cannot have a

nuclear weapon. That's all there is.

That is moral clarity. You can understand that, no matter where you are at on the planet:

You know, it's not complicated formula. Iran cannot have a

nuclear weapon. That's all there is.

We are in talks with Iran. Whether or not they achieve a result, I don't know. I don't mind trying. I do know this: Time is not on our side. President Trump said we are going to end the nuclear program one way or the other. When he said it, I think the Iranians believed it; and when he says it, I believe it. And the best chance to stop the Iran nuclear program is with President Trump's leadership.

Moral clarity, again, regarding Russia and Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor. Russia must end this bloodbath now. He has talked about ending the bloodbath. I am saying, from my point of view, Russia is the aggressor. Ukraine, like every other Nation, is not perfect. But they have fought like tigers.

In 1994, 1998--I can't remember--they gave up 1,700 nuclear weapons, the Budapest Memorandum. In return, Russia, the United States, Great Britain promised territorial integrity. They gave up 1,700 nuclear weapons with a promise from these countries they would be safe territorially.

Russia has violated that promise numerous times. They are constantly

harassing their neighbors. This is the second invasion of Ukraine by Russia. They have a view Ukraine belongs to them. No, it doesn't. It belongs to the people of Ukraine, a sovereign nation. If you have a dispute with a country, there are ways to arbitrate land disputes.

Putin is trying to rewrite the map of Europe by force of arms. If he gets away with it, if he is seen to having been rewarded for, you will get more of this. There goes Taiwan. Russia is the aggressor. Russia must end this bloodbath. That is my view of this situation.

Let's look at history and see what happens when you have moral clarity and see what happens when you lose it. September 27, 1938. Here is what Chamberlain said:

How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be

digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a

quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know

nothing.

That was his view of what Hitler was doing. Why do we care? We don't know these people. We don't speak their language. That is not exactly moral clarity in the face of Nazi oppression:

However much we may sympathize with a small nation

confronted by a big and powerful neighbour, we cannot, in all

circumstances, undertake to involve the whole British Empire

in war simply on her account.

We know what that small country was. It led to the slaughter of 50 million people. It enticed Hitler to keep going, and Hitler told you what he was going to do. He wrote a book. Chamberlain, obviously, didn't read the book, and he didn't have the moral clarity to confront the Nazi regime. And a lot of people died.

September 30, 1938:

I believe it is peace for our time.

A paper signed by Adolf Hitler that he waved to the world. Less than a year later, the world is on fire. This is what happens when you don't realize what is going on. You misread evil. You think Hitler is something he is not. This is an example of not having moral clarity. It leads to a worldwide war.

Russia, the Soviet Union--this is an example of moral literacy, President John F. Kennedy:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,

that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any

hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the

survival and the success of liberty . . . When all are free,

then we can look forward to that day when this city will be

joined as one and this country and this great continent of

Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe.

He was talking about Berlin--moral clarity to the Soviet Union. He stood up for freedom, stood against the Soviet Empire.

And along comes my favorite, Ronald Reagan:

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

How clear could you be? On the other side of this wall is an evil empire that moral clarity, over time, brought the Soviet Union down to its knees.

Russia today, Putin's Russia, is an evil country oppressing his own people, harassing his neighbor, wanting to take things that are not theirs, wanting to recreate the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire. And they are using every terrible tactic in the military book--bombing civilians, killing people by tens of thousands.

So when it comes to Putin, we need to have moral clarity, as Reagan and Kennedy had with the Soviet Union. It is not enough to give speeches. These were great speeches. But what we did against the Soviet Union is we built up our military. Ronald Reagan went to ``Star Wars'' and they couldn't keep up. We not only opposed the Soviet Union rhetoric, we opposed it in capability.

What do we do now with Putin? How do we end this war? I am not out to humiliate Russia or Putin, but I am out to end this war soon--not later but soon--in a way not to start another war.

When we left Afghanistan dishonorably and disgracefully, it set in motion a belief that the United States will not stand by its allies and we are apparently weak. I believe that. And the Presiding Officer of the Senate understands what happens when politicians get it wrong. People like him, in his old job, pay a heavy price. They go all over the world fighting these guys because when we pulled out of Afghanistan, every jihadist was on steroids. Putin licked his chops and went into Ukraine and Iran, kept enriching, and sort of the rest is history. That was a horrible decision, and we are paying the price for it today.

To my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, if we don't get Ukraine- Russia right, it will be worse than Afghanistan. If it is seen, when this is all over, that Putin was rewarded for his aggression--I am not trying to humiliate Russia, but I am trying to make sure they are not rewarded in a way that China will be enticed to take Taiwan or Iran will believe we are all talk in the West when it comes to their nuclear capability, isolating Israel even further.

Speeches are important. Moral clarity is the right lens from which to look through regarding aggression and evil. But we have to do more than talk.

I appreciate President Trump's earnest effort to bring the parties together, to find a solution we can all live with, to keep an independent, sovereign Ukraine and end this war sooner rather than later. It is clear to me after all these months, the earnest efforts by President Trump are not being equally met. I think Zelenskyy is ready to make concessions to end this war. Putin seems to be more talking and less acting.

What can we do to up the ante? What can we do in the U.S. Senate to change the equation? What can we do to persuade Russia to get to the peace table?

We can impose bone-crushing sanctions on Putin's Russia. And he has earned that. I hate it for the Russian people, but it is now time to increase the cost of this war on Putin.

The sanctions packet that we have put together has 80 cosponsors. Do you know how hard it is to get 80 Senators to agree on anything? Eighty of us--and the number is climbing--are ready to impose sanctions on Russia if he does not come to the table and earnestly seek peace-- Putin.

And these sanctions are geared toward China. There are tariffs in these sanctions on any nation that buys Russian oil and gas from the shadow fleet. Putin's war machine is propped up by China and India buying Russian oil at a massive discount to keep the war machine and Putin running.

So what have we decided to do here? Focus on those causing the problem, not just Putin; focus on his customers.

Most of Europe has weaned themselves off of Russian oil and gas. That is a major advancement. But it is now time to let the Chinese know: If you want to be a normal country, act normal. If you want to have a better relationship with the United States and Europe, help us. Don't fuel the flames of a bloodbath. Don't buy cheap oil from a despot because you can with impunity. Those days of buying cheap oil from Putin with impunity are coming to a close.

We are going to act. And how we act and when we act will be a political exercise among the body, talking to the White House, and talking to our allies.

To China: I would like a better relationship. We have a lot of opportunity to grow our economies together. But if you keep supporting Putin and fueling his war machine, you will never have a normal relationship with the U.S. Senate.

To our friends in India: Watch what you are doing.

To my colleagues: Seldom do we have a chance to speak with one voice at such an important time. The entire world is watching the U.S. Senate.

I just got back from T rkiye with Secretary Rubio, who invited me to go. He allowed me to speak to every Foreign Minister of our NATO allies, talking about the Senate bill, telling them that the Senate is an independent body and that we are moving down the road to holding Putin accountable.

The world is watching the Senate in a way I haven't seen since I have been here. We have a chance, my colleagues, to help end this war. We have a chance to push Putin to the table. And if we fail as a world, not only does this war continue, but we are going to start new wars.

I have never been more proud of this body than I am right now. We have come together in a bipartisan fashion. There are a group of House Members who will take the Senate bill and sign a discharge petition. What does that mean? It is coming to the floor of the House no matter what.

So we stand ready. I am going to talk to the majority leader, talk to all of

my colleagues who have a say in how this bill moves forward, and I am going to urge them to get ready to act.

We have sat on the sidelines too long. We have watched too many people get slaughtered by Putin. We have put sanctions on, but they haven't worked the way they should.

What we are doing in the Senate is a game-changer. It will affect China, which provides the most fuel to Putin's war machine in a dramatic fashion.

To China: I don't want to do that. I will, if I have to. I want you to help us in this war. I am not looking to punish or destroy your economy or hurt our economy. I am looking to get a result here.

But I will end where I started: If we have to, we will.

President Kennedy said: ``We shall pay any price and bear any burden.'' He was right.

President Reagan said: ``Tear down this wall''; end this evil empire.

Sometimes, freedom comes at a heavy price. The Ukrainians are paying that price, and I am so proud of them. They are fighting like tigers, and they are dying by the thousands. And they are not going to quit no matter what we do--nor should they.

This is a moment of reckoning. This is a moment that matters. All of us got to the Senate, and it is not an easy path to take to get elected to this body. But now you are here, and you have a chance, my colleagues, to make a real difference, to make this world safer and more peaceful.

Let's not shirk the responsibility history has put upon us. This is a historical moment. Let's rise to the occasion like those before us. Let's have moral clarity when it comes to Putin. Let's do more than talk. Let's act.

I will yield to Senator Ernst, who has been a champion for getting a good outcome for Ukraine and the world.

I very much appreciate all you have done in this cause.

Mr. President, H. Con. Res. 14, the fiscal year 2025 congressional budget resolution, included an instruction to 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. On April 5, 2025, the Senate amended and adopted H. Con. Res. 14, and on April 10, the House agreed to the amended resolution without changes. As such, I am submitting the required filing.

Specifically, section 4002 of the fiscal year 2025 congressional budget resolution requires the chairman to file an allocation for fiscal year 2025 for the Committee on Appropriations and an allocation for fiscal years 2025, 2025-2029, and 2025-2034 for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations.

The figures in the filing are consistent with the spending limits set forth in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 and the levels included in H. Con. Res. 14, as adjusted for the budgetary effects of recent legislation, pursuant to section 4006 of the resolution.

Adjustments were included for the budgetary effects of the following enacted legislation: Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2025, H.R. 1968, and Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service relating to ``Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales,'' H.J. Res. 25.

Section 2002 of the fiscal year 2025 budget resolution included reconciliation instructions to six Senate committees to increase the deficit by not more than a given amount. Pursuant to section 3001 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, I am resetting the Senate's scorecard to zero for all fiscal years.

The 2025 congressional budget resolution's budgetary levels and the budget baseline used to enforce it reflect current tax policy and assume provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are permanently extended. I am also including in this filing the Joint Committee on Taxation's estimate of the budgetary effects of these current tax policy adjustments relative to the Congressional Budget Office's unmodified baseline.

The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation will provide cost estimates of legislation using both the budget resolution baseline and CBO's unmodified baseline.

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