Floor Statements

Madam President, the most recent assassination attempt makes approval of a secure White House addition more urgent. The National Planning Commission, of which I am a member, voted 8 to 1 to approve the White House addition. Lawfare, though, is currently delaying construction.

It is clear that the threats of violence against our President are not going away; they keep getting worse. So to prevent further delay, Congress should authorize the White House ballroom and get it on a path to completion. Let's get it built.

I am very glad that this latest assassination attempt was stopped, but it is concerning that the would-be assassin got so close and that these types of threats are growing more frequent.

The fact I even have to qualify my remarks to specifically say that I am talking about the latest assassination attempt rather than the one before it or the one before that should make us all think clearly on how seriously we need to be taking this.

We do need to improve security for the President, and one solution is already right in front of us. The most significant thing we can do-- something that will make the biggest improvement in security--is have a secure event space in the White House ballroom project. Its designs are complete. The project has already broken ground. Funding has already been secured from private donors, not taxpayers. My proposal today doesn't involve any tax money.

Congress doesn't need to reinvent the wheel here. I have a straightforward bill, which I will move to pass in a moment, to give this project clear, legal authority to proceed. By passing my bill, we can help build the ballroom with no more legal delays, no more bureaucratic delays, improved reporting and progress updates to Congress, and no added cost to taxpayers.

I support the building of the ballroom, and the Senate can do something right now to make it happen. Let's do the right thing without delay. Let's formalize and authorize the White House ballroom.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2280, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5378 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, Congress ought to fund border security, but we should be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars and fully pay for the $70 billion to secure our borders.

My amendment would eliminate over $5 billion in refugee welfare, cut over $45 billion in foreign aid, and slash the National Science Foundation by nearly $4 billion, as well as reducing the Department of Education by 16 percent. This is consistent with the Trump administration's goal of returning educational authority to the States. These reductions would be made in just one fiscal year and would fully pay for border security.

With $2 trillion deficits and a $39 trillion debt, we must stop handouts to refugees, countries that hate the United States, and Federal Agencies that study such things as frog mating calls in Panama.

Let's pay for the border security. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. President, there is nothing in the bill that cuts Pell grants.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Regena Triplett Jones, a devoted public servant, a proud Kentuckian, and a woman whose kindness left a lasting impression on all who knew her.

Regena was born on May 6, 1964, and raised in the small community of Warfield, KY, a place that shaped her values and remained close to her heart throughout her life. She was the beloved daughter of John R. Triplett and Bonnie Triplett, a role she carried with deep pride and gratitude.

She later made her home in Pikeville, KY, where she built a life centered on faith, family, and service. A graduate of Northern Kentucky University's Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Regena brought both knowledge and heart to the work she would go on to do.

For 10 years, Regena served as my Eastern Kentucky Field Representative. In that role, she worked to connect Kentuckians with Federal resources and to serve the people of the Commonwealth with sincerity and care. She approached her work with a spirit of humility and a genuine desire to help others, leaving a quiet but meaningful mark across the region she served.

Beyond her professional life, Regena's greatest joy was found in her family. She was a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother who treasured every moment spent with her children and grandchildren. Whether cheering them on at ballgames or simply being present in their lives, she made them the center of her world.

Her faith was also an important part of her life. As a member of Connection Church in Pikeville and a participant in the women's prayer group, she found strength in her beliefs and fellowship in her community.

Regena will be remembered for her bright personality, her gentle spirit, and her sincere kindness. She had a way of making others feel seen and valued, and her presence brought warmth to those around her.

While her passing on December 11, 2025, leaves a void in the lives of those who loved her, her legacy lives on in the family she cherished and the many lives she touched through her kindness and service.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Regena Triplett Jones and in extending our deepest condolences to her family, friends, and all who mourn her passing.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call in relation to the Shepherd nomination.

I ask unanimous consent to commence the vote.

Mr. President, once war begins and American soldiers are under fire, a rational discussion of the pros and cons of war becomes nearly impossible. That is exactly why our Founders wrote a Constitution that demands a debate before the initiation of war.

But there was no debate in Congress, let alone a vote. Americans awoke to discover their country once again embroiled in a war in the Middle East. Americans were not asked if they would bear the burdens of war. Instead, the American people were told, through a Presidential 8- minute video posted around 2:30 in the morning, that the country was once again at war.

And, because there was no national discussion about going to war, we do not know whether ground troops will be used, we have no idea how long the war will last, we have no idea who will lead Iran after the death of the Supreme Leader, and we have no idea how many casualties the American people are supposed to tolerate. We cannot know the answer to these questions because no one bothered to make the case that war with Iran was worth the sacrifice.

The Senate only now debates whether hostilities should end after they have already begun. Before I discuss the merits of this war, I want to say that my prayers and those of my family are with the troops in the region and in combat and anyone who may be called to do so. I do not take lightly that combat has begun, that many have been severely injured, and that lives have been lost.

It is because of those realities of war that the Constitution grants the power to declare war to the U.S. Congress--not one individual sitting in the Oval Office. Giving Congress the power to declare war was meant to prevent the ability of one person to commit the Nation to war. When the Nation goes to war, it should be a collective decision, where a clear rationale for war is articulated. But more importantly, a debate and a vote in Congress provides the Nation with the only opportunity to discuss whether a country is aware of and accepts the inevitable sacrifices of war, especially the loss of life.

The people have been robbed of a public debate. Let me inform the public, that evasion is intentional.

The congressional leadership--resigned to their own irrelevance--will gladly hand the President the power to initiate war in exchange for plausible deniability. The congressional leadership wants to make the case to the voters that they are not to be held accountable at the ballot box because they simply played no role in the decision to go to war. That is not statesmanship. That is shameful.

This country is now at war, which already cost the lives of six American servicemembers and many more are severely wounded. Those soldiers and their families deserved a public debate and a vote in Congress before the initiation of hostilities.

But had Congress debated war with Iran, we would have been wise to recall the words of John Quincy Adams who, as Secretary of State, advocated a foreign policy of restraint. ``Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled,'' argued Adams, ``there will [America's] heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.''

There is wisdom in Adams's words, but his was not an original argument. It was George Washington himself who warned in his farewell address to stay out of the world's endless conflicts.

Congress has tragically forgotten this advice. The history of the 21st century has been one of endless wars in which America perpetually searches for the next monster to destroy. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Syria to Venezuela, the advocates for war tell us that a country is a threat and that toppling a foreign government is a noble quest to protect security at home while spreading freedom globally.

While they have recycled their arguments, when they bother to make them, the results are always instability, chaos, suffering, and resentment.

The Iraq war was launched under similar false pretenses, and the consequences of that fateful decision still reverberate throughout the Middle East to this day. The overthrow of Iraq's secular government and the collapse of its civil society spurred some of the worst sectarian violence in modern history and directly led to the rise of ISIS.

Over a decade since the U.S. military intervention that toppled Muammar Qadhafi, and a year after the fall of Assad, these divided, unstable countries struggle to escape the cycle of violence and chaos. And although Nicolas Maduro may have been removed from power by American military forces, the socialist and oppressive Chavista regime has not been removed from the Venezuelan government. And, most tragically, after two decades of war, the Taliban flag flies over Kabul. America's adventures have not produced the promised utopias, or even Jeffersonian democracies.

History is replete with examples of wars that quickly escalate beyond their initiator's intent. While some may think that we maintain escalation dominance, the spiral of violence can rapidly get out of control.

America is at war. But Americans don't want this war. They didn't vote for it. In fact, they voted for just the opposite. Beyond the documents and words of our Founders, that is why their intentions to only grant the power to Congress is so important today. If the President came to Congress to ask for authorization for war, the people's representatives can do what they were elected to do and represent them. Debate provides information and answers we do not now have.

The constitutional separation of war powers is not just some notion that belongs in our history books. It is a vital part of a democratic republic. This Congress should be ashamed of how it has allowed this unilateral march to war. No others in our history have been this cavalier with our military men and women and tax dollars as they are at this moment.

I urge my colleagues to join in opposing both this war and the unilateral actions that were taken without congressional authorization as the Constitution commands.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4272 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, a freelance journalist discovered recently that billions of dollars had been stolen from welfare programs in Minnesota. Congress didn't discover this theft; a member of the public did. How did Congress respond? Did Congress open an investigation? Did Congress claw back the money from Minnesota? No. Congress simply decided to give another $5 billion in refugee welfare.

My amendment says: Stop. No more welfare for refugees until there is a nationwide investigation of the level of this fraud. No more welfare for refugees until Congress balances the budget.

America can't be the world's sugar daddy when we can't even afford welfare for our own citizens.

Many refugees are good people--frankly, some of the best Americans just got here--but our welcome mat should not be a welfare check. Anyone who sponsors immigrants or refugees should be responsible for their welfare. Charity is when you give your money. Any groups assisting immigrants or refugees should themselves be responsible for the welfare of the refugees.

So my amendment will remove from the bill a little over $5 billion from the refugee welfare programs. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. President, I yield back all time on Paul amendment No. 4272.

Vote on Amendment No. 4272

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we are here on the floor of the Senate today to discuss the War Powers Resolution, to discuss the recent war activities in Venezuela, and yet there still is a debate. Some say there is not a war; some say there is a war; some say we won't know for a while if there is a war or isn't a war.

Last year, we had this debate. The junior Senator from Texas came forward and presented a War Powers Resolution for Gaza. He said that President Biden's decision to send U.S. troops in to build a beachhead, to build a pier, was sending them into a war zone.

Interestingly, every Republican Senator at that time voted against a point of order, and the point of order said no hostilities existed. The point of order at the time said Gaza is not a war. And every Republican voted against that point of order because every Republican considered that Gaza was a war zone and that the War Powers Resolution applied.

Fast forward to today, the proposition that the majority of Republicans will put forward is a point of order saying there isn't a war in Venezuela. So they all believed that there was a war in Gaza, but they all now believe that there is not a war in Venezuela.

Now, there are arguments, I think, actually for both being war. In Gaza, the troops that were building the beachhead were fired on multiple times, so I think U.S. troops under fire sounds a bit like you are putting them into a war.

Now, we have a situation in Venezuela where hundreds of troops were sent in--dozens and dozens--and pilots and planes were sent in. You bombed a nation's capital. You had extraordinary rendition of the nation's President, and now, we have a blockade involving hundreds of ships and thousands of sailors, but that is not a war.

It is somewhat boggling to the mind that almost every Republican Senator believed there was a war when a few soldiers were shot at in Gaza trying to build a pier. I agreed with them. I think that was putting U.S. troops into war.

But now every Republican--not every Republican--virtually all Republican Senators who believed that it was a war in Gaza now believe it is not a war in Venezuela.

Now, some of them on the quiet will tell you: Well, it was a war, but it is all over. It is all done. Yeah. We are not going to quibble. We really weren't arresting somebody. It wasn't a drug arrest. It was a war. It is a mini-war. But it is all over, so the War Powers Resolution doesn't apply because the war is over.

And yet, we still have an entire military blockade of a country, and that is not a war. This is a real question.

So we have been given a legal opinion by the current administration, and we had one of their assistant attorneys general come and explain to us why this is not a war. You have to realize this is an important part of the debate because, if it is a drug bust, it is not a war. So they told us this is really just a drug bust. We had to bomb the entire capital. We had to remove all their air defenses. We have an armada of 20,000 ships and hundreds of airplanes flown from all over the world, but it really was just a drug arrest; it really isn't a war.

But this young man came in to us, and he explained to us that we probably don't know yet whether it is a war. The way we will know it is a war is by the scope, the extent, and the duration, including how many people die in the war.

So the problem we have, though, is the Constitution gives us the power to initiate war, to declare war. But if we don't know if it is a war until after all the people die and we add up how many people died and they call it a constitutional war because a lot of people died, wouldn't it then be a little bit late to vote on initiating a war?

See, this is an enormous debate. This is an important debate, and this should not be sluffed over as, Oh, no big deal. The war is already over.

Well, we actually don't even know if the war is already over. We are under a blockade. The current administration has said they will send troops back in if they need to. They said they will send troops into other countries if they need to. The blockade is said to be, Oh, we are going to control the ships, and we are going to sell the oil, and we are going to run. We are in charge. It is our oil. We are going to be in charge of Venezuela.

But that sounds to me like a military blockade, a long-term military blockade, and I don't know how we argue that that is not war. But the position of the administration and probably the position of other Presidential administrations--because this isn't really and shouldn't be Republican versus Democrat--this should be legislative prerogative versus Presidential prerogative, and it should be about the Constitution.

The Constitution specifically, thoughtfully, vested the power of initiating war and declaring war to Congress. They talked about it. They talked about it in the Constitutional Convention. They wrote about it in the Federalist Papers, and from Hamilton to Jefferson, the spectrum of our Founding Fathers concluded they didn't want the President to have this power. They said the initiation--the declaration of war shall be vested by Congress in the legislature.

So what we have is an elaborate song and dance. They know the declaration of war resides here. They know initiation of war--so they argue first that it is not war; it is a drug bust. But then they say: Well, internationally, people say it probably is a war, so in case you think it is a war, we are going to tell you that it is not really a war because we won't know if it is a war until it is over. We will tell you more about it. We will know when the war is over whether it actually was a war and whether we should have voted to initiate war when the war is over depending on how many people die.

And then they say: Well, we are going to look at the scope, extent, and duration of the war, but since we don't know what that is, we are going to guess based on what the policymakers say. And they say to us now we are not going back in, so we don't have to vote on whether or not we are going to war with Venezuela.

This, to me, is an absurdity; it is logic that runs in circles, and it doesn't get us any closer to where we need to be. The reason the Founding Fathers gave this power to the legislature is because they wanted to make war less frequent, they wanted to make war hard to initiate, they wanted to see war more as a defensive notion, not as an offensive enterprise.

During the debate over whether Gaza was a war, the resolution was introduced by the junior Senator from Texas, and virtually every Republican voted for it. Interestingly, Marco Rubio voted for it. The Secretary of State actually voted to say that the war in Gaza where troops were being shot at that were building a pier was a war. But now, things seem to have reversed, and all those who thought Gaza was a war where there were some shots being fired at the people trying to build a pier--which by many people's interpretation would be a lot less than an entire invasion of a capital and removal of a President and a blockade of an entire country--every Republican in this body, including the current Secretary of State, voted that Gaza was a war.

In making the arguments that Gaza was a war, the junior Senator from Texas expressed the reality that the Senate had abdicated its constitutional responsibility. So at that time, the junior Senator from Texas argued that Gaza was a war. He said:

Over recent decades, we have seen the Senate hand away much

of our responsibility on foreign policy and national security

to the Executives. That is contrary to the design of our

Constitution, and it is frankly harmful to the Senate and

harmful to this country.

I couldn't agree more, but I don't understand how it was harmful when we were talking about Gaza and it is no longer harmful when we are talking about arguably a much greater military incursion into a country. It seems as if--and I know this would be shocking to people-- that there is some partisanship here, that there is a different definition of war under Democrats than there is under Republicans.

My colleague from Texas went on to highlight the flagrant hypocrisy of both parties, saying on the Senate floor:

[Now], far too often, the Senate has stepped out of our

historic role in foreign policy and [has] said: Whatever the

President wants, we, the Senate, aren't going to say anything

about it.

When there is a Republican President, Democrats suddenly

discover their voice and say: Hey, the Senate ought to say

something.

But when it is a Democrat President, it seems no matter how

incoherent and disastrous the foreign policy from the

Democrat President, [the] Democrat Senators don't want the

Senate to exercise its authority.

I would argue today is evidence that both sides are guilty of this. I would argue that if Gaza was a war, that bombing of the Venezuelan capital and removal of the President and the blockade of an entire country might qualify as a war.

If a few soldiers shooting at our soldiers who are trying to build a temporary pier or a temporary port in Gaza is war--which every Republican in the body voted for--certainly they must think the invasion of a capital is a war, that removing a President is war, or that blockade of a country.

So even though the first incursion, the first invasion, may well be over, is the blockade of a country not a war? Are we not at war when we have a military blockade of a country?

The American people are sick and tired of their elected officials disregarding the Constitution when their party is in power and then becoming ardent defenders of the Constitution when the opposing party is in power. Each of us took an oath to the Constitution to defend it that applies at all times, not just when it is politically convenient.

Congress maintains a constitutional duty to debate matters of war. Playing politics when the lives of our brave servicemembers are on the line and our country is at risk of being entangled in yet another foreign conflict is an inexcusable dereliction of duty.

At this point, I think we need to have a fulsome debate--a debate in the country, a debate in the Senate--over what war is. But I think anyone who accepts the ludicrous notion that they will tell you what war is after the war is over should not be treated seriously.

How can we do our duty? How can we do our duty to initiate and declare war if we don't know what war is until it is over?

If after the war we can count the casualties, and there are a significant amount of casualties, or the incursion took a significant amount of time, then there is war. Or some will say: Well, we can just defund the war. You know what, it has never happened.

Find me the Senator or Congressman who wants to vote against money for our troops who are being shot at. It is very difficult to stop funding a war once we start because a nation's patriotism rises up naturally.

The time to start a war is before it gets started. But if they are telling you they define war by how many casualties there are, you have got to wait until the war is over to determine whether it was a war, to determine whether we should initiate the war. This is an absurdity.

Both parties, frankly, have been guilty of hypocrisy on this, but the order today that we will be voting on is whether or not the point of order says that this is not a war.

Well, invasion of another country, blockading of a country, and removing another country's leader, to my mind, clearly is war, and I will vote against this point of order.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Virginia for leading this effort. There is likely no issue more important that confronts us as a nation, as a people, as a Congress, than whether or not to send our young men and women to war.

I take a backseat to no one in my disdain and loathing of state- sponsored socialism. In fact, I wrote a book, ``The Case Against Socialism,'' describing the historic link between socialism and state- sponsored violence.

I wish the people of Venezuela well and sincerely hope that they will not repeat the mistake of electing socialists that have plagued the nation since the 1970s.

Whether or not socialism is evil, however, is not the debate today. The debate today is about one question and one question only: Does the Constitution allow one man or one woman to take the Nation to war without the approval of Congress? Full stop.

That question is bigger than regime change in Venezuela, bigger than the claims that the ends justify the means, bigger even than the depredations and evils that multiple socialist autocrats have perpetrated upon the once great country of Venezuela.

Even those who celebrate the demise of the socialist, authoritarian regime in Venezuela, as I do, should give pause to granting the power to initiate war to one man. The power to initiate war is so vast a power that it must be confined by checks and balances.

The debate today would not be happening if our leaders read and understood the Federalist Papers. The constitutional power to initiate war is placed squarely on the shoulders of Congress.

Current congressional leaders squirm and would like to shift the burden of initiating the war to the President. Less than courageous Members of Congress fall all over themselves to avoid taking responsibility to avoid the momentous vote of declaring war.

But make no mistake, bombing another nation's capital and removing their President is an act of war, plain and simple. No provision in the Constitution provides such power to the Presidency.

No Supreme Court has allowed the Congress to abdicate its role in the decisions of war and peace, and no Congressman of any self-respect will argue otherwise.

Our leaders debated fully whether or not to grant this power to the President. To a man, from Jefferson to Hamilton, the spectrum of our Founding Fathers, they all agreed with the words that Madison wrote that the executive is the branch most prone to war, and, therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power--vested the power to declare war in the legislature.

Founding-era arguments in support of ratifying the Constitution demonstrate that our government does not entrust the decision to go to war to just one person. At the Constitutional Convention, Charles Pinckney argued that uniting the war powers under a single Executive would grant to the President monarchical powers.

It would make him like a King. They did not want a King. They were tired of the endless wars of Europe. They took that power and placed it with the people's representatives. They didn't want to make it easy to go to war. They wanted to make it hard to go to war.

Some will argue--they will say that Congress is so feckless. They will never declare war.

Well, guess what, when we have been attacked, we have been virtually unanimous. When we were attacked on 9/11, the vote was virtually unanimous to go after the people who attacked us. When we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, once again, the vote was virtually unanimous to go to war.

James Wilson, one of the Founders, assured Americans at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention that the proposed Constitution would not allow one man or even one body of men to initiate hostilities.

In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton stated the Constitution gave the Presidency fewer war powers than those of the British Monarch and that the American President would be restricted to conducting the operations of the Armies and Navy. In other words, the Constitution, the declaration of war, that power would remain with the legislature. The execution of the war--how many troops are stationed here; how many battleships are stationed here--that would be the prerogative of the President.

The beginning of the war, the initiation of the war, the declaration of the war would reside with the people and their representatives to make it less likely that we go to war.

The founding generation was largely united in the opinion that the American President would not be endowed with the monarchial powers to initiate war unilaterally. These Founders were not just engaged in a sales pitch; they were accurately representing the Constitutional Convention's decision on how to divide the war powers. Initiation, declaration of war, would be the prerogative of Congress; execution, fighting the war, would be the prerogative of the President.

An early draft of the Constitution gave Congress the power to ``make war'' rather than to ``declare war.'' This was debated, and during the debate over this, South Carolina's Pierce Butler rose to defend the proposition that the new American Government should vest the war-making powers with the President.

So this one man from South Carolina rose and said, not only should the President execute the war, he should initiate the war also.

But others stood up. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, was so aghast by Butler's suggestion that he rose to say that he ``never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.''

And in response to Butler's proposal to vest all the war powers with the President, Gerry joined with James Madison to successfully propose amending the draft of the Constitution to give Congress the power to ``declare war.'' They specified that Congress would have the power to initiate or declare war, but the execution of a war would be the President's power.

But they wanted to make sure that the President would be able to defend the country against foreign attack without awaiting congressional action.

This comes up all the time about: What if we are being attacked? What if it is an emergency? Can the President act without Congress?

Of course, he can. No one has disputed that. Military action in defense from another military attack has always been the prerogative of the President.

People say: Well, this had to be a secret.

Well, guess what. It was no secret that we had an entire armada lined up outside and across the coast from Venezuela. They knew we were there. They knew it was a possibility that we were coming in. Had we voted to declare war, yes, they might have been chastened even more. They might have even decided to negotiate before, had the entire Congress said: We are declaring war.

So in some ways, a declaration of war actually is more potent if you are trying to effect diplomacy. But, instead, we didn't vote. People said: Oh, they wouldn't be surprised.

If we had voted to declare war, the President still doesn't have to divulge the time or place of the war. Those secrets can still exist.

And, in fact, it is even more justified for the President not to tell us anything about the attack until afterward, if we have already given him permission to initiate a war.

And people say: Oh, this is just a technicality. Why should we care?

Well, if you have sons or daughters, you should care, because if we have unlimited war, if we have no limitations on the war-making power of one person, what happens when you get someone who will run amok with war?

I am not even talking about this President. I am talking about ``what if.''

That is why the rules are in place. The rules are in place to prevent a President, at one point in time, from running amok and having millions of our soldiers strewn around the world.

Does anybody remember the Battle of the Somme? A million soldiers died over an 18-day period in World War I. Now, that war was authorized, and it was still awful. But can you imagine a million soldiers dying without a declaration?

And people say: Well, what are you talking about? They are already gone. No one is in Venezuela.

What we are talking about is taking a country to war. We aren't just talking about Venezuela. We are talking about the power of a President to have a million soldiers die in an 18-day war.

People say: We are not talking about that.

Then we would declare war. You have to declare war at the beginning.

And then people say: Well, it is not a war. All it was was an arrest warrant. It was just a drug crime.

Oh, he was guilty of possessing machineguns. That sounds like that is being made up as humor.

In 1934, we passed a law in our country saying you can't own machineguns. It is an American law. Does anybody in their right mind-- does any sane individual who can read in our country--believe that it applies to the security forces of a foreign dictator or a foreign President; that if their guards have machineguns, they are guilty of breaching a 1934 U.S. law? What kind of world would we live in if we could accuse people around the world and simply go arrest them and send the military to quiet down all of their defense systems so we could arrest them?

We had intelligence reports in our country that reported that, per our intelligence, the leader of Saudi Arabia was guilty of or was involved with killing an American journalist. What if a President decided they wanted to arrest him? Can they do that without a congressional vote or permission?

There are arguments that the current President of Brazil has unfairly imprisoned the previous President of Brazil. Now, you can have an argument on both sides. You can listen to the facts, but would you want your President to be allowed to go to Brazil, free the former President, and put the current President in jail without a vote of your representatives? What kind of world would that be? Who could be for that?

The Constitution empowers the President to defend the country against sudden attacks initiated by any foreign power. The initiation of hostilities by the United States that requires deliberation and authorization must be voted upon in Congress.

Our Founders' intent was not a close call open to equivocation. Pundits argue that Presidents have been ignoring this restriction for decades. That is true. But that is not an argument. That is just an excuse, and a lame one at that.

The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war. The power to declare war was too important to be left to the competence of one man. As Jefferson wrote, ``in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.''

See, the Constitution isn't chains on the people; it is chains on your representatives so they don't usurp the power, so your representatives don't take you to war without careful deliberation.

Our Founding Fathers were explicit, and yet they still worried that a branch of government might resist the chains of the Constitution. So in pondering how they would enforce these checks and balances, they took to heart Montesquieu's maxim that if the powers of the Executive and the legislature, if they are combined--if there is no difference between the legislature and the Executive, if they are combined together--there can be no liberty. Those are strong words. They felt liberty would be endangered or imperiled if all the power resided in one person.

Madison wrote that by dividing the powers, by separating the powers within the Constitution, within the branches of government, that would pit ``ambition against ambition.'' The ambitions of a President to usurp power would be pitted against the natural ambitions of the legislature to keep power. The natural allure of power would be checked by each branch jealously guarding the prerogative of power.

Who among the Framers would have ever guessed or conceived of a time when Congress would lack any ambition--any ambition at all? Who would have predicted a time when Congress would be so feckless as to simply and obediently abandon all pretense of responsibility and any semblance of duty so as to cede the war power so completely to the President?

It is as if a magical dust of soma has descended through the ventilation systems of the congressional office buildings. Vague faces, permanent smiles, and obedient applause indicate the degree that the majority party has lost its grip and become eunuchs in the thrall of Presidential domination.

A President is never truly checked by the minority party, other than through elections. Meaningful checks and balances require the President's party to stand up and resist unconstitutional usurpations of power. Until that happens, the dangerous precedent of unlimited war- making power will continue to be abused by Presidents of both parties.

I recommend a ``yes'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Lady Astor was the first woman to serve in the British Parliament, the British House of Commons. In 1933, she was asked at a cocktail party: Do you know where Hitler was born? And without missing a beat, she responded: At Versailles.

And the point of the response was that harsh reparations from the Treaty of Versailles led to German resentment and the rise of the demagogue Hitler.

It had the opposite of the planned effect. The plan was to punish Germany. The plan was to make Germany pay for the war that they had begun, but in the end, it led to the rise of Hitler.

I fear many in the Senate, though they are well-intentioned, will repeat the same mistake of meting out punishment without considering the ramifications. If the authors of this bill are successful, they will confiscate Russian sovereign funds and distribute those funds to Ukraine.

One could make a good argument for the fairness of making Russia pay for their war of aggression. But first one must consider this currently seized money is an integral part of peace negotiations.

Once this money is seized, an important facet of the peace compromise will disappear, and Russia may well be induced to just keep fighting this terrible meat grinder of a war.

What a tragedy if, in haste, the result of punishing Russia is to prolong the war.

Confiscating Russian sovereign assets is essentially an act of economic war. Seizing and transferring these assets to Ukraine may make people in Washington feel virtuous, but it will not bring peace.

Confiscating Russia's sovereign assets will reinforce the view of hard-liners in Moscow that Russia's war lies not with Ukraine but really with the United States and the West.

There is no justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but this bill directly undermines President Trump's diplomatic efforts to end the killing in Ukraine. In fact, the Trump administration recently warned the European Union not to give seized Russian funds to Ukraine. Russia's frozen assets could be used as a bargaining chip and are being used as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

But confiscating their sovereign assets and giving them to Ukraine will only convince Moscow that there is no negotiated settlement to be had with Kyiv. The result will be the further destruction of Ukraine. More Ukrainian soldiers and civilians will die, and more cities and towns will be turned to rubble.

Nicholas Mulder is an associate professor at Cornell. He highlights the danger of the destabilizing precedent that Western countries would set by seizing assets to end a war they are not openly involved in.

Professor Mulder writes, that such an action would ``broaden coercive actions that states could take for disputes to which they are not a direct party.''

Elisabeth Braw, a columnist at Foreign Policy and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, also highlights the risk of blowback to Western companies.

She states that if Western governments themselves begin confiscating assets without due process, they will expose Western companies to the caprice of undemocratic regimes.

In fact, Russia has already threatened to seize $288 billion of Western assets that are in Russia. So we take their money; they take our money. Where does the cycle end?

This bill will hand the Russians another tool to fuel resentment against us. American leaders speak of a rules-based international order, but the theory that the United States can confiscate the assets of another country we are not at war with is legally fraud.

Professor Mulder argues that economic reprisals are the prerogative of injured states, not of third parties. Rather than compel respect for international law, our actions will demonstrate to our adversaries that we are flouting it.

This bill will be used by the Kremlin to show the world that while Washington demands that others follow the rules, we are happy to break them when we see fit.

In a multipolar world, Washington can no longer expect to act with impunity, particularly when dealing with a nuclear power. We understood the serious dangers that our country faced during the Cold War, but three decades of hubris and repeated foreign policy disasters prove that Washington's foreign policy establishment is badly broken.

A good way to start on the road to fixing that broken foreign policy is rejecting this disastrous bill which will only delay and possibly end the peace negotiations.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is a naive notion to think that we will yell and scream and gnash our teeth and tell China: Quit selling dual-use materiel to Russia and that they will immediately have a sanguine face and say: Oh, of course. What were we thinking? We will quit doing it.

That is what the logic of this legislation is. We are going to tell China to quit doing it.

Now, there is another way diplomacy could work. We have hundreds and hundreds of sanctions on China. If you want China to do something, you could offer to China to remove some sanctions in exchange for them not selling weapons that have dual-use or parts that have dual-use to Russia.

There are ways you can gain things through diplomacy, but they are transactional, and they include carrots and sticks. But just making sort of over-the-top statements about how evil China is and communist this, communist that, will not get you anything.

If you want something from China, you have to offer them something in exchange. If you want them to quit selling dual-use parts to Russia that they are using in the war, offer them some relief from the hundreds and hundreds of sanctions we have put on them.

Instead, what this body and the same people who are for this bill have advocated is, we are going to go one step further. Anybody who sells oil to Russia, we are going to put a 500-percent tariff on them.

How do you think China will respond to a 500-percent tariff? You think China is going to say: ``Oh, we are so sorry. Our bad. We should not trade with Russia, and we will do whatever the U.S. tells us''?

No. They will react like anybody else that is a sovereign nation, and they will push back and they will say: ``Hell no. We are not going to stop buying oil and gas from Russia.''

Then there will be a 500-percent tariff on China, which means what? An embargo. We have got an embargo the President has already declared on Venezuela.

Do we want an embargo on goods with China? Do we want to defeat China by not trading with them? In fact, I think it is the opposite. I think you defeat and influence China by trading with them.

The moment we have no trade with China, is the moment, in all likelihood, they will say: We have got nothing to lose in going into Taiwan. The moment they go into Taiwan will be when we have absolutely no trade with China.

So it is the opposite. These people want to isolate us--isolate us from trade. They want a trade isolationism throughout the world. It is a mistake and won't work.

It is not that some of the goals or things that they advocate for aren't desirable. I agree, we should try to get China to quit selling dual-use parts to Russia. But guess what. When Secretary Yellen and Secretary Blinken went over there, what did they do? They went over there and publicly chastised China in their country. Do you think that worked? No. That made China mad. They did the opposite.

This is the opposite of diplomacy. If you want diplomacy, you don't call people names, you don't treat them like a stepchild, you don't treat them like a rebellious teenager and say: I am wagging my finger. You better quit selling dual-use parts to Russia.

No. You have to offer them something they want, and in exchange, they do something we want. That is the way diplomacy works. But in Washington, diplomacy works by ``We will have a resolution, and this resolution will say how evil China is.'' It doesn't have any effect.

The sanctions haven't worked, taking Russia's money is not going to work, and chastising China is not going to work. If you want to have better relations, you have to have relations where it is a give-and-get relationship. That is what diplomacy is all about.

I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism is a colossally bad idea, a dangerous provocation, and a roundabout way of allowing military strikes on Russian targets. If you doubt this, ask the Venezuelans. All of the ``kinetic strikes'' on Venezuelan boats are justified because they are designated as a terrorist sponsor. They have these fancy names. We call them designated terrorist organizations. Therefore, it is like a war but not quite a war, but they justify their attacks, and they justify acting like there is a war with Venezuela by designating them as terrorists.

Never underestimate Washington's ability to make things worse.

In its insistence that Moscow be a permanent enemy of the United States, the foreign policy establishment is pushing to impose more punitive measures on Russia--measures that may make globalists in Washington feel virtuous but that in reality will do nothing to help Ukraine, do nothing to bring peace in Europe, and do nothing to make Americans safer or more prosperous. In fact, if there is one thing more likely to disrupt the peace talks and make it less likely to find peace, it is simply that of labeling Russia a terrorist nation.

If you want to destroy the peace process, you should pass this legislation and shout it from the rooftops that you are calling Russia a terrorist nation--if you want to disrupt the peace talks.

This bill, which would designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, directly undermines President Trump's diplomatic efforts to end the 4-year war in Ukraine. If you like the war in Ukraine, vote for this bill because this bill will do everything possible to drive Russia away from the table.

Our goal should be to seek deescalation and stability in Europe, which will only come about by establishing working relations with the Russians. None of this says that Russia isn't the aggressor. None of this says that Russia isn't doing bad things. They are in the middle of a war. Yes, they are the aggressors. But simply standing forth and showing how virtuous we are by calling them terrorists will do nothing to end the war and may well allow the war to continue. The hardliners in Moscow already believe they are at war with the United States, and designating them as a state sponsor of terrorism will only throw further fuel on that fire.

This misguided legislation would destroy any semblance of U.S.-Russia bilateral relations, and it is not going to achieve its desired intention. It is absurd to think that applying more economic pressure on Russia will get them to change their objectives. They have fought for 4 years. They have lost tens of thousands of soldiers, and they have killed tens of thousands of soldiers. Some say there are up to 1 million casualties of this war. We have already imposed 16,000 sanctions on them. Do we really think 16,001 is going to do the trick?

We think: Oh, we are going to call them a terrorist. What a terrible thing. They are going to lay down their arms and give back the land they have taken.

No, that is not what is going to happen. This will not work, but it might drive them away from the process of coming to a negotiated settlement.

If this bill is enacted, Russia will likely conclude that negotiations are futile, and they will continue the grinding war of attrition on the battlefield. It should come as no surprise, given the disparity between Russia and Ukraine in terms of economic strength and population, that a war of attrition does not favor Kyiv.

President Trump has repeatedly made clear that this is not our war and that his primary desire is to end the killing. He is 100 percent right. Congress should fully support the President's efforts to end the needless slaughter of a generation of young people in Ukraine and Russia, but this legislation will do the opposite of his intentions. This legislation will put peace further away. It may well drive a wedge in negotiations and end the negotiations.

The way to do this, the way to achieve peace, is to pursue realistic negotiations--negotiations that, whether you like it or not, will require that Russia's security interests are taken into consideration, not by ratcheting up tensions with Moscow or by designating them as a state sponsor of terrorism.

The Washington establishment already succeeded in its foolish designation of drug cartels in the Western Hemisphere as terrorist organizations. Now we are conducting extrajudicial killings of individuals seemingly every day, with no congressional authorization or oversight. What is next? Are we going to commit extrajudicial executions of Russians once they are designated as state sponsors of terrorism? That is exactly what we are doing in Venezuela.

They say: Oh, we are just not killing any drug dealers; we are killing drug dealers who are terrorists.

That sort of begs the question: When they release a narcoterrorist who has been in prison for 45 years--former President of Honduras Hernandez--oh, well, why is he not a narcoterrorist?

Oh, because we name who the narcoterrorists are. The guys we are killing in the boats, they are the narcoterrorists. The guy who was convicted and sent to prison for 45 years--the former President of Honduras--is not a narcoterrorist.

As to the justification for killing the people in the boats who are not armed--there has been no evidence presented that anybody in these boats has been armed. We are killing unarmed people because we are calling them narcoterrorists, and now we are going to call the Russians terrorists. What does that mean? Are we setting up the predicate for bombing Russian boats?

They say they don't need authority for war. They say they can do it. But you are helping them by designating Russians as terrorists. When you do and when they begin to blow up Russian boats, what will we say?

The Washington establishment has succeeded in this foolish designation. We now have drug cartels. We are conducting these killings. What is next? Will we allow the killings of Russians? Will we allow the bombings of Russian boats?

Designating countries or cartels as terrorists essentially becomes an end run around congressional war-making powers.

The Constitution says we declare war.

They say: Well, it is not quite war; it is somewhere in between war, but it is not drug smuggling anymore. We don't kill drug smugglers on sight, but we do kill them if they are designated as terrorists.

So it is just game-playing with these labels. It is circular reasoning, but everything about it leads to more war and leads to less restraint.

Once they are designated as terrorists, attacks on the country are argued to be sanctioned. This is an argument for saying that bombing Russian boats will be sanctioned. The terrorists, the Venezuelans, are said to be terrorists. Their boats are targets, and we can bomb them like it is a war but not a war because we haven't voted on it. If we label Russians as terrorists, is that the same conclusion?

So while we are not at war with Russia, designating them as a state sponsor of terrorism implies that no further vote of Congress is necessary before letting the bombs fly. To think that the risk of escalation must no longer concern us because a war has gone on for years is folly. There is still danger to escalating the war with Russia. We must still take great care to ensure that the United States is not foolishly dragged into a kinetic conflict through stupidity or miscalculation.

Americans supported President Trump because they resonated with his message of ``America first.'' Outside of the globalist elites in Washington, everyday Americans do not want to be further entangled in a war 5,000 miles from our shores.

Congress should reject this bill and instead focus its efforts on advancing realistic peace negotiations in Ukraine and in pursuing policies that advance America's national interests.

I object.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Bragdon nomination.