Floor Statements

Mr. President, the following Senators join me in this statement: Tim Scott, Bill Hagerty, Marsha Blackburn, Thom Tillis, Ted Budd, and John Boozman. The day after Christmas, when both Houses of Congress were in recess, the Biden administration released a final rule setting new energy efficiency standards for tankless water heaters. Like any last-minute rule from the previous administration, this effort was ill-advised and ill-timed. It should not, and cannot, stand.

However, the enactment of H.J. Res. 20, which provides for congressional disapproval of the rule titled Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters, will create a structural imbalance. This imbalance results from the Biden administration's issuance of an efficiency rule for commercial tank and tankless water heaters in October of 2023, as well as residential tank-filled water heaters in April 2024, neither of which could be overturned by the Congressional Review Act because it was unlikely to achieve a veto-proof majority in the Senate. Through rulemaking, the Department of Energy should write new rules to address this regulatory imbalance, whereby traditional tank water heaters and commercial gas-fired instantaneous and tank water heaters continue to be subject to regulatory standards.

This structural imbalance, if not addressed, will result in an uneven competitive marketplace for water heater manufacturing and sales. While the enactment of the resolution may limit the Department of Energy from issuing a substantially similar rule, there remains a need to rectify the regulatory misalignment. Accordingly, we strongly encourage the Department of Energy, with input from congressional leaders and affected industry partners, to use its rulemaking authority to ensure that regulatory standards for consumer and commercial gas-fired water heating equipment are aligned, thereby removing any market imbalance.

Mr. President, I have a different view on this. To my good friend from Oregon, who has been a real gentleman to work with-- and you have great staff, and I appreciate our ability to work together. But we have a little different view of what we are doing here tonight, so I am going to give you our side of the story. I have charts too. I never thought I would have a chart, but I have one.

We are trying to do sort of four things tonight: Start a process that we can make the tax cuts permanent; give money to the Department of Homeland Security to continue to secure our border; cut trillions of dollars of waste, which does exist; and support our military.

Now, the bill tonight, the resolution, opens up that process that will be done by the House and the Senate authorizing committees. So this doesn't do anything other than start the game, and it is time this game started.

Now, what is in this for you if you are not a billionaire? Which I am not. If we do nothing, if we do nothing, the 2017 President Trump tax cuts expire in December. None of them voted for it. They are going to expire, and what does that mean to you? Six million jobs will be lost. The average taxpayer would see a 22-percent tax hike if the tax cuts expire. A family of four making $80,610--the median income in the United States--would see a $1,695 tax increase if they expire this December. This is worth about 9 weeks of groceries. Forty million families would see their household child tax credit cut in half.

If any of you all are listening out there that is not a billionaire, you might want to keep listening. If this expires, you are going to get hit hard, and we don't want that.

Twenty-six million small businesses would be hit with a 43.4-percent top tax rate if section 199A of the small business deduction expires. Well, why do I know about that one? I can't walk 5 feet in South Carolina without somebody begging me to make sure that expensing and deductions and accelerated depreciation don't go away, because they run a business.

Our friends over there run the government. That is all they know. They are very good at making it bigger; not very good at making it efficient. There is no amount of money that is enough for these folks.

So if you are looking for that crowd over there to cut your taxes, you are looking in the wrong direction. I have about a hundred years to prove that point.

The point I am trying to make is these tax cuts expiring matter to real people raising a family and trying to run a business, particularly small businesses. This would be devastating. We are not going to let that happen.

Now, if you are waiting for this crowd, our friends on the other side, to cut spending, you are going to die waiting.

Now, we have a chance as Republicans, if we pass this resolution tonight, to cut spending and make the tax cuts permanent without one Democratic vote. It is called reconciliation.

To my Republican friends who may be watching, four times in the last 100 years, the Republicans had the House, the Senate, and the White House. This doesn't happen a lot. But with that construct, through reconciliation, what we are starting here tonight if we get 50 plus 1, we can make the tax cut permanent and cut spending without one Democratic vote.

This is what they used--our Democratic friends--to pass ObamaCare, all the spending around infrastructure spending, the Inflation Reduction Act, which really didn't do much to reduce inflation. They have done this, and we are going to do it a different way. They did it to grow the government; we are going to do it in a way to get more money back to you. And we are going to look at the budget we have up here and see if we can find a way to save some money. Don't you think it is time that we looked at the budget up here like you look at your budget? We are going to do that.

We are going to secure our border. We don't talk enough about this. In this package, there is $175 billion that will allow the Trump administration to finish the wall.

Now, President Trump said during the State of the Union Address: The Democrats said we needed new laws; we just really needed a new President.

We got a new President, and the flow has really almost stopped--one of the most amazing things that we don't talk enough about. But we want to make sure that it doesn't come back on again, so this bill gives the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, Tom Homan, $175 billion to finish the wall and to find more detention bedspace--40,000 to 125,000--so we don't have to let people go.

Laken Riley was killed by an illegal immigrant. He was released because they had no bedspace. We don't ever want to do that again. We are going to build enough detention beds so we don't have to release anybody. I think most people like that.

We are going to hire more ICE agents to kick the gang members and the crooks out faster so we can get control of our country and our security.

This bill allows $175 billion. That is enough for the entire 4 years--if Republicans stick together.

So, as a Republican, if you said you want to cut waste, you want to cut people's taxes, and you want to secure the border, your ship has come in.

What is near and dear to my heart, like most everybody here, including our Democratic friends, is supporting our military. Well, the budget agreement we reached a few years ago was terrible. The continuing resolution to fund the government through September is below that number. We are spending below inflation on our military.

In case you haven't missed it, the world is literally on fire. So this bill gives the Pentagon $150 billion right now to help them upgrade their capability to deal with threats like Iran getting a nuclear weapon. This is good stuff, and the only thing standing between you and this good stuff is a vote tonight, continuing a process in the House and the Senate to make it a reality. But if we don't get it right tonight, all this dies. All of this opportunity dies if Republicans don't stick together. And you know what. We will.

All right. So now all this stuff about being the Budget chairman. What did I do? Well, I made a decision. Last time I checked, if you win an election, you get to make decisions. I am the Budget chairman. It has been a lot of fun. I have learned a lot, I can tell you that.

So in the 1974 Budget Control Act, when it comes to spending, you never have to offset it. Anything above $50 million in spending, you can use current policy, which is a budget-scoring device that just assumes everything goes forever--no offsets.

It is my belief that when it comes to tax reductions, I, as the Budget chairman, can apply that same concept, called current policy, to the budget on this floor, and I will do that. I have done that.

Now, what does that mean? If we are able to do for taxes what we have done for spending, that means the tax cuts never expire again, and you don't have this cliff putting everybody at risk. That means if we pass what we have put together in the Budget Committee--and Senator Marshall is a member of the committee. We passed a really good proposal to make sure that these tax cuts that we are going to reauthorize stay in place so people throughout the country can count on some certainty when it comes to tax credits for their children, deductions, expensing for their businesses, and having lower rates.

I did it, I am proud to do it, and my Democratic friends who are hollering and screaming have done it, too, but it always relates to spending.

Judd Gregg, who is a good friend of ours--one of the smartest guys I have ever met--was on the Budget Committee. He and Kent Conrad were a great team.

There was a question: Can the farm bill be added to the baseline?

Here is what Judd Greg said about a Democrat's ability to do that: The

chairman of the Budget Committee declared a new baseline under a new budget. The budget chairman has a right to do that.

The budget chairman changed the baseline to accommodate the farm bill. I am declaring current policy to make sure the tax cuts stay in place.

When there was an inquiry of a Parliamentarian about whose job it is to declare the baseline, this was what Judd Gregg asked: Who is the proper scorer of points of order relative to revenues and expenses?

Here is what was said:

The Senator is entitled to an answer under the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, Determinations and Points

of Order, section 312.

Budget Committee Determinations.

For purposes of this title and title IV, the levels [for

measuring] budget authority outlays, direct spending, new

entitlement authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall

be determined on the basis of the estimates made by the

Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives or

the Senate, as applicable.

That is us. That is me.

They asked that question in 2008, and that is what they said. Judd Gregg said it is the Budget Committee chairman's authority to determine the baseline, and that is what I did.

Ok. And even Bernie agreed, so we don't need to overly dwell on that.

This is what the law says: Revenues and spending ``shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as applicable.''

That is us. We are elected officials. And wouldn't it be odd if you wrote a law and managed a law that nobody voted for? That makes like zero sense.

All right. So bottom line: Tax cuts are going to be permanent. It will help the economy.

And when it comes to estimating what happens around here, CBO--great people--JCT, Joint Committee on Taxation, they make estimates. The one thing they have been consistent about is being wrong when it comes to tax revenue. They have got it wrong, like, every time. So if history is any guide to what has happened in the past, we are going to get more revenue by cutting taxes. Why do I know that? Because it always happens.

What happens all the time too? When we get the new money, we spend it faster than we get it. That is going to stop. If you live in the real world, you get a pay raise; that is a great thing. But if you spend it all and then some, you go right back in debt.

So we are going to do two things. We are going to start a process that would allow the tax cuts to be permanent to give the economy certainty to grow, to create more revenue, to help the government do what it needs to do, and we are going to cut spending to make sure that we lower the amount we are spending--because we are spending too much-- with the hope of one day doing this: balancing the budget.

I said it. I have not been struck dead yet.

Our goal, to the American people, is to create more revenue and lower spending to balance the budget like you do.

Now we don't do this in this resolution, but we start the process because we are $30-some trillion in debt.

The only thing between the tax cuts being permanent, having money to secure the border, helping the military and--what is the other thing that we are going to do?--cutting spending, is a vote tonight. Sometime after midnight--before breakfast, I hope--we will have a vote in the U.S. Senate that would trigger a process to do these four things.

I am proud of the Budget Committee. We have worked hard. I am proud of Leader Thune, who has pushed this process forward. I appreciate the cooperation to the extent they can do it on the other side. We have a philosophical difference. I totally understand that. But we have chosen a different path, and a major step along that path will occur later tonight.

And if we get this right, by Memorial Day, it is my fervent hope and prayer--and I just talked to President Trump--that we can pass ``one big beautiful bill'' that makes the 2017 tax cuts permanent and even more, tax on tips for all those people working out there as waiters and waitresses.

We have a chance here to look at the Federal budget, line by line, to make sure things end there that make no sense and are taken out to save you money. And, boy, we are going to have some fun tonight talking about those things.

And if you believe securing the border is a good thing and what we are doing is the right thing, by Memorial Day, we will have fully funded what President Trump needs for all 4 years. That will be amazing.

And if you are in the military, money is coming your way to help you do your job, to make sure the rest of us are safe, and we are going to fix the problem of the continuing resolution by giving the military less than inflation at a time when the world's literally on fire. So if we can get it right tonight, by Memorial Day, I am hoping and praying that the men and women in uniform will have $150 billion that they desperately need to do their job and to stay safe.

This is the most important thing I have done yet in the Senate in my view. I have set in motion, along with my colleagues--and if there is ever a team sport, it is politics--the ability to do something that we haven't done before: make taxes and spending the same in terms of policy. Quit playing this game that the American people lose.

You will not lose a dollar revenue if we make these tax cuts permanent. You will get more money. But if you keep spending more and more, that doesn't matter. But if you get more revenue and you cut spending, one day we will be on a glide path to balance this budget. It is my fervent desire to do that, and President Trump wants to do that. Let it be said that that starts tonight.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my good friend from Oregon, you never put a point of order in your own resolutions, and we are not going to do it either. If you are really serious about trying to control spending, you need to start controlling spending. So there are two things we are trying to do here: Set in motion controlling spending by looking at the budget with the eye of reducing spending, and we are trying to make the tax cuts permanent because every time we cut taxes, revenue goes up. We just spend too much.

So we got a novel idea. We are going to increase revenue by cutting your taxes. We are going to control spending, and that is why they don't like this because they don't like doing either one of those.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of H. Con. Res. 14, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2025, the majority and the Democratic managers of the resolution, while seated or standing at the managers' desk, to be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text displayed on wireless personal assistant devices and tablet devices.

I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators--and I know we still have them--be permitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution; further, that the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the resolution, if necessary, consistent with amendments adopted during Senate consideration, including calculating the associated change in the net interest function and incorporating the effect of such adopted amendments on the budgetary aggregates for Federal revenue, the amount by which the Federal revenue should be changed, new budget authority, budget outlays, deficits, public debt, and debt held by the public.

Mr. President, further, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote during consideration of H. Con. Res. 14.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 1717.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that for purposes of debate time this evening, that all time be yielded off the resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff members: Caitlin Wilson, Lilly Meadows, Scott Graber, Mike Jones, Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, Josh Smith, and Tyler Evilsizer--sorry about that, Tyler; you know who you are. I didn't mean to butcher your name. I ask that all the staff on the list from Senator Merkley's staff be given all-access floor passes to the Senate floor during consideration of H. Con. Res. 14.

Madam President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits. In addition, sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and revise allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments.

The Senate will soon consider H.R. 1968, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025. The measure provides full-year appropriations for 2025 and contains spending that qualifies for cap adjustments under BBEDCA.

First, H.R. 1968 includes appropriations designated as emergency funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of BBEDCA. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill's emergency-designated spending amounts to $12,375 million in nonsecurity budget authority and $8,600 million in associated outlays in 2025.

Second, the measure also includes $22,884 million in nonsecurity discretionary budget authority designated for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of BBEDCA. This budget authority is expected to result in $963 million in outlays in 2025.

Third, the measure includes appropriations for certain program integrity activities that qualify for adjustments pursuant to sections 251(b)(2)(B), 251(b)(2)(C), and 251(b)(2)(E) of BBEDCA. The adjustments for these activities amount to $2,531 million in nonsecurity budget authority and $1,894 million in resulting outlays for 2025.

Finally, H.R. 1968 includes $2,750 million in nonsecurity budget authority for wildfire suppression operations pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(F) of BBEDCA, which is associated with $945 million in outlays.

In total, the adjustments for H.R. 1968 amount to $40,540 million in nonsecurity budget authority and $12,402 million in outlays.

I am also filing adjustments to reflect the emergency designations in two bills enacted last year: the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, P.L. 118-83, and the American Relief Act, 2025, P.L. 118-158. Together, the emergency-designated appropriations in these bills increase security category budget authority by $11,775 million, nonsecurity category budget authority by $105,395 million, and total outlays by $26,511 million.

Consequently, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised security budget authority by $11,775 million, revised nonsecurity budget authority by $145,935 million, and outlays by $38,913 million in fiscal year 2025. I am also increasing the budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2025 by $157,374 million in budget authority and $38,611 million in outlays.

I ask unanimous consent that this notice and the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, my colleagues will soon be starting what is commonly called a vote-arama. If you have never been in one, it is OK. But know it is a chance to have a spirited discussion and debate about policy and about the budget resolution.

So what has happened here is that the Budget Committee reported out S. Con. Res. 7. That will allow, through the reconciliation process, the spending of money and the reduction of spending based on different committees.

This resolution allows for $175 billion of border and immigration policy enhancements, but it doesn't spend a penny. It allows the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee to come up with an up-to $175 billion plan to secure our border and do immigration reform.

And what will happen is that those two committees will work with the Trump administration to meet their priorities. There is nothing in this resolution directing one dime of spending, and no spending bill can be implemented without Presidential signature. So I want to make sure that is clear.

There is $150 billion in increased defense spending. Why? Because we have a lot of threats.

Since the withdrawal of Afghanistan, radical Islam is on the rise. We have got a hot war with Russia and Ukraine. Israel is facing enemies on seven sides. We have provided weapons to allies in Ukraine and Israel. We have run out of 155 howitzer rounds. We have got to reinforce our industrial base. We need more money into our military yesterday to make sure that we can deter a war, and, if we get into a war, we win it.

So the $150 billion will be allocated by the Armed Services Committee. We don't direct how the $150 billion is spent. We just allow the Armed Services Committee to spend that much, if they choose. They decide what to spend it on.

So this idea that there is somehow money in this resolution for Ukraine or any other specific purpose is not true. All we do is create a number for the committees to mark up to, and it is up to the committee as to what is in the $150 billion package.

And to all the colleagues here, you eventually get to vote on that work product, and, if you don't like it, you can vote no. And, eventually, that work product will have to be signed by the President. So that is the way the process works.

What we are doing today is jump-starting a process that will allow the Republican Party to meet President Trump's immigration agenda through the reconciliation process. And the Democrats chose this very process to pass ObamaCare and the Inflation Reduction Act.

We are going to use it to secure our border. We are not going to grow the government just for the sense of growing the government. We are not going to create a Green New Deal. We are going to create border security transformational in nature.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to embark on a plan to jump-start the most transformational border security bill in the history of the United States because we need it yesterday. We have had 11 million people come to this country illegally. Fentanyl kills 3,000 Americans every 2 weeks. It comes across that southern border.

We are running out of detention space to hold people. Tom Homan, the border czar, came to the Republican Senate last week or 2 weeks ago and said that ICE is out of money. This resolution jump-starts the process to get Tom Homan the money he needs to fulfill the promises we made, to build more detention beds so you don't have to let people go. Laken Riley's murderer was in detention and released because of lack of bed space and wound up killing the young lady. That should never happen again. When you are detained, we should hold you and process you according to law, not release you. We need more detention beds.

We need to finish the wall. This $175 billion will be allocated by the committees in question, and it will allow President Trump to finish the wall, secure the border, and deport criminals.

ICE is out of money.

If you think it is a good idea to go after the criminal gangs that have come here over the years illegally, then you are right.

To my Democratic colleagues, you should be working with us, not against us. Everybody should want to clean up the mess of the last 4 years. Everybody should want to go after criminal gangs. Everybody should want to secure the border because it is a national security nightmare. And nobody should want the dilemma of a nation having to let somebody go who could potentially be dangerous because you have no place to put them.

This $175 billion will allow for the most transformational border security bill in the history of the country at a time of great need.

The $150 billion will be allocated by the Armed Services Committee. They will decide what to spend it on. There is a lot of modernization we need of our nuclear triad fleet. We need more weapons. Our stockpile is low. There are a bunch of things we can spend $150 billion, but we will let the Armed Services Committee decide those priorities.

When it comes to border security--the $175 billion plan--the committees of jurisdiction will allocate that money, not this resolution. But without this resolution, we can't move forward.

Why is this resolution important? Without this bill passing, S. Con. Res. 7, there is no hope getting money for the border the way it needs to be done. Without this resolution passing tonight or early tomorrow, we are not

going to get any money for the military without having to negotiate nonmilitary spending increases.

We don't have a lack-of-spending problem in our country; we have spent way too much on things that don't matter enough. Part of this process will be committees finding offsets, reducing spending.

So we are telling the Armed Services Committee: Spend $150 billion the way you see fit. We are telling two committees to spend $175 billion to secure our border. We are telling seven other committees: Find savings inside your committee to offset the spending we are creating in this bill.

I think they can do that. I think what DOGE is doing is good. This is a form of that.

Every committee that has been instructed to save at least $1 billion will be able finally to go into the committee itself, see what they spend on, and reduce spending because we are directing them to.

My hope is that the $342 billion we are going to spend to secure our border, help the military, and enhance the Coast Guard will be offset with $342 billion of cuts in other parts of the government. We can do it, but this resolution has to pass or we won't do it.

I am highly confident that the Republican chairmen of the committees in question will deliver. I am highly confident that we can find savings in the government to offset the spending we are creating.

The Democratic Party used this process for their Green New Deal. They used this process for ObamaCare. We are using this process to help our military, who needs help, to secure a border that has been broken, and to enhance the Coast Guard. That is the difference. We are doing things that need to be done to make us safe.

Mr. President, 3,000 Americans die every 2 weeks because fentanyl comes across the border. We are going to fix that.

Since President Trump has been in office, border crossings have gone down by 90 percent. We want to reinforce this success. We want to finish that wall. We want to make sure we never release another person in this country because we don't have a bed. We are going to make sure the criminal gangs keep leaving, not staying because ICE doesn't have enough money.

Why are we doing this? Because Tom Homan and Mr. Vought, the head of OMB, told us 2 weeks ago that we are out of money to finish the job President Trump started.

To my House colleagues: I prefer one big beautiful bill that makes the tax cuts permanent, that does the things we need to do on the border and with our military and cuts spending. I wish you all the best. I prefer what you are doing to what we are doing, but we have to have a plan B if you can't get it done soon.

What is the Senate doing? We have decided to front-end load security. We want to cut taxes. We want to make the tax cuts permanent. We are going to work with our House colleagues to do that. They expire at the end of the year, but we have time to do that.

It is the view of the Republican Senate that when it comes to border security, we need not fail. We should have the money now to keep the momentum going. When it comes to the Republican Senate, we believe the military needs money now because the world is on fire.

To my House colleagues: We will all get there together. If you can pass the one big beautiful bill that makes the tax cuts permanent--not 4, 5 years--then we will all cheer over here. Nothing would please me more than Speaker Johnson being able to put together the bill that President Trump wants. I want that to happen, but I cannot sit on the sidelines and not have a plan B.

This Nation is under threat. The illegal immigrants who have come here by the millions need to be sent back by the millions. The border needs to be secured. The wall needs to be finished. We need more detention space. We need to upgrade our military capability now.

The reason we are doing it now is because we were told ICE is out of money now.

I am hoping the House can deliver, but I am very confident that in the Senate, early in the morning, Republicans--not one Democrat vote-- will set in motion a process that will transform our border security to the most modern, aggressive border security plan in the history of the country, north and south; that it will set in motion $175 billion of new spending to secure the border in a way that has never been achieved in the past.

If this resolution fails, God help us all. If this resolution passes, help is on the way.

If you believe that America needs to be serious about securing our border, this bill gets the job done. If you believe the military needs to be stronger, not weaker, at a time of threat, this bill gets it done. If you believe the Coast Guard needs more capability to deal with drugs and national security threats, this bill delivers. This is a security bill.

This is a bill that will combat fentanyl killing Americans. There are more Americans dying every 2 weeks from fentanyl than on 9/11. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans--young and old but mostly young--have died from fentanyl poisoning coming across that southern border. We are going to go after those cartels. I am confident that President Trump is the new sheriff in town that we need. But without resources, it won't work.

Tom Homan came to us and begged us for money to continue the plan he has enacted to get gangs out of this country, to secure that border, and to add more detention space.

Tom, we heard you. We are going to meet your needs.

I am excited about this debate. I am excited about Republican-led chairmen finding ways to reduce spending to pay for this.

This is a big deal, folks. The Republican Party is going to go all in on border security. We are going to upgrade our defense capability, and we are going to pay for it.

Has anybody at home ever had to pick between two things? You couldn't do everything. You couldn't have it all. You had to spend because your child got sick or hurt, and you had to cut somewhere else because there wasn't enough money to do both. We are going to set priorities. If you have a sick child or something bad in your family happens, that goes first. That means you have to pick somewhere else--except in Washington.

That model is over. We are going to start a new way of doing business. We are going to spend on things that need to be done and should be done by the Federal Government to keep us safe, and we are going to offset it by reducing spending in areas that are not as important.

I am excited about this process. I urge my colleagues to come down on both sides of the aisle and participate in this debate. This is what I was elected to do, I think--make America safe and prosperous and do it in a fiscally responsible way. The idea that we are going to actually offset spending is a great day. We are going to deliver.

This is going to go into the night. Our Democratic colleagues are going to have a chance to offer a lot of amendments to our approach. They will want this and they will want that. What breaks my heart is they don't see the value what we are trying to do.

Every American should want more money going into DHS to secure our border. Every American should want more capability in the hands of the military at a time of great threat. But we can't get there. We can't reach common ground on those issues. So we are going to use the process they used. They used the process to create ObamaCare, the Green New Deal, and the Inflation Reduction Act. We are going to use that very same process to make the cartel's life miserable, to go after criminal gangs, to finish the wall, upgrade the capability of the Coast Guard, and make our military the most lethal it has been since Ronald Reagan, and we are going to pay for it all.

In a bit, I will read a script that starts the process.

To the Senator from Ohio, the Presiding Officer, this is why you came. This is what you promised to do. I was on the campaign with you, and you looked your voters in the eye and said: We are going to do things different. We are going to secure our border, we are stop the fentanyl from poisoning your kids, and we are going to be serious about fiscal responsibility. We are going to pay for all of this.

Mr. President, you have a chance here to do what you promised you would do.

All of us on this side of the aisle--people are counting on us. They are counting on this Republican majority to deal with the mess that has been created for the last 4 years. They are counting on this Republican majority to give the President the money he needs to do the job that he promised to do. And we are going to deliver. We are going to do it, and we are going to do it tonight. If it is 5 o'clock in the morning--I don't care how long it takes--we are going to deliver, and we are going to pay for everything we do.

In a little bit, in a small period of time, around 5 o'clock, we are going to start this process. This is a big deal, folks. This is not just business as usual in Washington; this is a different way of doing business.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have two unanimous consent requests. I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of S. Con. Res. 7, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2025, the majority and the Democratic managers of the resolution, while seated or standing at the managers' desk, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text displayed on a wireless personal assistance device and tablet devices.

I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution; further, that the staff be permitted to make technical

and conforming changes to the resolution, if necessary, consistent with amendments adopted during Senate consideration, including calculating the associated change in the net interest function and incorporating the effect of such adopted amendments on the budgetary aggregates for Federal revenue, the amount by which the Federal revenue should be changed, new budget authority, budget outlays, deficits, public debt and debt held by the public.

Further, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote during consideration of S. Con. Res. 7.

Madam President, yeah, this is a big-time no. They are rewriting the budget resolution. They want to take half of the $342 billion and spend it on things not related to what we want to do.

We want to secure the border. We want to give President Trump $175 billion to secure the border through Homeland Security and Judiciary, and we will figure out how to spend it. We want to do $150 billion for defense because the world is on fire. We want to do $20 billion for the Coast Guard to help us become safer.

They are rewriting the resolution. They are taking half the money we have dedicated for border security and defense and spending it on more nondefense stuff. We are tired of that. We are not going to do that anymore. We are going to defend America in this resolution. We are not going to take half the money and spend it on more social spending. We are going to defend our border. We are going to make the military more lethal, and we are going to help the Coast Guard, and we are going to pay for it--something you would never do. So vote no.

Vote on Amendment No. 878

Mr. President, to my colleagues, it has been a very long day. To the Budget Committee staff, Nick and your team, thank you very much.

Through this process, I have gotten to know Senator Merkley better. It has been a pleasure.

We are one step closer to fixing a problem that all Americans want us to fix, I think. The man who murdered Laken Riley was released from detention because we had no bed space. That should never happen again. There is $175 billion in this bill to make sure we have enough bed space; we complete, finish the wall, and kick gang members and other criminals out of the country; $150 billion for a military that has been worn out--they need the money; and $20 billion for the mighty, mighty Coast Guard.

We are one step closer to fulfilling the promise Republicans made to make you safer. I hope we can get one big, beautiful bill in the House, but we need to act on border security and national security now. We are running out of time.

Thank you all.

This bill will be paid for.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Katherine Nikas, Caitlin Wilson, Lillian Meadows, and Walker Truluck from my staff, and Mike Jones, Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, Josh Smith, and Tyler Evilsizer from Senator Merkley's staff be granted floor privileges during the consideration of S. Con. Res. 7.

Mr. President, rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. Today, the Committee on the Budget adopted committee rules of procedure.

Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the rules of procedure of the Committee on the Budget printed in the Congressional Record.

Madam President, I want to show my support for what my colleague just said, Senator Risch, who made perfect sense. This is a consequential vote, and we all know how it is going to end, but let me tell you why it is consequential.

A lot of people are watching what we are doing here today, and they are trying to get a signal to understand, like, where we are all coming from. Let me tell you where I am coming from. I am coming from the idea that, if you want to end the war between Israel and the Palestinians, we need to replace Hamas with somebody who doesn't want to kill all the Jews.

Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, killing more Jews than at any time since the Holocaust. What were they up to in their pledge to destroy the Jewish State? They are religious Nazis. If you don't believe me, listen to what they have said. It was barbaric. They slaughtered entire families. They decapitated children. They raped women in front of their own families. And they filmed it to create hard hearts throughout the world and the region. The Nazis hid their crimes. Hamas filmed it so you could see it. Why?

October 7, in large part--not completely--was designed to stop efforts to have Saudi Arabia and Israel recognize each other and virtually end the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I have been to the region seven or eight times since October 7. I went with a group of five Republicans and five Democrats right after October 7 to deliver two messages. I went to Saudi Arabia, the biggest power in the Islamic world, and I went to Israel.

To our friends in Israel, I said: We will give you--at least from my view--the ability to make sure there is no second Holocaust. And the weapons we have provided to Israel have resulted in the destruction of Hamas.

There is no way forward for the Palestinians until you reform the P.A., which is run by a bunch of corrupt old guys, and make sure Hamas never comes back.

The most radicalized population on the planet are the young people in Gaza. From the time they are born to the time they die, they are taught to hate and kill the Jews. Look at their education system. How do we change that? Somebody other than Israel has to come in and take over Gaza and reform the West Bank and give the Palestinians a better life. It will not be the United States. We can't do that. It certainly isn't going to be Israel. Well, who would it be? It would be the Arab world.

The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has a vision for his country and the region that I buy into. We have had our problems in the past, for sure, but women can drive, which is a big thing, even though it doesn't sound like it. Women can go out to dinner without a male escort. It doesn't sound like a big thing, but it really is, and 38 percent of the people working in Saudi Arabia are young women. So he has a vision to change his country and to build on the Abraham Accords.

President Trump and his team were able to get six Arab nations to recognize Israel--the United Arab Emirates and others--which was a huge deal, and we have a chance to build on it.

So, for the last 2\1/2\ years, I have been going over to Saudi Arabia and Israel, working with the Biden administration, to try to build out the Abraham Accords. The big prize would be to have Saudi Arabia make peace with Israel, take over Gaza and the West Bank with other people in the region, and give the Palestinians a better life: rebuild Gaza; create an honest government to replace a corrupt government; give them sovereignty, self-government, the ability to live dignified lives; and to give Israel security.

October 7 was designed by Hamas to stop what was imminent. I am here to tell you that, on October 6, by the way, there were discussions about how to roll out the normalization deal. Then, along comes October 7. Ever since that day, we have been dealing with this horrible situation--the rape and torture and destruction of 1,200 Jewish people, the response by Israel that has resulted in thousands of people being killed--a lot of terrorists but a lot of children, a lot of innocent people.

There are a lot of photos being presented.

I ask unanimous consent to display two photos, if I may.

This is a photo of Hiroshima--two photos, actually. This is what happens when you drop a nuclear weapon on people. It is not good.

Now, why did we do that? After Pearl Harbor, we and the civilized world went to war against the Nazis and Imperial Japan. Millions of people lost their lives, but it was the goal of the United States to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and we were able to do that.

Out of the ashes of that terrible, horrible war, we now have two democracies. Japan and Germany are good allies of the United States. They are productive members of the international community. It took a generation-plus to change the radicalization of the German population to the Nazis and the same in Imperial Japan.

What will happen is, if we can find normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel, there will be hope for the Palestinians like I have not seen before. Those who want a two-state solution, we have to sit down and talk about how you do that after October 7. But I do believe that without resolving the Palestinian issue where the Palestinian people have a hopeful life versus a glorious death, we will never move forward.

I really do believe, after October 7, Israel needs security more than ever. What is the key? The Arabs. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, I think, hold the key to this. If we could create a political horizon over the arc of time for the Palestinians that you will have self-governance, that you will be independent, and convince the Israelis that this new entity will not threaten you, that there could never be another Oct 7, then we are well on our way to a new region. This resolution today, no matter how sincere, undercuts all of this.

Israel has had to respond to an attack that was the most vicious since World War II against the Jewish people. I blame Hamas more than any other group for the loss of life in Gaza because they use their own people as human shields.

This commitment of the United States to give Israel what they need to win a war they can't afford to lose has to be uncompromising, but what is not uncompromising is the day after.

We are getting to the point now that, with the destruction of Hamas, we have to think about, how can we prevent them from coming back? Israel cannot occupy Gaza. The West Bank needs to be reformed, but it has to be done with the Arab world leading the charge.

So what I would like to do with President Biden before he leaves office is work with President Trump, the incoming President, and President Biden, the outgoing President, to see if we can find a solution. Can we lock down a normalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel that protects Saudi Arabia, a defense agreement with the United States so they will be in our column and they will have an anecdote to Iranian aggression? Can we, as a part of that, create a political horizon for the Palestinians to have hope where there is despair? Yes, we can.

But now is not the time to send this signal. This signal will be seen by the enemies of Israel and the enemies of peace that if they just stick with it, they will win.

If you want peace, you have to destroy those who hate peace. This is not a Bibi problem; this is a problem where the Islamic terrorists-- Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran--want to kill all of the Jews, not just Bibi. Now, why do they want to do that? They are religious Nazis. I don't know why Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews, but he did.

So the Ayatollah has a couple of things in mind: the purification of Islam, which means that Sunni Islam will bend to his will--if you don't believe me, ask the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. The other goal is to destroy the Jewish State and to drive us out of the Mideast.

The religious doctrine of the Shiites in charge compel them to kill all of the Jews. It is a commandment from God. Here is what I know: That is not what Islam teaches most Muslims, but they believe it. And when we ignored Hitler, we did so not only at our own peril but the peril of millions of people.

What have I learned from Israel? When someone threatens to kill you because you are of a particular race or religion, you should take that seriously.

So how do we end this conflict? We end this conflict with the complete decimation of Hamas, a plan for the day after that will replace Hamas in Gaza, reform the PA, try to get a cease-fire in Lebanon, and reduce the impact that Hezbollah has on the Lebanese people.

All of the Shiite, Iranian-backed militia have as their goal disruption, upheaval, and tyranny. They want to control the region and remake it in their own image. Look at what they are doing in Syria. Look at what they are doing in Yemen. Look at what they are doing in Lebanon.

We have a historic opportunity here to give Israel what they need to finish a war they can't afford to lose, come up with a day-after plan that would replace Hamas with a better life, try to get Lebanon in a better space, and build on the Abraham Accords. This effort by my colleagues undercuts all of that.

You have every right to say anything you want to say in this body, but I have been there a lot, and none of you have gone with me. Making peace is hard. We have not done this together. I have been with Senator Van Hollen to Israel. I have been with Senator Van Hollen before in the region. I think he wants to help the Palestinians, and I don't think he is anti-Semitic. I just think there is an opportunity here.

It is not about Bibi, folks; it is about a strain of Islam that will kill every Jew, including Bibi, and come after us unless they are defeated.

So my goal is not only to reject this idea but to work with President Biden and President Trump and their teams before the next President takes office, to have a day-after plan that will allow Israel to withdraw, and there will be no more October 7ths, and allow Gaza and the West Bank to be rebuilt with dignity and hope. That is my goal. This resolution undercuts my goal.

I would urge you to vote no.

I will be going back next week to Saudi Arabia, and I am going to keep working with the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration to the last hour, to the last minute of the last day to find a solution.

I would end with this: If we fail to find a day-after plan that allows Israel to withdraw and be secure, and fail to deliver a political horizon for the Palestinians, God help us all. This will repeat itself. Iran will come back. Hezbollah and Hamas will reemerge.

We have a moment in time to change the region and change the world. I would ask all of us to see that moment in this resolution, this counter to what I am trying to achieve. So I would urge a ``no'' vote because peace and a dignified life for the Palestinians rests with a viable day-after plan.

What is the proper response to people who want to kill you and your family and destroy your way of life? I can tell you what the United States did. We went to war. We dropped two atomic

bombs to end a war we couldn't afford to lose.

What is the right response to those who want to kill all the Jews? Make sure they don't have the capability to do it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute and say a special thank you to a truly exceptional U.S. Army officer. MAJ Thomas E. Dickson has served admirably as a congressional budget liaison for the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and Comptroller, for the past 2 years. I have come to know Tom personally over this time as he has escorted me on countless congressional delegations across the globe, to include numerous trips to Ukraine and Israel, doing so with a level of skill and professionalism that has left a lasting impression on me and my staff.

Major Dickson graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 2013 and commissioned as a military police officer. Major Dickson's first assignment was as a platoon leader with the 230th Military Police Company in Sembach, Germany. While stationed in Germany, Major Dickson attended the United Nations Military Police Course in Aalborg, Denmark, where he trained alongside students from 17 different nations including Ukraine, Montenegro, and Rwanda.

After serving as the executive officer for the 92nd Military Police Company, Major Dickson was selected to attend the Marine Corps Expeditionary Warfare School in Quantico, VA. During his time in Quantico, Major Dickson published an article for the U.S. Naval Institute and earned honors as a distinguished graduate.

Next, Major Dickson served in 2-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) out of Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. While in 2-2 SBCT, Major Dickson graduated the Army's Ranger School in 61 days and served as the brigade provost marshal prior to commanding its headquarters and headquarters company.

After command, Major Dickson deployed and attached to 6th Battalion, 4th Security Forces Assistance Brigade in Kabul, Afghanistan, in support of Operation Freedom's Sentinel. While in Afghanistan, he planned and executed over 50 adviser missions integrated with multinational partners.

As a Congressional Budget Liaison, Major Dickson has been the Army's conduit to several congressional offices, including my own, and he has built a reputation of trust, respect, and competency. Just mere days after the attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Major Dickson helped quickly stand up and lead a historic bipartisan U.S. Senate congressional delegation of five Republicans and five Democrats to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. His efforts have been nothing short of incredible.

Major Dickson's extraordinary career is a testament to his hard work and unyielding desire to make himself, his organizations, and his fellow soldiers the best they can be. Our Nation has been enriched by his leadership, thoughtful judgement, and exemplary work. 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 Major Dickson on his service to our Nation. We wish Tom all the best as he continues his journey in the Army.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Michelin North America on its 50th anniversary of operating in South Carolina and 35 years of being headquartered in Greenville, SC.

Michelin produced its first tire in South Carolina in 1975 and now employs 10,000 people across 15 facilities throughout the State. As a global leader in producing tires, Michelin has significantly contributed to the community and the region, generating an economic impact of $266 billion. Michelin has provided steady employment for many of the most talented workers in our State, providing thousands of jobs and, in many cases, lifelong careers.

Again, congratulations to Michelin and its employees on celebrating 50 years in the great State of South Carolina.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, let's be clear--this is not about improving the Court; this is about undermining the Court.

We have three branches of government here. We have the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. This would be an unconstitutional overreach. This would undermine the Court's ability to operate effectively. And it has been a continued effort by our friends on the Democratic side to undermine a Court they don't like.

Here is what the Supreme Court has done: In April of 2023, all nine Justices signed a statement on ethics, principles, and practices specifying the ethics, principles, and practices they follow. In March of 2023, the Committee on Financial Disclosures formally amended the personal hospitality regulations in a manner that now requires more complete disclosure. In November of 2023, all nine Justices promulgated a code of conduct.

The Court is taking these problems seriously. The question is, What are we up to here? We are trying not to empower the Court or reform the Court; we are trying to attack it right at the end of the term.

I remember very well when the majority leader, Senator Schumer, went to the Court and said, right in front of the Court itself:

I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh:

You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.

You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these

awful decisions.

This is really about the way the Court decides cases that our colleagues on the other side really don't like.

So all I would say is that there are provisions in this bill that should bother anybody that cares about an independent judiciary.

Judicial investigative panels in section 2 of this bill are made up of lower court judges who would actually preside over their bosses. There is one Supreme Court here. It is unnerving to have a group of lower court judges basically handing an investigative panel the ability to investigate the Supreme Court--the constitutionally designated Supreme Court.

Recusal--that has been up to the individual Justices since the Court's founding. This bill would create a panel of judges to decide when a Supreme Court Justice should be recused. Again, that just puts the Court in, I think, disarray and fundamentally assaults the one Supreme Court we have.

All I can say is that section 7, where you have to have disclosures of amicus

briefs, would make it very hard for certain people to register their opinions about a particular matter before the Court because they could get destroyed by the media, they could get destroyed by special interest groups, and I think that chills out the ability of people to petition the Court apart from politics.

So my hope is that not only will we stop this exercise now, we will stop it forever.

With that said, I withhold my objection at this time.

I object.

Mr. President, I will be making a unanimous consent request here in a second, and Senator Britt will be joining me in that endeavor.

We are going to have a vote at 2 o'clock about a bipartisan bill. I applaud the effort to change our immigration laws and get control of an out-of-control situation. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what law is on the books, if the administration is not going to enforce the ones that already exist.

We had a vote in February on this bill. One of the problems I had the entire time is that parole is being abused by this administration. Since February until now, April, 77,800 people have been paroled in the United States, and I believe that is an abuse of the statute that is on the books. There were 1.3 million in fiscal year 2023. Over 1.2 million were paroled by the CBP alone.

Now let's talk about the parole statute, if we have that. If we don't, well, let me tell you what the law says.

It basically says you can be paroled for two reasons: a unique humanitarian need or a special benefit to the country. The statute that they are using to parole all of these people has limitations as to how it can be used. On average, the statute in question during the Obama- Trump years was used--about 6,000 people, on average, were paroled in the United States using the statute that the Biden administration has been abusing. In fiscal year 2019, it was 7,525; in fiscal year 2018, 6,466; in fiscal year 2015, during the Obama years, 4,598; in fiscal year 2019, again, 7,500. In fiscal year 2022, the Biden administration paroled 795,561 and, in fiscal year 2023, 1.2 million plus.

Why are they doing parole differently than Obama and Trump? They are abusing the statute. Why are they just waiving so many people into the country? That is for the voters to decide. I think they are just basically abusing the statute because they don't want to turn anybody around and send them back. So they just let people come into the country in violation of the law.

Again, the parole statute in question is limited to two circumstances: a unique benefit to the country or a special benefit to the country. A unique humanitarian situation is that your mother is dying. A special need to the country is you are a witness in a trial, and we need to get you in for a limited situation. Parole is not permanent status.

As for Laken Riley--and we will ask unanimous consent to vote on the bill authored by Senator Britt--the man accused of murdering her and who was indicted in Georgia, Mr. Ibarra, in September 2022, was apprehended by the Border Patrol. He was released through parole. And it took me forever to find this out, the reason for parole: The subject was paroled due to detention capacity at the central processing center in El Paso, TX. The reason for parole: The subject was paroled due to detention capacity at the central processing center in El Paso, TX. They had no room for the guy, and he is now being charged with murdering this young woman in Georgia. He was arrested in 2024.

Senator Britt will tell us what her bill does here in a moment. She is trying to find a way to make sure this never happens again. The two crimes he was charged with should result in an immediate expulsion from the country. That is what her bill does. But I want the country to know that the man accused of killing this young lady in Georgia was released into our country by the DHS--illegally, in my view. They violated the statute. They gave him parole for a reason that doesn't exist in the statute.

And you wonder why we don't want to pass another bill. The reason we don't want to pass another bill is we don't trust you, the Biden administration. Why create a new law that isn't going to be any more effective than the current law?

From the time we had this debate until the end of April, did things get better? No. There have been 77,800 people paroled from the original debate until now. So, clearly, they haven't changed their idea or policies regarding the abuse of parole. The average for Obama-Trump was around 6,000 for the entire year using the parole statute in question. This is 77,800 since February. So why are we skeptical? Because of the way they do business in the Biden administration.

Secretary Mayorkas has all the power he needs to stop this. You will never convince me that 77,800 people were individually screened. They have a program to waive people through based on country, not individual status. They promised me that an individual analysis was done on each parolee. I asked him that, and he said yes. Well, we found one parolee accused of murdering a young lady in Georgia who was not individually analyzed and released based on the criteria of the statute. He was released because they had no place to put him. So what we want to do today is try to find a way to deal with the situation that led to the murder of this young lady.

The law has a loophole in it, I guess, for lack of a better word. I am going to recognize Senator Britt now to tell us what her bill does, because what do we know about the Georgia case? We know the man charged with the murder of Ms. Riley was released into the United States under parole, not based on statutory requirements but just because we were full. If I were the Riley family, I would be pretty upset. They might want to think about suing.

Right now, I would like to yield to Senator Britt from Alabama, who has tried to find a solution to this problem.

Mr. President, I will be making the unanimous consent request in just a minute, as I am just about to wrap up.

I sent a letter yesterday to Secretary Mayorkas, wanting to know about the two people who tried to get into the Marine base, Quantico. Apparently, both of them were illegal, claiming to be Amazon contractors but were not. There is a lot of mystery around this, and I want a response to my letter.

Who are these people? What do we know about them? Have they any affiliation with terrorist groups? What were they up to?

I think we need to know as a nation what went on, because I find it very odd that two fighting-age illegal immigrants joined together to try to falsely get into a Marine base. That sends shivers up my spine.

So I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record, if I may.

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 3933 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, to my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, we do a lot of things together. I enjoy working with you. But, here, we have a fundamental disagreement.

No. 1, you are entitled to your opinion but not your facts. There were 77,800 people paroled in the U.S. since February who came from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. That doesn't count the people from Ukraine. They all showed up at the border. They were paroled in. There is no way that two statutory requirements were applied to 77,800 people.

Why did they just wave them through? All I can tell you is that parole has been abused. The average was 6,000 per year for Trump and Biden during their Presidency. From April to now, it is 77,800--nothing to do with Ukraine.

As to the people from Ukraine, I want to help them, but we have a refugee law where you can apply for refugee status if you are in a war zone or things are bad where you live. They are taking the parole statute and just granting to anybody and everybody they choose to grant. The bottom line is we are either a rule-of-law nation or we are not.

This has nothing to do with ICE funding. We were not talking about funding ICE here. This is a decision by the executive branch to abuse the law on the books.

The tools available apparently are not being used by anybody.

Why does Senator Britt offer legislation? Because we have a real- world example where the system failed. Let's make it stronger.

Why did this bill pass overwhelmingly in the House? Because it makes sense.

If you learned nothing from the Laken Riley case, learn the following: She is a victim. Her family is a victim of a broken immigration system. Her family is a victim of willful disregard of the law by the Biden administration.

The man accused of murdering this young lady was allowed to come into the country on parole based on ``we have no place to put you,'' not the statutory requirements to get paroled.

This is a big issue. We should learn from the death of this young lady. We should change our parole system. We are not. That is why we are not going to add a new law that won't be enforced.

Until you prove to me you are serious about following the law as written, you are going to have a problem with us on this side of the aisle and, hopefully, a few Democrats.

We should learn from the Laken Riley case and do what Senator Britt encourages us to do, which is to change the law, to address the situation so we have no other Laken Riley cases.

Apparently, the death of this young lady has taught us nothing as a body. We have learned nothing from this case. We are doing nothing different, and it breaks my heart.

It looks like the murder of this young lady should be a wake-up call to a parole system broken and to fix this never-ending catch-and- release--you are caught for crimes, and you are released before the Sun goes down to commit more crimes. It needs to come to an end.

We will have a chance, as a democratic people, to vote in November. If you think the system is working the way it is intended to work, and you are OK with what is going on, vote for Biden. You are going to get more of the same. If you think this is broken, it needs to change, you ought to think about voting for somebody else.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, to kind of continue on the theme of my good friend from North Carolina, apparently today or yesterday, the countries of Ireland, Spain, and Norway recognized a Palestinian State.

Here is my question: Who is in charge of the state? Who is running the place? What are its boundaries? Did you recognize Hamas being in charge of Gaza? Do you want to keep the PA as we know it now in the West Bank, as old and corrupt? What did you recognize?

These are allies, but they need to hear from a friend that what you did is reprehensible. You are rewarding terrorists.

On October 7, Hamas attacked the State of Israel and murdered 1,200 innocent people, put babies in ovens, raped women, set people on fire, and recorded it all. And your response is to create a Palestinian State? You are rewarding terrorists. The way a Palestinian State will be created, if ever, is through direct negotiations between the State of Israel and Palestinians, not a unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State after the largest terrorist attack against the Jewish people since the Holocaust.

To my friends in Ireland, Spain, and Norway, what you did was reward Hamas. Here is the message you are sending: Kill Jews, and you will get a reward.

Again, tell me about the state you just recognized. Who is in charge, and what are the boundaries? You can't answer those questions, but you went ahead and recognized the Palestinian State for political reasons.

The world has turned upside down.

Madam President, you have been a stalwart defender of Israel, and we appreciate it.

Here is what I would say: After October 7, Hamas is engaged in using the Palestinian people as human shields at a level I haven't seen in warfare. The response is to punish Israel, who is in a no-win situation. The battalions have to be destroyed. The tunnels are underground. Why do you need a 2,000-pound bomb? Because there are underground tunnels that only a major bomb will be able to destroy.

When it comes to civilian infrastructure, the destruction of it has been in large part because Hamas has used schools, mosques, and hospitals as military sites, putting all that infrastructure in jeopardy by militarizing it.

On top of all of that, the International Criminal Court has decided to issue an arrest warrant for the Prime Minister of Israel and the Defense Minister of Israel as well as Hamas leaders. Boy, has the world turned upside down.

To consider Israel like Russia--Putin had an arrest warrant issued because there is no rule of law in Russia. People fall out of windows who are opposition leaders. People get poisoned. There is no rule of law in Russia.

There is a robust legal system in Israel. It is probably the pride of the world. The most independent judiciary maybe on the planet lives and resides in Israel.

So Israel is not Russia, and the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister of Israel are not Hamas, but in the ICC world, they are all the same. That is despicable.

Here is what has happened: Apparently, a lot of legal experts, some well-known, famous people, advised the ICC that Israel needed to be charged--the State of Israel, the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister. They are legal experts under international law. I would not pay these people 5 cents given my undersigning of their own statute.

I, along with seven members--four Republicans and four Democrats-- engaged the ICC weeks ago, arguing that for you to bring a charge against the State of Israel, you would have to believe that the judiciary in Israel is not independent and that Israel is not acting in good faith--they are acting in bad faith--when it comes to allegations against Israeli forces and policies of Israel. It is called complementarity.

Israel is not a member of the ICC, nor are we. In 2015, the ICC recognized the Palestinians as a state for ICC purposes even though they are not recognized by the U.N. Why they did that, I don't know. But they took over jurisdiction of this conflict, and where do we lie now?

On May 20, a couple of days ago, a representative of the ICC was supposed to land in Israel to set up a meeting between legal officials, government officials of the State of Israel and the prosecutor, Khan, next week.

The group that I was involved in urged the ICC to sit down and talk with Israel--called complementarity.

Under their own statute, the ICC cannot act unless the nation in question is unable or unwilling to proceed with an investigation or if the investigation is conducted in bad faith. There is no way you can find Israel is not acting in good faith when they were willing to meet you 2 days ago.

So here is what happened: We were misled and lied to by the ICC.

This group thinks they have jurisdiction of the entire world; they are going to roam the globe and right wrongs. They were created to deal with voids where there is no rule of law or rogue states like Russia, where the rule of law has been destroyed, not come and second-guess robust democracies like Israel and the United States.

They threatened to come after our soldiers in Afghanistan years ago, and Senator Ernst, who was a member of the U.S. Army serving abroad. We objected to high heaven.

We have a very robust military legal system. We have a very independent judiciary. Israel has the most independent judiciary on the planet.

So they canceled the meeting. Israel called and said: When will you get here? The man in question for the ICC said: I have been told I can't come. And Israel heard about the arrest warrant on CNN. They had prerecorded this interview--Mr. Khan had--with a CNN reporter before the meeting.

Senator Cardin has been awesome on this.

We are trying to get Israel to engage with the ICC, listen to their complaints, and see if we can move forward. They acted in bad faith. A meeting was set up, the man did not attend, and before Israel knew anything, they heard it on CNN.

So I am hoping that we can come together--and I want to applaud President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Jake Sullivan for issuing strong statements condemning the actions of the ICC against the State of Israel.

Now it is time to impose sanctions not only to help our ally but also to help ourselves. I want everybody to know that if you deal with the ICC in this sham trial against Israel, you will never come to this country. Your visa will be revoked, and if you have assets here, they will be lost. You have to pick what I think is an abuse of the rule of law over doing business with America.

If we don't do that as a body, we are next. I have tried for months to find a way forward with my colleagues, who have been terrific, trying to find a way for Saudi and Israel to recognize each other, come up with a better deal for the Palestinians, to end this conflict in a permanent way.

In the middle of this sensitive moment, the ICC, in a very deceptive way, brings charges against the Prime Minister of Israel and the Defense Minister, who are in a fight for their lives. They are surrounded by Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran.

Where was the ICC when the Iranians drug a young girl off the bus and beat her to death? Where are they in North Korea? They pick Israel--a nation with one of the most robust, independent legal systems on the planet. They lied to eight U.S. Senators. They cannot get away with this. If you let them get away with this, then you are going to regret it.

So I look forward to working with Republicans and Democrats and the administration to send a clear signal: We are not going to sit on the sidelines while the rule of law is politicized, turned upside down, to the detriment of our allies and our own Nation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, thank you very much. I would like to be recognized. Can you let me know when it is 40 minutes?

Thank you.

Mr. President, so our colleagues are talking today about how they are going to vote, why they are going to vote. I think the support of history will judge what we do here today.

Let me say one thing up front: There is no border security in this package. I regret that. I wish there were. There should be.

On the bill from the Senate, I voted no regarding the border security provisions. I thought it was sort of inadequate tabs on parole and on a few other things. My hope was it would get over to the House, and we could negotiate a stronger border security package. That did not happen, and I regret that.

So to everybody who comes on this floor and says our border is broken, we should do something about it. You are absolutely right. And, unfortunately, we didn't get there. President Trump opposed the Senate bill. We couldn't find a better way forward that would get 60 votes. I hate that, but now we have to deal with what is left for us to take care of in the world.

So the fact that we did not get provisions for our border, in my view, doesn't mean we can't deal with the other problems the world faces. We actually have to because, if we don't get Ukraine right and we don't get Taiwan right and we don't get Israel right, then our broken border is going to be a bigger problem.

So the first thing I want to say is: To those who want border security, you are right. Don't give up. But this is not just about border security.

This is a statement from the Minister of Defense in Israel:

The supplemental package submitted to the U.S. Senate today

is critical and urgent in supporting Israel's capabilities to

face threats posed by Iran and its proxies. We thank our

friends in Congress, and urge our partners to stand with

Israel in the face of Iranian terrorism.

Now what is he talking about? This was issued earlier today. This is the Minister of Defense in Israel. I know him very well. He is a very accomplished man, and he is urging us to vote for this package because Israel needs it because they have been threatened by Iran.

Now, since we took up this debate in the Senate, a lot has happened. The Iranians attacked Israel from Iran. Over 300 drones and missiles were launched at Israel from Iran and successfully engaged. Nobody lost their

life, but it wasn't because the Iranians weren't trying.

We are voting today on a package to help our friends in Israel replenish Iron Dome. This is Passover. It is so ironic, right? We are having this debate on Passover. Here is my Passover gift to the Israeli people: More weapons--replenish the Iron Dome so that you can defend yourself and have another Passover, so that this won't be the last one. If you left it up to Iran, it would be.

So to those who are wondering what we should do: We failed on the border; you are right about that. We should vote yes to help our friends in Israel. I can't think of a time since I have been here that they need more help than right now. They don't need any speeches. They don't need us to attend events. They need us to send them military aid that they are desperate to have.

They have diminished their Iron Dome stockpile. They need it replenished. They are dealing with Hamas on one front, Hezbollah on the other, and now they have been attacked by the Iranian Ayatollah from Iranian soil.

So the Defense Minister of Israel is asking us for a ``yes'' vote because it is urgent to help our friends in Israel. So if you are pro- Israel--which most people in this body are--they need you, and they need you now. The 20-something billion dollars of aid in this package is absolutely imperative to help the Jewish State survive against Iran and its proxies, as the Defense Minister said. So from an Israeli point of view, this is the most critical time maybe since its founding because the efforts to destroy the Jewish State are real.

Here is what I worry about. If we don't help Israel now, we will be encouraging more attacks by the Iranians, and this war will get really out of hand. It is already out of hand.

There are about 100,000-plus rockets in the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon. If they were all unleashed at the same time, that would be a nightmare for Israel. They have about 300 drones and missiles, but that is a fraction of what is available. I want to deter Iran from going to the next step. Now, how do you do that? Let Iran know that we have Israel's back, that we are going to help them with their military needs in perpetuity so they can defend themselves, that we are not going to abandon Israel at this critical time.

What does Israel have to do? Not only do they have to knock down the rockets that have come their way--they need weapons to do that--they have to create deterrence. The best way for Israel to deter the enemies of the Jewish State is to let the world and the enemies know that America has Israel's back.

Now, I want to say something about Speaker Johnson and Democratic Leader Jeffries: Well done. Speaker Johnson and Hakim Jeffries worked together to pass a package we have before us. We need more of this, not less, in a time of great peril for our allies and the United States.

So this was a moment where the people in the House rose to the occasion. They set aside their party differences. They focused on giving us a package that I think is stronger but needed now more than ever.

Since we last had this debate in the Senate, what has happened? A direct attack on the State of Israel by Iran. They need the money, and they need it now. Vote yes. A great Passover gift to the Israeli people would be this aid package.

Now, I want to put this debate in a greater context. I have had a lot of my friends come to the floor talking about whether or not Ukraine is in our vital national interest. I think it is. Here is what is happening in Europe as I speak: You have Russia who has launched an effort to destroy Ukraine--not just the Crimea, but to take Kyiv and turn it into a part of Russia. Ukraine, a sovereign nation that gave up 1,700 nuclear weapons they had in their possession after the end of the Cold War in the Budapest Memorandum in the mid-nineties. Ukrainians gave up 1,700 nuclear weapons with the assurance their sovereignty would be protected. The map used had Crimea as part of Ukraine.

So what do we have then? We have a situation where, for the second time, Russia has invaded Ukraine. They did it in 2014. We had some kind of a peace agreement. It didn't hold. Why? Because Putin wants all of Ukraine. I will talk about that in a moment.

He wants more than just Ukraine. He wants to reconstruct the Russian empire, the old Soviet Union. Listen to him, not me. I will talk about that in a moment.

Go back in time to the thirties. If you could go back in time and you could talk to the leaders in the thirties, knowing what you know now, what would you tell them? ``You should stop Hitler as soon as you can.'' You have got opportunity after opportunity to hold him to account before he got too strong. You had plenty of chances to lay down the gauntlet.

But every time there was a chance to stop him, people blinked. People believed that he wanted German-speaking territory and that was all. They did not believe he wanted to kill all the Jews. That was a big mistake, because he did. He wanted a master race.

He wrote a book. The biggest miscalculation of the 20th century was not to understand what Adolf Hitler actually wanted. He didn't want German-language countries. He wanted everybody to speak German. He wanted a master race where there is no place for the Jewish people and others. And 50 million people died because we got it wrong.

In 1941, in this body, Senator Nye--I don't know him:

Getting into this return engagement of war to Europe is

only as inevitable as we the people of America will permit it

to be. Staying out of this war is inevitable if only the

people will continue and multiply their forceful demands upon

the Government at Washington to keep its promise to the

people to keep our country out of this mess, which seems

destined to wreck every civilization that lends its hand to

it.

He is on the floor of the Senate in June of 1941, telling his colleagues: This war in Europe, stay out of it.

Well, how well did that age? Because in December of 1941, we were attacked by the Japanese.

Here is a rule that has stood the test of time: When forces rear their ugly heads anywhere in the world wanting to dominate other people, destroy their religion, put them under the yoke of tyranny, it will eventually come back to us.

When the Taliban blew up statues of Buddha, even though I am not a Buddhist, it came back to me. Evil unchecked and appeased, we always pay a heavier price than if we confront it.

Charles Lindbergh--an American hero in many ways, a very brave guy-- this is what he said on April 24, 1941:

When history is written, the responsibility for the

downfall of the democracies of Europe will rest squarely upon

the shoulders of interventionists who led their nations into

war uninformed and unprepared.

When history is written, the responsibility for the

downfall of the democracies of Europe will rest squarely upon

the shoulders of the interventionists who led their nations

into war uninformed and unprepared.

How well did this age? The democracies in Europe failed because we allowed Hitler to get strong. Every time he would go into the Sudetenland, you named the early intervention. We wrote it off. We appeased him.

No, Mr. Lindbergh, you were wrong. The reason democracies in Europe were at risk and failed is because we did not stand up to Adolf Hitler while it really mattered. The reason that 50 million people died is because you didn't get it.

Father Coughlin--the demagoguery from this guy is being used today: demonizing people, trying to convince the American people ``those people over there don't matter to you.''

Let me tell you what matters to the American people. When forces like Putin rear their ugly head to take Ukraine, they are not going to stop; they are going to keep going. And we have NATO commitments to countries around Ukraine. Vote yes for this package to help the Ukrainians continue to fight the Russians before Americans are fighting the Russians. And how does America get into this conflict? If a NATO nation is attacked.

This is my favorite: September 11, 1941. Now, when I say ``September the 11th,'' most Americans kind of listen, because that day does live in infamy.

So Charles Lindbergh made a speech on September 11, 1941, in Des Moines, IA. And here is what he said:

When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the

American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why

shouldn't we be? We had the best defensive position in the

world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and

the one time we did take part in a European war left European

problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great

Britain wants the United States in the war on her side.

England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not

large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade

the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against

Germany.

If England can draw this country into the war, she can

shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility

for waging it and paying its cost.

He is arguing that the Lend-Lease Program that President Roosevelt came up with to help the island nation withstand invasion by the Germans was a foolish endeavor, that this small group of people in England cannot possibly win and we are betting on a loser.

The loser is Lindbergh. The winner is Churchill and the British people.

This attitude exists today. People in this body, right before I spoke, talk about ``we can't help Ukraine because we have too many problems in other places. They can't win.''

They were supposed to fall in 4 days.

Look what has happened: 200-something days later, they have destroyed half of the Russian army, taken back half the territory Russia seized, and now they need our weapons in a desperate fashion. They are trying to defend their homeland, and they are asking from us not troops, but weapons that can matter. And I will say to everybody in this body: You sell the Ukrainians short at your own peril. You are in the camp of Lindbergh trying to convince the American people: Pull the plug on England. They are in a fight they can't possibly win. What Lindbergh and others didn't realize was that their fight was our fight.

Let me tell you why Ukraine's fight matters to us. If we don't stop Putin now, he will keep going. And let's talk about what he says.

Just as people in the thirties--Lindbergh and Father Coughlin and Chamberlain, let's bring them back to light here:

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

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

quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know

nothing.

This is when Hitler annexed the Sudetenland in violation of all the agreements they signed in World War I. He was telling the British people: This is sort of a German thing. I know he is violating the agreements we had to end World War I; but, you know, it really doesn't matter.

Boy, were you wrong. He didn't want the Sudetenland. He wanted the world. He wanted a master race. And guess what? Mr. Chamberlain's analysis of Hitler is not aging too well in history.

To the people of this body who are going to vote today: You are miscalculating Putin if you think it is just about some dispute with Ukraine or he is threatened by NATO. No. Yes, I am sure he is threatened by NATO, but he has an ambition here.

Putin in 2016:

The borders of Russia never end.

Putin in 2022:

[When Peter the Great] was at war with Sweden taking

something away from it. . . . He was not taking away

anything, he was returning.

When he founded the new capital, none of the European

countries recognized this territory as part of Russia;

everyone recognized it as part of Sweden.

He is telling you, in Russian history, because you claim it, he wants it, the Russians are going to take it.

This is Medvedev:

One of Ukraine's former leaders once said Ukraine is not

Russia. That concept needs to disappear forever. Ukraine is

definitely Russia.

This is the former President of Russia. He is telling you--and you are not listening--that they want more than Ukraine. Ukraine is part of Russia. The Ukrainians don't believe that. They are fighting like tigers. I don't believe that. If you give him Ukraine, he will want Moldova and then the Baltic nations. He will make claims to them because they used to be part of the Russian Empire.

Hitler wrote a book, and nobody believed him. Putin and Medvedev, to their credit, are telling you exactly what their ambitions are, and you are not getting it. You are making the same miscalculations that they made in the thirties. You are making the same arguments: They can't win. It is not our problem. Stay out of it. Don't help people fighting for their freedom.

That gets you more war, not less. Fifty million people died in World War II because they got it wrong in the thirties when they could have gotten it right.

We haven't lost one American soldier, but if you don't help Ukraine now, that will change unless you want to completely abandon NATO. I am saying it as loudly as I can say it--that if we don't help Ukraine now, this war will spread, and Americans who are not involved will be involved. You think this war costs a lot now? Wait until you are in a war with Russia and NATO, and see what that costs. I am not telling you things that I made up. I am quoting people who are in charge of Russia. Nobody believed Hitler. You should have. You should believe these people. They have a mission.

Isolationism leads to more war, not less. Isolationism takes off the table confronting evil at a time it is the weakest. Isolationists, in the name of peace, create more war than they ever avoid because the bad guy won't stop.

Here is what you have got to understand: The Ayatollah, what does he want? He tells us he wants to destroy the Jewish State. I believe it. He tells us he wants to purify Islam in his own image--the image of Shiism. I believe it. He tells us that we are the Great Satan, and he is coming after us. I believe him. So the Ayatollah has an agenda that Israel can't accommodate. You cannot accommodate somebody who wants to kill you.

Hamas doesn't want to advocate for the Palestinian people a better life; they want to kill all the Jews. The agenda of Hamas is not to make the Palestinian people more prosperous; it is to destroy the Jewish State--``from the river to the sea.'' These people are religious Nazis. What do you expect Israel to do? October 7 was an attack not to restore the dignity of the Palestinian people but literally to rape and murder and kill the Jews.

Isolationism allows that to go unchecked. ``America First'' says: Let's help Israel. Let's help Ukraine. Let's turn it into a loan rather than a grant. Let's get Europe to do more and pay more. That is a big difference to me.

To the people in this body, if you don't help Israel now, you are sending the worst possible signal to the Ayatollah. If you believe as I do, that he wishes to destroy the Jewish State, how can you vote no?

I know our border is broken, but voting no to Israel doesn't make our border more secure. It makes us less safe.

If you believe Hamas wants to destroy every Jewish person they can get their hands on and destroy the Jewish State, how can you vote no?

If you believe, as I do, that Putin won't stop in Ukraine, how do you vote no? You have to believe that Putin won't go any further when he says he will.

To vote no to Israel, you are taking off the table money they desperately need because they are under attack from forces they haven't been under attack from before. Hamas and Hezbollah have attacked Israel, and they are proxies of Iran, but the Iranians launched an attack toward the Jewish State from Iran. Don't vote no. Israel needs you now.

Nothing we can do will fix the border, but we can help Israel, and we can help Ukraine. Helping Ukraine means we are less likely to get in a war with the Russians. Helping Israel means we are helping an ally, and the same people who want to kill Israel want to kill you too. So there is 20-something billion dollars to help Israel replenish the Iron Dome. There is $60 billion--some of it is in the form of a loan--to help replenish our stockpile. Most of this money is for us, but some of it goes to Ukraine to stay in the fight; they need an air defense capability.

So to the isolationists--and I know you don't want to be called an isolationist, but you are. When you don't support your allies from threats because you don't want to get involved and you think it doesn't matter, I think you really are an isolationist. You would have to believe that Putin does not mean what he says. I believe him when he wants to take over the old Russian Empire and reconstruct the Soviet Union. I believe it. I want to stand up to it. I believe the Ayatollah wants to kill all the Jews. I want to help the Jewish people. This is Passover for God's sake--we are taking this vote on Passover--and not one of the people we are talking about here of the countries wants one American soldier.

Have we learned nothing? We withdrew from Iraq in 2011. Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, and myself--we all spoke up. Well, those two are gone, and I miss them desperately at times like this, but we told the Obama administration: If you pull all the troops out of Iraq, you are going to regret it and that ISIS was not the JV team. They came back in full force, and they established a caliphate. Al-Qaida and ISIS didn't even exist. This idea of leaving radical Islam unchecked and thinking it won't hurt you is insane. These people are not going to stop fighting us or our allies. You may be tired of fighting them. They are not tired of fighting you. I would rather fight them over there before they get here. Every one of these terrorists whom Israel kills is one less terrorist who will attack us. Containing Putin and Ukraine means it is less likely for us to get in a war.

Here is what I said: I feel all we have worked for and fought for and sacrificed for is very much in jeopardy by today's announcements. I hope I am wrong and the President is right, but I fear the decision has set in motion events that will come back to haunt our country.

Well, I was right, and I didn't want to be. Al-Qaida came back, and Iraq fell apart. We had to go back in. The Yazidi people were pretty much wiped out. Thousands of people were slaughtered. ISIS, you know, attacked the French, and they killed people all over the world because we let them come back.

So here is what I would say to the people who vote no: Not one country we are helping wants any of our soldiers to come in and fight; they just want the weapons to do the fighting. If you don't give them these weapons at a time of critical need, you are setting in motion America being deeper involved in conflict, not less. If they take Israel down, I promise you, you are next, and if you don't help Israel replenish their conventional weapons, there will be a day when Israel, if they have to, will play the nuclear card. I promise you this: The Jewish people are not going down, this time, without a fight. The State of Israel will do whatever it takes to survive.

I want to let the Ayatollah know America has Israel's back, which I think will create deterrence, but if the Ayatollah ever thought we pulled the plug on Israel, then I think it would be more emboldened, and you have got 100,000 rockets--precision-guided--to be fired at Israel en masse. That is a nightmare for the Iron Dome. So Israel has to tell the region, when it comes to defending the Jewish State, all bets are off. This thing could escalate big time.

So, when you vote no today, you are making it more likely the Ayatollah does more, not less. When you vote no today, you incentivize Putin to do more, not less. When you vote no today, you make China wonder if we really are serious about helping Taiwan.

I understand that the American people have needs here at home. I get it. Our border is broken, and you are right to want to fix it, but we are not right to abandon our allies in great need. If history has taught us anything--for those who are willing to learn from history--it is that, when evil rears its head, stand up; be firm; be unequivocal. It will save a lot of lives and a lot of heartache.

I am going to end where I started: What does China want? They want to turn world order upside down. They don't believe in the rule of law. They steal our intellectual property; they intimidate their neighbors; and they will go after Taiwan if they believe we are weak and not helping Taiwan. If you want to avoid a war between Taiwan and China, give Taiwan the capability that would deter China. Eighty percent of the semiconductors in the world are made in Taiwan, and the digital economy would be dominated by China. We have a chance here to harden the defenses of Taiwan to deter China.

We have a $24 billion package to replenish the weapons that Israel desperately needs to stand up in the face of multiple threats from Iran and its proxies. They need the money. They need it now. This is Passover. Help our friends in Israel.

We have a chance to replenish the stockpile of the Ukrainians, who fought like tigers--but not just give them 155 rounds; give them the ATACMS that can reach out and knock the bridge down between Crimea and Russia.

The bill before us allows us to go after Russian sovereign wealth funds that are frozen all over the world--about $300 billion. It allows us to take money from the Russian invader to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine. This is a package worth your support. It makes Russia pay more. There is a loan component in this: Pay us back if you can because we are in debt. I get that part of it.

This package coming back from the House was not only bipartisan, I thought it was smart. The component in this package to allow us to seize Russian assets I think will have a deterrent effect all of its own. The oligarchs around Putin are now in more jeopardy, not less, and it is proper to go after Russian sovereign wealth assets when Russia has brutally invaded Ukraine in violation of every agreement they made with Ukraine and the world at large.

The bottom line for me is that this package doesn't address the border, and I am sorry it doesn't. This package addresses threats that exist to our allies, and it is in our national security interest to meet the needs of those allies before it gets worse. Whether you want Iran to stop or not, they will not. Israel needs the weapons, and they need them now. Our friends in Ukraine, with the right set of weapons, can go back on the offensive, and if you don't stop Putin now, you will regret it later.

This is one of the moments in history that really matters. I always wondered, How could the people in the thirties not get it about Hitler? Now I know. It is complicated. I have very good friends who are going to vote no. I have very good friends who do not see Putin in the same way I see him. I see him as a guy with ambitions that won't end in Ukraine and that he will get us into a bigger war if we don't stand up now. I believe him when he says the thing he says about taking more territory. I have friends who are strongly supportive of Israel but who are going to vote no.

The bottom line is, Israel needs you now more than ever. The Ayatollah upped the ante by attacking Israel directly from Iranian soil. For God's sake, let's help Israel and help them now.

There is a chance here to seize Russian assets to pay for the war to take the burden off the taxpayer. Let's vote yes.

As for Taiwan, there is almost universal acknowledgment in this body that China will keep going until somebody stops them and that we want to deter war between Taiwan and China. In this package, we have vital military assistance to Taiwan to make it harder for the Chinese to attack and take it over by military force.

Do you think the Chinese are watching what we do with Ukraine? If you don't think they are watching, you don't know much about China. They are sizing us up, and if we pull the plug on Ukraine, you are inviting more aggression from China to Taiwan. If we send a signal that we are not--if you vote no and we are not giving the package to Israel to replenish their defenses, it will make the Iranians more emboldened to keep going.

This vote you are about to take is probably one of the most important votes we have had since I have been here. This is the defining moment in world history. The world is on fire. It all started with Afghanistan. Once we pulled out of Afghanistan, people thought we were weak, and they took advantage.

Here is what I would say: If you agree with me, don't vote no; vote yes because a ``no'' vote, I think, continues that theme that America is unreliable. A ``no'' vote will make Russia believe that there is a growing sentiment in America that, if we just outlast Ukraine, we will not only get Ukraine, we will get more. A ``no'' vote emboldens the Ayatollah to think support for Israel is being diminished. A ``no'' vote to help Taiwan would encourage China, in my view, to be more aggressive.

Now, how does this all end? Here is my fear: These are the Twin Towers. This is what happens when something over there gets out of hand, and we don't deal with it. This is what happens when you ignore the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, and you sit on the sidelines and think it doesn't matter to

you. This is what happens when a group of people take women in a soccer stadium and kill them for sport, thinking it won't bother us. The 18 to 19 hijackers who were able to do this were able to do it because they had a safe haven in Afghanistan.

We didn't get involved. We looked the other way, thinking it doesn't matter to us. We missed all the warning signs.

Remember when they said the lights were blinking red before September 11, 2001? Let me tell you what the FBI Director says: I have never seen so many blinking lights as I do now. Wherever I turn, I see threats. I have never seen a time in American history that I have been involved as FBI Director with this many threats all at once. Everywhere I look, I see blinking lights.

The response to that is to help our allies, not turn away. How can you say we are under great threat, and we are not willing to provide aid to people who are on the tip of the spear?

So this aid package coming back from the House is better than it was when it left the Senate. It has more for Israel. It has the ability to get Russian assets to help the American taxpayer and reconstruct Ukraine with Russian money, not American money or other money. It has a component in here to let the Ayatollah know we are not going to bend in Israel, and it reinforces Taiwan's military defense at a time when they are very vulnerable.

This is a good package. It has a loan component, recognizing that we are in debt. It is not a perfect package. I wish it had border security. I was hoping it would, but it doesn't.

Since we last had this discussion about what to do, Iran launched an attack on Israel--300 drones--and everything is really getting out of hand here.

The Ukrainians are down to their last artillery shells. That can all change when we vote yes. They will get not only more artillery shells, they are going to get more advanced weapons. And we are going to go after Russian money. We are going to put Putin on his back foot.

If you vote yes, it is a bad day for Putin; it is a bad day for the Ayatollah; and it is a wake-up call to China. If you vote no, you are going to encourage everybody I just talked about to do more.

We are friends. I respect everybody in here, no matter how you vote. I just see this as clear as a bell.

There were people in the 1930s, like Churchill and others, who saw Hitler for who he really was. And a lot of people didn't want to confront that because they were weary of the war they just fought called World War I. They wanted to believe that Hitler was just all talk. They didn't want to get in another war because millions of people had died. The last thing they wanted was another war. What they didn't realize is that Hitler wanted things they couldn't give them.

We have been at war since September 11, 2001. We are in debt. We are all tired. The last thing we want is to keep it going.

Well, let me tell you about our adversaries. They are not going to stop. It is wise for us to help people do the fighting so we don't have to, to have their backs at a time of great need because if we abandon them and say this doesn't matter to us, everything you saw happen in the 1930s is going to happen again.

If Russia believes we can't stick with Ukraine, they are going to keep going. If the Ayatollah believed that American support for the Jewish State was deteriorating, he is going to up the ante.

These college campus protests make me sick to my stomach. You have people on college campuses in this country supporting the terrorists, supporting Hamas. They are not supporting a better life for the Palestinian people; they are supporting the destruction of the Jewish people.

Hamas doesn't want a better life for the Palestinians; they want to kill all the Jews.

My good friend from Connecticut just walked in. His grandparents were involved in the Holocaust. I know where he is going to be.

So what is going on in America is very similar to the 1930s but in many ways worse.

To those who are out there protesting to stop aid to Israel: You are fools. You are progressive. Do you think Hamas is progressive? Do you think Hamas will tolerate a society that you have come accustomed to, where women can do whatever they want, people can live their lives? You are empowering people who are despicable. They are religious Nazis.

You are dumb as dirt if you think abandoning Israel makes us safer and that Hamas gives a damn about the Palestinian people. They don't.

I am urging a ``yes'' vote.

I understand this is not a perfect package, but this is a really good package at an important time in world and American history. So I would urge a ``yes'' vote. And a ``no'' vote, in my view, makes it more likely we spend more money and Americans die who are not dying now.

I yield the floor.