Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to remember and honor the lives of two North Carolinians: Fairview, NC, Volunteer Fire Department Battalion Chief Tony Ray ``Bones'' Garrison, and his nephew Brandon Ruppe.

When Hurricane Helene hit their community and caused historic, life- threatening flooding, Tony and his nephew Brandon selflessly worked to rescue others. During the rescue attempts, Tony and Brandon were tragically killed in a mudslide.

Tony was born and raised in Buncombe County and served his community as a battalion chief with the Fairview Volunteer Fire Department and the Garren Creek Fire Department and as a member of the Buncombe County Task Force. A lifelong native of Buncombe County, Tony served his community with distinction throughout his years of service with the Fairview Volunteer Fire Department. He was known for his humility, warmth, and, most of all, his deep love for his family. He is survived by his wife of 28 years Mary Garrison, daughter Hannah Sherie Garrison, son Dylan Garrison, and mother Martha Garrison, all of Fairview.

Brandon will be remembered for his huge heart and sense of humor. Brandon had a deep love for his family and many friends, and his relatives have said, ``If you knew him, you knew it.'' He is survived by his mother and stepfather Annette and Ricky Branks; maternal grandmother Martha Garrison; and his brothers Christopher Branks, Cody Branks, Adam Ruppe, and Daniel Ruppe.

Brandon Ruppe and Tony Ray Garrison will forever be remembered in North Carolina for the tremendous sacrifice they made in saving the lives of others. Susan and I send our deepest condolences to their loving family, friends, and colleagues. May God Bless these fallen heroes.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Caleb Carlin, Preston Romanov, and Dalton Barnett, interns from Senator Paul's office, be granted floor privileges until December 12, 2024.

Mr. President, Senator Budd and I rise today to recognize Staff Sergeant Frank Perry, who is celebrating his 98th birthday this year. Mr. Perry served our Nation valiantly in World War II as a member of the U.S. Army Air Corps and is a respected and cherished member of the North Carolina triad community.

During his service in WWII, Mr. Perry flew combat missions into Germany with the 754th Bombardment Squadron. He also served on a B-29 Superfortress crew in preparation for troop movements in the Pacific.

The brave men and women who served in World War II rightfully earned the title ``the Greatest Generation.'' Their courage and sacrifice changed the course of history, ultimately liberating Western Europe and much of Asia from fascism and ushering in an era of unprecedented prosperity here at home.

After the war, Mr. Perry continued his career in aviation, eventually becoming a flight dispatcher based in Winston-Salem. He is a lifetime member of Winston-Salem Elks Lodge No. 449 and has served in various leadership positions.

We are honored to join his family, friends, and community in recognizing his contributions to our Nation.

Madam President, I will be brief. Back in the early eighties, disco was popular. I was young, and LaVerne Allen was just coming into the Senate, first as an intern and now as what everybody refers to as the ``enforcer'' on the floor.

I had to come over here. I am even doing this on a bipartisan basis. I came to the Democratic side of the aisle to trace LaVerne down to force her to get into the picture, probably the first time in her career.

But ladies and gentlemen, a lot of times we take for granted what happens in this Chamber. We don't think about all the hard work the staff does. They get here before us, they leave after us. We don't think about how difficult it is to come to a U.S. Senator and tell them to be quiet. I will tell you, she trains her proteges well because she just had Sherrod Brown be asked to be quiet by an intern over there, somebody who just started. I saw it happen. LaVerne was about to, but you trained somebody to take your place really well.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize this place only runs because we have a strong Sergeant at Arms staff and great staff in both cloakrooms and up on the dais.

I did not want this week to pass, when LaVerne is about to take retirement and hopefully spend a little time with her beloved son Marcus, who is in the Navy stationed in Japan right now. I feel like, if it weren't against the rules and it wouldn't make the Parliamentarian mad for me to ask unanimous consent to take a selfie on the floor--I am not going to do that, but I am going to thank LaVerne for 43 years of service to this great institution.

I know we are not supposed to applaud, but I will anyway.

Thank you, Madam President.

(Applause.)

Madam President, today I rise to commend George Briggs for his remarkable 37-year tenure as executive director of the North Carolina Arboretum.

Under Executive Director Briggs' guidance, the arboretum has flourished, boasting a dedicated staff of 150 and an additional 350 volunteers. His leadership has been instrumental in earning the arboretum the distinction of America's Best Botanical Garden by Newsweek. Throughout his career, he has been a driving force in North Carolina's green industry and tourism economy.

The arboretum welcomes over 600,000 visitors and 100,000 students annually, offering innovative educational programs and a serene environment of natural beauty.

Prior to his tenure, Mr. Briggs served as a professor of horticulture at Virginia Tech and as executive director of the Nebraska Statewide Arboretum at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. As president of the American Public Gardens Association and as the founder and chair of the inaugural World Congress of Botanical Gardens held in Asheville, he worked to establish a policy framework for plant conservation in public gardens worldwide.

A native of Reidsville, NC, Mr. Briggs has championed numerous economic development initiatives that have bolstered Asheville's climate science and business sectors and North Carolina's natural products economy.

This year, Mr. Briggs announced his retirement from the arboretum, marking the end of a career characterized by unwavering dedication to Asheville and our State. I extend my heartfelt thanks to Executive Director Briggs for his lifelong commitment, and I wish him and his family all the best as he embarks on this new chapter of his life.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the remarkable career of Sheriff Alan C. Jones, a law enforcement officer who has dedicated over 35 years of his life to protecting and serving the citizens of Caldwell County.

His journey in law enforcement began in 1988, following his graduation from West Caldwell High School. Since 2007, he has been the sheriff of Caldwell County, leading a team of 120 employees who share his unwavering commitment to the safety and security of the county's residents.

Throughout his distinguished tenure in law enforcement, Sheriff Jones has pioneered community-based policing initiatives and served on several law enforcement-related commissions and committees, including the North Carolina Sheriffs' Training and Standards Commission and the North Carolina Sheriffs' Traumatic Incident Response Team. His exceptional service was recognized in 1994 when he was awarded Officer of the Year while serving as a police officer for the city of Lenoir. During his tenure at the Lenoir Police Department, he became one of the youngest officers in North Carolina history to attain the rank of lieutenant.

Since 2019, he has served as secretary of the North Carolina Sheriff's Association, where he has generously shared his wealth of experience to mentor newly elected sheriffs on how to better serve their communities.

Sheriff Jones' career has been marked by a deep love for public service and his community. I want to extend a heartfelt thank you to Sheriff Jones for his lifelong dedication to law enforcement and wish him and his family the very best as he retires and begins this new chapter of his life. Sheriff Jones represents the very best of law enforcement. North Carolina is proud of him and forever grateful for his service.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise today to honor the brave men and women in North Carolina and across the Nation who serve in law enforcement. This is an emotional week for the law enforcement community as thousands of officers and their families come to our Nation's capital for National Police Week. They are paying tribute to brave officers who were killed in the line of duty while protecting our communities.

Unfortunately, North Carolina is all too familiar with law enforcement officers making the ultimate sacrifice. I want to take a moment to recognize some of the law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty since last year's police week and memorial.

Last September, Forsyth County Sheriff's Deputy Auston Reudelhuber was killed in a head-on collision while on patrol. He is survived by his wife and two daughters.

Last December, we lost Sergeant Russell Jones of the Pamlico County Sheriff's Office. He was attempting to halt an altercation at the Pamlico County Detention Center, and during the encounter with an inmate, Sergeant Jones was punched in the face, leading him to collapse minutes later and die. Sergeant Jones served with the Pamlico County Sheriff's Office for 4 years. He is survived by his mother and two sisters.

In December of last year, we lost Philip Dale Nix of the Greensboro Police Department. He was a sergeant in the police department. Sergeant Nix was off duty at a local gas station when he observed three individuals stealing alcohol. When he tried to intervene, they shot him and killed him on sight. Sergeant Nix worked for the Greensboro Police Department for more than 22 years. He is survived by his wife and son.

Just a few weeks ago, on April 29, a task force of Federal, State, and local

law enforcement led by the U.S. Marshals Service attempted to serve an arrest warrant for a fugitive at a residence in Charlotte. Instead of surrendering, the fugitive shot at them; and during an hourslong standoff, four members of the task force were killed. It is one of the deadliest assaults on law enforcement in this country in nearly a decade.

Police officer Joshua Eyer served 6 years with the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department. He is survived by his wife and his 3- year-old son.

Sam Poloche and Alden Elliott were both 14-year veterans of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction. Poloche is survived by his wife and two sons--one graduating from college, another from high school in a few weeks. Elliott is survived by his wife and son.

U.S. Marshal Deputy Thomas Weeks, Jr., was a 13-year veteran of the Marshals Service. He is survived by his wife and four children.

Words alone cannot express the pain and loss each of these families has gone through. They lost the loving husband. They lost a parent. Their lives will never be the same. However, they are never going to be alone. Because in the wake of these tragic losses, we have seen communities unite and rally to support these families. In each instance, we witnessed an outpouring of love for the fallen officers and support for law enforcement.

Congress should follow the example the communities have set. We can show our respect for law enforcement by taking the dangers and threats they face seriously, especially when they are deliberate, like the tragedy we witnessed in Charlotte last month.

That is why I introduced and reintroduced the Protect and Serve Act this Congress. Most people would be surprised to learn that intentionally harming or attempting to harm a law enforcement officer in this country is not a Federal crime. This bipartisan language will change that. It sends a strong message to criminals that assaulting a law enforcement officer is inexcusable and will be met with the full weight of our Nation's criminal justice system.

Law enforcement has our backs every single time they put on a uniform and go on patrol. The least that Congress can do is to signal to law enforcement that we have their backs, too, by passing the Protect and Serve Act. They need our support now more than ever.

To the men and women in law enforcement in North Carolina and across this country, I want to say: Thank you for putting on the uniform every day to keep us safe. You deserve our gratitude.

To the families of the fallen officers, please know that while you lost a loved one, your community lost a hero and we will never forget their service and their sacrifice. God bless them all; God bless their families; and God bless law enforcement across this great Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the lives of four brave law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty on Monday, this week, in North Carolina--actually, in a community that is only about 20, 30 minutes from my home. It is the community of Charlotte, and the entire State of North Carolina is shocked and devastated by the deadly assault on law enforcement.

They were just showing up to do their job. It was the deadliest attack on law enforcement our Nation has seen in nearly a decade, and it is profoundly tragic that it happened in a city and a State that I love.

Young families are grieving; their lives are forever changed; and their fellow law enforcement officers are grieving. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Police lost a beloved officer, the U.S. Marshals Service lost a dedicated colleague, and the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction lost two of their longtime colleagues.

This tragedy was the result of one of the most important, yet very dangerous, responsibilities of our law enforcement officers: executing an arrest warrant. Early Monday afternoon, a task force of Federal, State, and local law enforcement, led by the U.S. Marshals Service, attempted to serve an arrest warrant for a fugitive at a residence in Charlotte. The fugitive had a long criminal record and was wanted for possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of felony fleeing to elude law enforcement.

Instead of surrendering to law enforcement, the fugitive opened fire, and he shot eight law enforcement officers at the scene. Four officers were tragically killed, and four more were injured and had to be transported to the hospital, one in critical condition.

Police Officer Joshua Eyer served 6 years with CMPD. Before that, he served more than a decade in the Army National Guard. As a CMPD officer, he was already making his mark. The chief down in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, Johnny Jennings, remembered that it was just recently that he was in the very room he did the press conference to announce the tragic events Monday that he was congratulating Officer Eyer for becoming Officer of the Month in April.

He certainly dedicated his life, and he gave his life on Monday, serving the people of Charlotte. Officer Eyer is survived by his wife and his 3-year-old son.

Another officer--two, actually--Sam Poloche and Alden Elliott were 14-year veterans of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction. Poloche joined the department's Special Operations and Intelligence Unit in 2013. He was a husband and father to two boys: one who is about to graduate high school, another one about to graduate from college. Officer Poloche's father said ``his main purpose in life was his family.'' He was a man who showed extraordinary kindness, even to perfect strangers.

Alden Elliott joined the Special Operations and Intelligence Unit in 2016. His colleagues remember him as a serious and dedicated law enforcement officer who had a great sense of humor. One of his friends in Charlotte honored his sacrifice by writing:

My best friend was killed in the line of duty while serving

a warrant to a felon with multiple convictions. He was a

marine, father, and hero to me. He was protecting Charlotte.

Elliott is survived by his wife and child.

U.S. Marshals Service Deputy Thomas Weeks, Jr., age 48, was a husband and father of four children. He was a 13-year veteran of the Marshals Service and an 8-year veteran of Customs and Border Patrol.

Deputy Weeks led the team that executed the warrant of the suspect. A district judge who Weeks protected said:

The thing that comes to mind with him is not only his

competence at what he did, but his demeanor. Everybody

remembers [Weeks] and his smile. He enjoyed his job, and he

was good at it.

Mr. President, these four officers were all heroes who protected and served the public. They were loving family men who tragically left behind wives and children.

Susan and I are praying for these four families, and I cannot imagine what they are going through. I want them to know that all of Charlotte, the whole of North Carolina, and our Nation is proud of them for their service, and we regret their loss. We will be forever grateful for their courage, their service, and their ultimate sacrifice.

May God bless the families, friends, and colleagues of these fallen officers and give them the strength they need during this difficult time.

Mr. President, may God bless and protect the brave men and women who serve in law enforcement.

Mr. President, I come here today to commemorate the retirement of one of my longest serving staff in my time in the Senate, Debra Jarrett.

She has been my administrative director for the last 9 years. She has worked in the Senate for 29 years. I was looking it up on the internet earlier today. To give you an idea of how long ago 29 years was, that was the year that ladies were getting ``Rachel'' haircuts because ``Friends'' was one of the most popular shows on. Jennifer Aniston was rocking the ``Rachel'' haircut. Boyz II Men was topping the charts. It was a long time ago. Debra really quickly demonstrated that this was probably the right place for her to start her career; and, today, we are looking at her turning another chapter.

My staff put together some comments that I am being loosely advised by. They said it was a bittersweet moment. Well, I personally think it is bitter. I am sure it is sweet for Debra, the person who is going to be retiring. I think it is probably a violation of the rules to point back here where Debra is sitting, so I am not going to do that. But if it wasn't a violation of the rules, I would point there. That is Debra, sitting here behind me on my wing, which she has been several times before.

When you come to the Senate, the amazing thing about coming to the U.S. Senate--I came in 2015--is they say, you know, ``Congratulations.'' They swear you in. They give you an allocation of money to run your operations. North Carolina has got about--almost 11 million people, so that dictates how much money you have to set up a State operation and a DC operation, but that is it. Your personnel practices, who you hire, how you provision computers--basically the whole running of the business operation; there is not some special department there--that is something you have to do. So one thing you learn very quickly is to find a highly competent person to do that, and I was blessed to have the opportunity to bring Debra in.

I said she has been in my office for 9 years, and she has been in the Senate for 29 years. I should start by saying she was born and raised in St. Joe, IN, population 460. Then she started to work for Dan Coats, the Senator from Indiana, as his legislative aide back in 1995. Then, in 1999, she joined Senator Judd Gregg as a special assistant. She was promoted to office administrator a year later, and she worked for Senator Gregg for 12 years. Then, when Senator Gregg retired, New Hampshire adopted her; and Kelly Ayotte, who was also a Senator from New Hampshire, brought her in as the director of administration. She did that for 4 years and then finally came to work for me.

Debra is somebody--and I do mean this. Even as a U.S. Senator, there are some people who scare me, and Debra is one of them because she is so on point for everything that we do whether it is the efficiency of our office or our fiscal conservative policy. We spend just enough, and we do return some of our office proceeds to the Treasury every year. We don't spend all of the money that we are allocated. Debra oversees all of that, but she oversees so much more.

You will hear--and I don't know. This may be common in other offices, but everybody in my State operation, about half my staff--about 30 of the 60 staff that I have working full-time are down in North Carolina-- are as likely to have an endearing comment to make about Debra as people who see her every day up here in DC. And I mean everything. I mean, it could be telling staff, including my chief of staff, to understand our retirement system and how you can get the Federal match; getting these young people to think about their futures at such a young age; making sure that they go through open enrollment and get their health plan options renewed. With all the sorts of running of the office, Debra is on top of all of that.

But I think what makes her really interesting or makes it even more interesting is how she is, on any given day, likely to come up to me or my chief of staff or my legislative director and say: You need to check in on--fill in the blanks. You know, this person has just come in. They look like they are trying to get used to working in a Senate office-- getting them settled down. She is watching every single aspect of this office and the health and hygiene of all the staff.

She has decided to retire after being vested for--almost 2 years now? You are not supposed to talk to me, but thank you for that--for almost 3 years now.

So 3 years--I got her to break a rule of the Senate floor, which is probably the coolest thing I could have possibly done if you know how rules-oriented Debra is. But she has been working with us, having the option to leave. She has just continued to work, and thank goodness, because we have gotten so much more out of Debra over the last 3 years and, certainly, over the last 9 years that she has been in my office.

I have staff up in the Gallery. I don't think I am supposed to recognize them either, but they are here as a testament to how special and how important she is to our Senate office.

Now, Debra is going to retire, but she is young, and I expect that she is going to go off and do other things. One thing I hope she does, if she decides to go back to Indiana, is to make sure that she is still a part of the Tillis family.

And I thank you for your service.

Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague from Indiana on those wonderful remarks and reflection on history.

I will reflect, in the present day, North Carolina has three teams in March Madness.

Mr. President, just briefly, again, I appreciate Senator Durbin as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We have had many opportunities to work together.

First off, I would just like to point out--and I will because I do intend to do unanimous consent for this--there is a burning platform issue here between now and August. These ads are going on and on. Veterans are making a phone call. I am looking at ways to get to these veterans, and I am told that this will make a connection. So that is something separate from some of the substance that Chairman Durbin talked about.

We have processed about 12,000 cases since I have been here, since 2015. We referred a number to veterans service organizations. Veterans service organizations are approved by the VA and do have attorneys. They can triage cases. And one thing that they do very well is say: This is an easy case; we can help you with this one. This is not an easy case; you need to seek legal representation.

As a matter of fact, we do that as standard operating procedure in my office. I am not saying that many of these cases may need them, but I know a lot of them don't, and I suspect many of them don't. And every dime that you pay an attorney is a dime that is not going to the veteran.

So what I am trying to do here is just to make sure they understand that they have these resources available. It is amazing to me how surprised people are that I have 25 people in the State dedicated to casework, full-time people dedicated to veterans work, a great relationship with VSOs. All of those are free, highly skilled options for veterans that these ads on TV are not making clear to veterans.

We have to do right by veterans. Like I said, I am disappointed with the objection today, but we will have plenty of time to talk about this every week that we are in session between now and August.

I rise to see if the Senator from Utah will yield with the knowledge that I will provide some of my unallocated time so he can continue his comments beyond that required to answer my questions.

Thank you, Senator Lee.

Senator Lee, first, I want the thank you for putting forth amendments, many of which I would like to vote for. I also want to thank you for not having the proviso that all of these amendments must be voted for without yielding any time.

But, Senator Lee, you mentioned about how the Senate works. I have only been here for 9 years. You have been here longer than me. But I thought it was custom, whether Democrats were in control or Republicans were in control, that when we reached a point to where we are on the bill, that a part of the process was making good-faith offers of amendments, like you have, and then the majority, which actually controls what we take up on the floor, would then look for at least some concession on time. But I understand that we have some Members who have said that no matter what, they would not be conceding any time.

So just to be fair to the couple of dozen people watching C-SPAN and some of the people in the Gallery, I am just trying to understand whether or not it is clear that we have Members who said ``Under no circumstances would we negotiate any time,'' and it is, in fact, that intransigence that is

making it less likely that any of the good bills that my colleagues have offered up in the Republican conference are going to get voted on? Is that your understanding?

OK. May I ask another question?

So I just want to be clear that, generally speaking, Senator Lee, I have observed you do some extraordinary things on the floor and managed to get some very helpful measures--amendments--voted on, including some of the ones today. But I do want to be clear that we are likely never going to have an opportunity to vote on those because we do have some of our colleagues who have made it very clear that they are not willing to have the puts and takes that are necessary in the world's most deliberative body to actually get an opportunity to take those votes. Is that your understanding?

I yield back.

Madam President.

I would ask if, at the end of Senator Lee's remarks, if he would yield for a question.

My inquiry to Senator Lee was whether or not he would yield at the end of his comments for a question.

Madam President, I just want to make a point that I have actually seen a number of amendments Senator Lee has made that I would like to vote on, and I don't believe that there is anyone here who is making a judgment about whether or not he should get the amendments, whether or not he is going to vote for the final passage of the bill.

I just want to restate, again, whether or not he is aware that we are not getting on any amendments, probably a handful that would be his, because of objections offered by our colleagues. I just want to make that point. It has nothing to do with where he will ultimately vote on the bill. It has to do with the intransigence of some of our Members who simply won't seek agreement, which is how we operate in the Senate.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Lee.

Madam President, I am inquiring to see if the gentleman from Ohio would yield to a question about the subject matter.

Senator Vance, this appropriations bill that is before us, I just want to make sure that I have my facts right. I believe that there are $35 billion to restore U.S. military readiness and modernization. I also believe--and, please, correct me if I am wrong-- that for every dollar we are sending to Ukraine, we are appropriating about $2.50 to make sure that we backfill and cover--there are a lot of bad, unintended consequences to this conflict. One of the good ones is learning, before we have to defend ourselves, that we are grievously out of step with manufacturing capacity.

And it is my understanding that $35 billion, about half of the money that is being appropriated to Ukraine, is actually being appropriated back to the industrial base and for Patriot missile manufacturing, a number of other vulnerabilities that we have found, we are trying to address it. Do I have a correct understanding of that?

Madam President, I would also like to state that I have time that I will--in response to my question, I will yield my time for the purposes of you allowing to have time beyond the answer of the question.

Madam President, I want to thank my friend and colleague

from Kansas for the speech that he just gave. I would like to associate myself with every single word.

Madam President, last Thursday, I came to the floor to explain to the pages who were on duty then--I think they are different now--and to a few people in the Gallery what was about to happen. Then I told them what was about to happen was that a lot of people were going to file a lot of amendments. There were going to be some people who wouldn't do time agreements. And then we would come to the floor, and we would hem and haw about how either Leader Schumer, the majority leader, or Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, somehow blocked them. Well, that is fiction. I am not a fortuneteller. I have seen this play before. And what played out over this weekend is exactly what happened in the past, where people are making objections without any good-faith offer to negotiate time, et cetera.

So what happens? Great amendments, like those that are being offered by Senator Lee, are likely not going to get a vote. Great amendments by Tom Cotton, Rick Scott, and other Members are likely not going to get a vote. I hope, maybe, that changes, but unless we decide to negotiate in good faith--and I don't know why anybody thinks that they will. So it is disappointing, but it is not surprising, and that is exactly what I was thinking on Thursday.

And, now, here we are on Monday.

I have one other thing.

I had some of my colleagues come to the floor. They referred to the fact that I made a statement that says: I feel like it is on me to vote the way I think I need to vote, and then go back home and explain it.

Why? Well, because a lot of people, when they hear a Senator speak, they believe that it is the truth. They heard somebody say that, if we pass this bill, we are all going to go ride to Kyiv with buckets full of money and let oligarchs buy yachts.

I wonder how the soldier in a trench right now in Ukraine, defending against Russians, feels about that. I wonder how the spouses of the estimated 25,000 soldiers in Ukraine who have died feel about that. I mean, really, guys, sending billions of dollars to Ukraine so Ukrainian oligarchs can buy yachts; is that the best you have?

What we are talking about is funding for the next 10 months. Then we have other people say a forever war--a forever war. Well, the last time I checked, this appropriations runs out at the end of this calendar year. And then, next year, we will have to fight again, either under a Biden administration or a Trump administration, to continue to do the right thing.

A lot of people say we are sending $70, $80 billion to Ukraine. Really? Well, the last time I checked, about half of it is going to the military industrial base here to replace the inventories we sent to them, to replace and aid the modernization of our arsenal. We have billions of dollars in this bill to actually build up our defense industrial base that we now know--thank goodness this is not against a NATO ally because we would be desperate trying to actually support all- out war now.

Thank you, Vladimir Putin. If anything good came from this, we know how weak your military is--a 10-to-1 ratio of Ukrainians to Russian soldiers dead. I feel bad for every one of those Russian families who lost somebody in this war they didn't want to be a part of--87 percent of their ready forces when Putin started this war.

Putin is losing this war, folks. This is not a stalemate. This guy is on life support. He will not survive if the 50 nations that have come together in the Ramstein process to support Ukraine stick together. He will not survive if NATO becomes stronger.

NATO already has one and is about to have a second ally that is only here because of Vladimir Putin. He has made NATO stronger. He has demonstrated that he is weak. He has demonstrated that he is losing.

We all heard the classified reports that are now public that we thought that Russia was going to have air superiority within a couple of days and control all Ukraine that they wanted to control within a couple of weeks. Folks, that was 2 years ago. Ukraine is winning, and Ukraine is winning because the Western world, the NATO allies in 25, some two-dozen other countries have come together and made it very clear that Putin's desire to reestablish the Russian Empire is inconsistent with the democratic world order.

Putin is losing. This is not a stalemate. A 10-to-1 kill differential between Ukrainians and Russians is indisputable. The platforms that he is leaving on the battlefield are indisputable. The fact that we need to modernize and build up our industrial base is indisputable. Thank you, Vladimir Putin, for bringing that to our attention.

And guess what else. China is watching. I am less concerned about Vladimir Putin than I am about China and our retreat from leading the Western world.

Guess what. We are an exceptional Nation, and we are the beacon of hope for democracy. When we step away, who fills the void? You would be hard-pressed to find any nation that has the scale and the ability to do it but the United States, with all due respect to my friends in

Madam President, I rise today--in a few minutes, I am going to make a unanimous consent request for a bill that we refer to in our office as the American Deficit Relief Act; but before I do, I want to talk about why I am here.

We have a program--if you all remember, during the COVID era, we came to this floor multiple times on a bipartisan basis to do everything we could to try to keep the economy afloat while we were dealing with something that hadn't happened in this country in 100 years called a pandemic. We did some things that were good; we did a few things that were proven to be not so good. One of those things is referred to as the employer retention credit, also known as the employer retention tax credit or ERC.

It was under the CARES Act that we first implemented this bill, and at that time, we thought it was going to be about $55 billion reduced revenue to the government. I guess a different way of saying that is $55 billion remaining in the private sector. That was the concept behind so many of the things that we did in the COVID relief measures.

But then we had--in the Appropriations Act of 2021 and the American Rescue Plan, we have added even additional reductions, extensions, that resulted in $86 billion in revenue not coming back to the Federal Government.

Now the challenge that we have out there, like we have in a few of these programs, is we have had fraudsters run rampant--and probably none more than the employer retention tax credit.

They have cottage industries that are set up, calling businesses and saying: Hey, did you know that you are eligible for this?

Now, keep in mind when we were doing this program, these were businesses that were saying: My gosh, my business is about to go under. I don't know how to pay for my employees. We were trying to create programs to get the employers to hang on a little bit more.

Folks, I don't know if you have noticed, but we are past the pandemic. We are back open for business, and you have got companies that I think, arguably, are going to be proven guilty of fraud going out and asking people to take the tax credit now to the tunes of billions and billions of dollars.

So what do we do?

Well, we have got the employer retention tax credit where people are calling the IRS and making claims every single day. In the middle of the tax-filing season, they are dealing with a program that the IRS has said they want to get rid of. Fraud is out of control. We need to give them help. They have been asking for help.

Now why would this require a unanimous consent request, and why would I anticipate an objection today?

Just in fairness to Senator Wyden, my colleague on the Finance Committee--he is the chair; I am a relatively new member--there are some that want to use this program as a pay-for for a tax measure that we may talk about briefly later on.

I am OK with some of the tax discussion going on, but I am really worried about this being used as a pay-for. Here's why: We implemented the program in the 2019 timeframe--or I should say 2020 timeframe. We don't have a pay-for for this program. It sits on the books for a while. Now, it is costing three times as much, and we are using some of what we hope to claw back through fraud and abuse as a pay-for.

It just seems to me it is kind of pay-for laundering. It doesn't make sense when you are looking at some $34 trillion in debt.

With the discussion about the tax extenders that are up now, the R&D tax credit, the low-income housing tax credit, all those things I support--and I even support some modernization of the child tax credit; but I got a real problem with using the $78 billion, roughly, that we think we can get out of the Employee Retention Tax Credit to pay-for.

So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill 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.

Madam President, about a month ago, in the Banking Committee, we had a panel come before us that was talking about fentanyl and how, in the banking system, we should try and figure out ways to get rid of the illicit finance of fentanyl. One of the people who testified is a country music artist and rapper called Jelly Roll. It turned out that Jelly Roll grew up in Antioch, TN. I did too.

So, when I went to ask him questions, I started by saying: You grew up in Antioch. Where did you grow up?

He described the area.

I said: You will remember Country Meadows.

He said: Yeah. I used to live there.

I said: Me too.

It is a trailer park in Antioch, TN.

I understand there are families who need tax credits. I know that there are families who need help. I was one of those families. There is a right way to do it, and there is a wrong way to do it. So I want to make sure that we don't conflate the concern I have about using one credit card to pay off another credit card with tax policy that I am OK with, with child tax credit programs that we can get to right. But let's do it on the basis of sound, sustainable fiscal policy.

I have three grandchildren under the age of 6 years old. The dirty secret about this money that we are using to pay for this program is they are putting my children and my grandchildren further in debt because they are not real pay-fors.

So I was down here to try and end a program that I do not believe is appropriate. Quite honestly, I don't think people consider me a firebrand who is not willing to work across the aisle. So, when you see me stand up against the so-called bipartisan effort, maybe you should listen a little bit more--if not for the fact that I happened to grow up in the population that I want to help take care of, then because I understand business, and I understand a bad pay-for and a fake pay-for when I see one.

Now, I hope that we can get to a point to where we agree on tax policy, but the first opportunity I had was to decide whether or not I supported what had been negotiated, perhaps with Senator Crapo, perhaps with Congressman Smith, and perhaps with Senator Wyden, but not with me and not with many members of the Finance Committee.

So I look forward to going forward. I have given Senator Wyden a lot of credit, I think, for being a fair chairman. I look forward to having that discussion about this measure and then, hopefully, trying to find a pay-for that would make fiscal conservatives like me feel more comfortable with the overall package.

Madam President, just one technical point, and then I will yield the floor.

I should mention that I did live in the same trailer park as Jelly Roll but 20 years apart. I don't want anybody to think we were contemporary neighbors. I am a bit older.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for making those statements, and I am glad that I was able to yield time to hear them here on the floor myself.

Supplemental Funding

Mr. President, today is one of those days where I wonder if people know--who are watching C-SPAN or watch reports or are in the Gallery-- what the heck is happening. So I thought I would come down here and maybe tell you what is happening.

For about 4 months, Senator Lankford, Senator Sinema, and Senator Murphy got together with the charge of trying to come up with a bipartisan approach to the situation at the border.

I think, by most objective measures, everyone I know--because now it even shows up in polls--recognizes that we have got an out-of-control situation at the border.

We clearly have people who should come to this country and should be able to ask for asylum, but it has been abused. The cartels are making about $1 billion a year charging tolls to come across the border. And if you don't pay the toll, you are probably going to get killed. You get about one chance to cross the border without paying a toll--$5,000 if you are from Central America, $50,000 if you are from China. But if you try crossing that border--I have been there. They have got a line of sight, and if you try to cross that border without paying that toll, paying a transnational criminal organization, they are going to kill you.

Now, they do let some people come across the border without having paid a toll, but they have got to work it off once they get here. They are effectively indentured servants who are doing the work of cartels.

This is not hyperbole. This is a briefing that I have gotten from law enforcement officials--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--in the Biden administration. This is real. This is not politics, not from me anyway.

So James Lankford, representing the Republican Party, went down, tried to negotiate a deal. And he worked hard at it. James Lankford is from Oklahoma, a ruby-red State. James Lankford is considered to be one of the most conservative Members of the U.S. Senate. To see Members of my conference and people out in the country criticizing James Lankford as some sort of a ``squish'' or some sort of a sellout really tells me that the people here have to know, so they must be misinforming people, and the people out there are believing it because they are hearing people here say that James Lankford sold out. It couldn't be further from the truth.

The fact of the matter is, the bill that they negotiated, it still needed a little bit of work, but it is a dramatic improvement over the status quo.

Why did we think we even had to go down this path? Because President Biden has apparently forgotten, over the last 3 years, all of the Executive orders that he has rescinded that have

caused the border situation to get worse.

President Biden needs to be told by his advisers that he, in fact, has tools, without a single bill being passed here, that could bring the situation at the border under some semblance of control, but he has chosen not to. So now we have some of our Members--my Members--who think that we have lost the argument; that for some reason, because we weren't able to get this border bill passed, that somehow Republicans own the responsibility for an out-of-control border situation that started after President Biden got sworn in.

Ladies and gentlemen, we did not have this problem. You could have whatever arguments you want to have about President Trump, but the one thing I will tell you about the border, it was under control under President Trump, and it is out of control under President Biden. No law has changed. No authorities have expired. President Biden has chosen not to use authorities he has today.

So I wanted to come down here and set the record straight, first, on Senator Lankford. I don't know if any other Member has come down and talked about him.

I voted yesterday not to move forward on the border package because I have always said, unless we can convince more than half of our Republican majority that they would support this bill, it didn't make sense to send a bill to a Republican-led House that didn't have a majority of the Republicans here in the Senate. That is just knowing how a bill becomes law and knowing that we needed the strength of that message in order to have any prayer of getting the bill passed when it goes over to the House.

So the border bill is where it is, and it is a shame. It is an opportunity lost that I will guarantee you, if we are in power in the White House, if Republicans are in power, we are going to regret that some aspects of this bill weren't passed.

The bill was also endorsed by the Border Patrol Council. The Border Patrol Council is the law enforcement Agency on the border. When I hear the Border Patrol Council say they have endorsed something, they have their necks on the line. Their lives--Border Patrol agents have lost their lives over the past several years because of dangerous encounters at the border. So when I see the Border Patrol Council endorse something--ladies and gentlemen, even if you oppose the bill, understand that law enforcement, those people on the line at the border, endorsed this bill. Clearly, they want more. They have communicated to us that they want more, but they have said that this was positive progress. But that is an opportunity lost, and I am OK with that, and I am at peace with having voted against moving forward on it because I knew we wouldn't have a majority of our conference.

But now what do we have before us? We have a bill that is primarily focused on providing aid to Ukraine, to Israel, and to Taiwan. So it is called a supplemental bill. It is an appropriation. It is us having to authorize the use of these funds.

Now, we were supposed to leave today for 2 weeks. We were supposed to go on recess. And Senator Schumer made a decision that I happen to agree with. He has decided that we are not going to leave here until we settle this issue.

We have some people say: Well, we need time to think about it. You know, this is a planned recess. We need to move on and step back and reflect, maybe negotiate another border bill.

That is not going to happen.

Now let's talk about what is before us. Do we care about this page or this chapter in history? I do. I mean, some people want to go away or think about it, but I think about right now and 24 hours a day since February of 2022, Ukrainian soldiers in trenches trying to defend their homeland.

I know on TV and I know to everybody else this is just something that is happening over in Europe. Think about these people who are fighting for their existence, and we are sitting here saying maybe we can take a couple of weeks before we decide on it? Putin would love nothing more than that.

Ladies and gentlemen, if we withdraw from Ukraine, if the United States, the leader of the free world, says that we are no longer interested in defending freedom and countering Russia, Russia will win, and at some point forward, we will regret the day that we avoided helping the Ukrainians fight their war because we are most likely-- those who would make that decision are making a decision to someday put American lives at risk in a war somewhere, maybe in Russia--or maybe in Europe but maybe in China.

The people who are watching the decisions that this body is going to make over the next few days--Xi Jinping is probably more interested and more hopeful that we fail to make a decision to support Ukraine than Vladimir Putin.

This world is small today. We don't have, as the leader of the free world, the luxury of only being focused on one place at a time. We have to focus on Ukraine and defend freedom there. We have to focus on the South China Sea, Taiwan, and the risk there. We have to focus on our friend and ally Israel in the Middle East. We have to make the tough decision and sometimes cut through the noise and go back home and explain to the American people how critical this decision is.

Don't make the mistake of thinking it is just a channel change away from watching something else that is going on in the world, ladies and gentlemen. People's lives are on the line. Tens of thousands of people have died. Women have been raped. Children have been kidnapped. And Putin is OK with that. Does this United States stand down when you are talking about that kind of a dictator, that murderer and thug? God, I hope not.

And I don't care how painful it is politically for somebody to go back home and explain this. It bears no resemblance to what people in Israel felt on October 7 and to what people in Ukraine have felt for the last 2 years. And it will be the same in Taiwan if we don't act.

So over the next couple of days, if you are wondering why nothing is happening here, why there are no votes--well, Leader Schumer laid down--they call it a motion to proceed, and at least 60 people needed to vote on it in order for us to proceed to considering the bill. So now we have a bill here on the floor, and that bill has funding for Ukraine, it has funding for Israel, and it has funding for Taiwan.

Now, you are wondering why are we not here voting and doing other things. Because right now, we are doing what they call hotlining votes. We are communicating to all the offices certain amendments that we want to pass. But then, because the Senate--any individual Member--I am Thom Tillis from North Carolina. I am not supposed to be talking to you all, by the way, because I think it is a violation of the rules. So I am not really talking to you all; I am just looking in that direction.

But anyway, you have to get consent in this body to get anything done, and any one Member can gum up the works. So right now, we have people saying: We must have amendments on the bill. We must have amendments on the bill.

Then they are privately saying: But I am not going to give up a second of time between now and Monday to let those amendments occur.

So we can't have it both ways, guys. It is fine. If on Monday you get angry because no amendments were actually passed, it is because you haven't been able to cooperate. This is a give-and-take organization. If you don't show some flexibility--yielding back time--then we are just going to sit here until the mandatory time occurs, and then we are going to have a vote, and then people are going to be mad because they are going to say either the minority leader or the majority leader had this baked in all along and they were never going to allow a vote. That couldn't be further from the truth.

If you as a Member of the Senate want to cooperate, we can get a slate of amendments done here. We can get an agreement that they can be heard. We can vote on them. And that is not going to happen, likely.

So I just feel like we have to be honest with ourselves and recognize that if we don't come up with agreements, it is not because it was baked in; it is not because any leader already had it planned and is the puppet master to everything going on here; it is because Members are making a conscious decision to grind cooperation to a halt.

Now, let me just go back to where I started. The stakes are high here. Temperatures are high. But come on, guys. We are U.S. Senators. Get over it and do your job. Temperatures are high here, but the reality is, you should kind of cast aside the inconvenience that working this weekend may represent to you and think about the inconvenience that Hamas has put on the Israelis, that Putin has put on the Ukrainians. That is a real inconvenience.

What we are doing here is living out the privilege and the honor of being U.S. Senators, and I expect my colleagues to grow a spine, do the work of the Senate, and go back home and explain what it is we are doing and why it is we are doing it.