Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum in relation to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today is a great day in America. Nicolas Maduro--an indicted drug trafficker, an illegitimate communist dictator who has the blood of hundreds of Arkansans and thousands of Americans on his hands--is behind bars in a prison in New York. Again, he was an illegitimate communist dictator, in league with all of America's enemies around the world.

With the Venezuelan people crushed underneath his iron fist for years, Maduro turned the country into a crossroads and a playground for the likes of communist China, Cuba, Iran, Russia, and even Islamic terrorists like Hezbollah.

I want to take this opportunity to commend the exceptional skill and bravery of our troops, CIA officers, and FBI agents for executing such an amazing military and intelligence operation that brought Maduro's reign to an abrupt end. It is impossible to overstate the complexity of this mission. But for our troops and our intelligence officers--whose skill, professionalism, and bravery are unmatched in the world-- ``impossible'' isn't in their vocabulary.

I also commend President Trump for having the courage to take bold, decisive, and audacious action against Nicolas Maduro. This action was well within the President's constitutional authority. The operation was in keeping with President Bush's operation to arrest the drug lord and Panamanian President Manuel Noriega, in 1989. If anything, Maduro was much worse than Noriega, and Venezuela now is even more vital strategically than Panama was then.

Additionally, this operation did not violate the War Powers Resolution. Even if you believe the War Powers Resolution is constitutional, these troops were in and out of Venezuela in a couple of hours.

Only the United States could execute such a dangerous and difficult mission without the loss of a single American life. But instead of celebrating Maduro's ouster and America's success, our Democratic colleagues are determined to condemn the operation, all because President Trump ordered it.

Consider that, in 2020, Senator Schumer criticized President Trump for bragging ``about his Venezuela policy'' but failing to bring ``an end to the Maduro regime.'' It sounds like a call for regime change to me, just like Joe Biden's decision to increase the bounty on Maduro's head seems like a call for Maduro to be apprehended and brought to justice. Yet when President Trump did exactly that last weekend, Senator Schumer said this is ``reckless.''

Also, consider Senator Murphy, who said, in 2019:

Getting rid of Maduro is good for the United States.

I agree. Unfortunately, he has changed his tune lately. The day after Maduro's capture, Senator Murphy said:

The invasion of Venezuela has nothing to do with American

security.

Nothing.

He further said:

Venezuela is not a security threat to the [United States].

I disagree. I think it has more than a little to do with our national security and our safety. I have heard from too many Arkansas mothers and fathers whose children have died because of a

drug overdose. This operation was about protecting those families and families like them, anyone who struggles with or who has lost a loved one to addiction.

Again, Nicolas Maduro was an indicted drug trafficker and narcoterrorist. He was in league with the very drug traffickers who are in the business of killing our kids for profit. He didn't just tolerate drug traffickers in Venezuela or lose control of his territory and allow them to run wild; he was a drug trafficker.

I didn't conclude that alone. That was not President Trump's sole decision or even President Biden's decision. That was the finding of a grand jury made up of normal Americans, on more than one occasion.

As for the future of Venezuela, well, of course, it is ultimately up to the Venezuelans. The interim authorities in charge in Venezuela today know what we expect of them: Stop the drug trafficking and the weapons trafficking. Accept the return of their refugees and migrants. Release political prisoners. Expel the Iranians, the Cubans, the Islamic terrorists, like Hezbollah operatives, who have turned Venezuela into a launching pad for regional instability and threats to America's interests.

It will be a difficult road. Our best source of leverage, though, over the interim authorities is the quarantine that we have imposed on their black market oil, which the Maduro regime used to enrich itself-- not just the regime but the senior leaders of the regime as well, if you know anything about their spending habits or their tastes.

Yet this resolution--this very resolution we are debating--might very well require the removal of our Navy ships from the Caribbean that are enforcing the quarantine. Is that what our Democratic friends really want--to let these Chavistas in control of the interim authorities start exporting black market oil again, to keep themselves in power, unaccountable not only to their own people but to America's vital national security interests?

I will say I don't think so. I don't think our Democratic colleagues want to let Venezuela start exporting black market oil again. I believe they were genuine years ago, when they called for Maduro's ouster. I believe they are genuine, now, when they condemn Maduro as an illegitimate dictator and a drug trafficker, someone who repressed his own people, even if they then immediately want to eat their cake and have it too by saying that President Trump still shouldn't have removed him. I think it is just that they are so blinded by their hatred of President Trump that they feel they have to condemn this action in some way.

Instead, why don't we just, as I said at the beginning, celebrate the removal of a virulently anti-American, illegitimate communist dictator who was trafficking drugs into our country and then help the Venezuelan people build a bright future that restores the glories of their past, turning a nation that was the most dangerous, anti-American country in our backyard into the most stable and prosperous pro-American country in our backyard.

So I urge a ``no'' vote against this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am sad to share that Norman Podhoretz, a towering figure of American letters and politics, passed away last night.

Not many men change the course of history. Those who do usually do it through their actions, like GEN Ulysses Grant's brilliant military campaigns in the Civil War. Fewer still do it with a combination of words and actions like Abraham Lincoln.

Perhaps rarest of all are men like Norman Podhoretz, who changed history with mere words--and what words they were. Norman was not only the longtime legendary editor and soul of Commentary Magazine but also a prolific author of a dozen books, hundreds of essays, articles and columns and no telling how many speeches.

He could turn out 10,000 words of elegant, sparkling, cogent prose, seemingly, at a moment's notice while identifying for his readers the deeper meaning of the day's news. Norman was an original neoconservative and proud to be so.

These days, some historically illiterate podcasters and so-called influencers use the term ``neocon'' as an all-purpose slur for anything they don't like. But the neocons were just that, new conservatives, a collection of anticommunist liberals between World War II and the Vietnam war who were, as the saying goes, mugged by reality--in this case, the reality of the New Left's turn against America.

Norman followed this path and blazed it for others. Born in 1930 to working-class Jewish immigrants in Brooklyn, Norman later said the first Republican he met was in high school. Blessed with natural abilities and good teachers, Norman earned a scholarship to Columbia, while at his father's insistence, he also studied concurrently at the Jewish Theological Seminary and earned a degree in Hebrew literature.

After more studies at Cambridge and 2 years in the Army, he returned to New York and wrote for magazines such as The New Yorker and Partisan Review and ran in the liberal intellectual social circles of the times with the likes of Norman Mailer and Allen Ginsberg.

He also wrote for and worked at Commentary, a journal of Jewish thought which, at the time, fit well into those circles. He became editor-in-chief in 1960, on the eve of the disorder, chaos, and anti- Americanism that would be unleashed by the New Left that decade.

They considered this country to be evil--

Norman said of the New Left in 1995.

We neoconservatives were not only outraged by this attitude

and thought it intellectually wrong in almost every detail,

but also thought it was morally outrageous, contemptible, and

dangerous.

Soon enough, Norman and Commentary defined this neoconservative movement, especially on foreign policy. They published famous path- setting essays, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick's ``Dictatorships and Double Standards'' and ``The United States in Opposition'' by Pat Moynihan.

No less a titan than Ronald Reagan called Norman a ``must-read'' for conservatives of all stripes.

Norman, Kirkpatrick, and other neocons both followed and led Reagan into the Presidency, helping to shape a strong and confident foreign policy of defending American interests and free peoples against the menace of Soviet Russia and anti-American insurgencies around the world.

Norman maintained a friendly dialogue with Reagan over the years and received a richly deserved Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush.

Norman turned over the reins of Commentary in 1995, but he never put down the pen. I am thankful he didn't because that was also the year I discovered the magazine and became a 30-year subscriber.

Norman and Commentary were there to chronicle the threat from militant Islam, communist China, and growing anti-Semitism and radicalism at home.

Thanks to great thinkers like Norman, I cannot claim to be a neoconservative. I was, if I could borrow the phrase, ``right from the beginning.'' Generations of young readers learned the easy way from Norman what he had learned the hard way, never flirting with liberalism in our youth.

As, in his own words, ``a filthy little slum child'' of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, Norman was eternally grateful to America for welcoming his

family and providing him with unlimited opportunity. Norman said that he had ``a love affair with America.''

A love affair with America--I think that is a very apt way to put it, something we should all try to emulate and instill in our kids and grandkids.

Norman's love affair with America, I suspect, was behind his dogged support for Donald Trump when so many of his old friends abandoned our party in 2016. But Norman saw President Trump's election as ``a kind of miracle.'' He believed that President Trump could, in his words, ``save us from the evil on the Left.''

Despite all their differences, with their shared love of America, their hatred of communism, their shared New York roots--indeed their shared Brooklyn-to-Manhattan journey--Norman and the President may not be quite the strange bedfellows they first appeared to be.

I am confident that Norman was pleased with the President's muscular defense of the American way of life upon his return to office and especially pleased that Norman lived to watch America join with Israel to devastate Iran's nuclear program on President Trump's watch.

One of the great benefits of my work as a Senator is the opportunity to cross paths with great men like Norman Podhoretz. After learning from his writing for so many years, I have had the occasion to meet him and share a modest correspondence. I can share that Norman may have receded from public writing in recent years, but he remained as witty, brilliant, and courageous as ever in his private correspondence.

Yet, as we all sometimes do when we reflect on our lives, Norman too acknowledged that he at times wondered ``what it all amounted to'' and sometimes feared the answer was ``not much.'' But nothing could be further from the truth, I assured him. For nearly 70 years, Norman informed, educated, persuaded, and succeeded with his words. He taught multiple generations not just to love our country but also why we should love it and how to defend it. His words reached to the U.S. Congress, the Oval Office, and into the councils of nations.

Without Norman and the little magazine he led, the course of history--the Reagan revolution and the Cold War in particular--might indeed have been very different.

I, therefore, join Norman's family not only in mourning the loss of this great man but also in celebrating the highly consequential life of a true American patriot.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this explanation reflects the status of negotiations and disposition of issues

reached between the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026.

The explanation shall have the same effect with respect to the implementation of this act as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a conference committee.

I ask unanimous consent that the Explanatory Statement for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 be printed into the record.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize Lt. Col. Shannon Beers, known as ``Soju,'' for his exceptional work as a defense fellow in my Senate office for the past year. For more than a decade, Lieutenant Colonel Beers has served his country with honor and distinction, both out in the field and most recently in our Nation's Capitol.

In 2008, Lieutenant Colonel Beers commissioned into the U.S. Air Force as a distinguished graduate of the ROTC program at North Carolina State University, where he received his Bachelor of Science in electrical and computer engineering. He went on to complete the Euro- NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training in Texas before completing F-16 fighter aircraft training in 2011. Since that time, Lieutenant Colonel Beers has flown F-16s in the United States, Korea, Japan, Germany, Singapore, and Jordan.

From August 2011 to February 2013, Lieutenant Colonel Beers served as the F-16 flight lead and electronic combat pilot, 36th Fighter Squadron, at Osan Air Base in South Korea. He then went to Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina, where he served as an F-16 flight lead and assistant chief of scheduling at the 79th Fighter Squadron, as well as an F-16 instructor pilot and wing electronic combat pilot at the 20th Operational Support Squadron. Lieutenant Colonel Beers was then stationed in South Korea from October 2015 to July 2016 as the scheduling flight commander of the 36th Fighter Squadron.

After graduating from the highly selective U.S. Air Force Weapons School, he returned to Osan Air Base in 2017 as the lead tactician of the 36th Fighter Squadron. While serving in South Korea, during a period of heightened tensions due to North Korea's multiple missile tests, he played a key role in the 36th Fighter Squadron's preparations for possible contingencies on the peninsula.

Next, Lieutenant Colonel Beers spent 2 years at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, where he led the tactical execution of the U.S. military's only evaluation program for air-to-ground weapon systems. While there, Lieutenant Colonel Beers was responsible for validating weapons requirements and testing weapon systems in possible combat scenarios. His work still impacts yearly technical publications and recommendations to the defense industry.

In 2020, after 12 years of Active-Duty service, Lieutenant Colonel Beers joined the D.C. Air National Guard full-time at Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington. He flew F-16 alert missions in defense of the National Capitol Region, playing an integral role in our Nation's defense. In 2022, Lieutenant Colonel Beers transitioned to the C-40C and has flown numerous executive airlift missions supporting U.S. diplomacy around the world.

Adding to this field experience, Lieutenant Colonel Beers also has an exemplary education record. Only the best Air Force pilots are selected to attend the USAF Weapons School, and Lieutenant Colonel Beers's graduation from the school further honed his tactical acumen and superior leadership skills. He also received a Masters of Science in aeronautical science from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He also graduated from the Air Command and Staff College in 2023.

Given this impressive background, it is no surprise that Lieutenant Colonel Beers came highly recommended to my office. His defense expertise, vast experience, and desire to learn solidified his position as an invaluable member of my national security team. Aside from his tactical acumen, Lieutenant Colonel Beers is an honest, helpful, and generous person who is always willing to pitch in on any task. He quickly became a trusted adviser on all Air Force-related matters, especially concerning my duties on the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

During his year in the Senate, Lieutenant Colonel Beers staffed numerous high-level engagements and hearings, for which he provided top-quality preparation materials. He drafted various pieces of legislation for this year's National Defense Authorization Act, which will positively impact the military. He has also been instrumental in advocating for and ensuring the future of foreign fighter jet training at Ebbing Air National Guard Base, a top priority for Arkansas.

One of Lieutenant Colonel Beers's most significant contributions to both my office and the nation was his excellent work on the COUNTER Act. This crucial and timely legislation gives the military the necessary authority it currently lacks to protect our bases in the homeland from drone incursions. Lieutenant Colonel Beers's wide-ranging knowledge, deep understanding of technical details, and limitless perseverance through challenges were instrumental to the success of this effort.

Lieutenant Colonel Beers also played a major role in securing support for the Integrated Viper Electronic Warfare Suite. This package provides F-16s with essential electronic warfare capabilities, allowing for more effective operations against the latest generation of aircraft. Lieutenant Colonel Beers's diligent work and persistent efforts--which were reflected in both the One Big Beautiful Bill passed earlier this year and in the National Defense Authorization Act-- contributed to maintaining America's air superiority.

Finally, I cannot honor Lieutenant Colonel Beers without also thanking members of his family, specifically his wife Jenn, an Active- Duty Air Force Officer, and his father, a veteran of the U.S. Army. Their support, encouragement, and influence have helped to make Soju an exceptional servicemember, staffer, and leader.

Lieutenant Colonel Beers has had an impressive career, spanning the Air Force, the Air National Guard, and now, the legislative branch. It has been an honor to have him as part of our team for the past year.

Soju, thank you for your service to the United States and the State of Arkansas. May God continue to bless you and your family in all of your future endeavors.

Mr. President, I do object to the legislation, and I will outline my reasons a bit more later. But I defer to my good friends from Florida, Alabama, and Rhode Island to speak on behalf of that bill before I explain my opposition.

In January of 1974, billions of Americans traveled to work and school in darkness. Commuter trains were delayed, schoolchildren carried flash lights. Tragically, some of these kids were struck by cars and killed while walking to school in the dark.

One woman from Long Island, speaking to the New York Times, summed up the black mood of the Nation: ``It's the end,'' she said. ``I can't cope any more . . . I'm just staying in bed.''

What calamity had befallen our Nation? Had Soviet Russia finally attacked America? Had we suffered a nationwide power outage? Were the heavens conspiring to plunge our Nation into darkness?

No. As it turns out, the answer was more mundane and foolish. A few months earlier, Congress, in its eternal wisdom, had imposed a top-down change on every Americans' daily life, eliminating standard time and adopting daylight saving time year-round. Such a change to the Nation's clocks had never happened before, except as an emergency rationing measure during wartime.

While briefly popular, it proved deeply unpopular when reality set in. According to opinion polls, support for permanent daylight saving time fell by 30 percentage points in just 3 months. Only a few weeks after it was implemented, it was underwater. Congress beat a hasty retreat, repealing the law and changing the clocks back in October. What was supposed to be a 2-year experiment ended in abject failure after less than 1 year.

It is said that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That is what would happen if Congress passes the so-called Sunshine Protection Act, once again ending standard time and imposing daylight saving time year-round.

If permanent, daylight saving time becomes the law of the land. It will again make winter a dark and dismal time for millions of Americans. By moving the clock back an hour in winter, permanent daylight saving time would push winter sunrises to an absurdly late hour, depriving Americans of morning sunshine that is essential for our safety and well-being.

For many Arkansans, permanent daylight saving time would mean the Sun wouldn't rise until after 8 o'clock or even 8:30 a.m. during the dead of winter. Three months out of the year, kids in towns like Bentonville, Fayetteville, and Fort Smith would start school ahead of the Sun.

Americans in northern States and on the western side of time zones would be even worse off. For instance, the Sun wouldn't rise until nearly 9 o'clock during winter in Seattle. In Grand Rapids, the Sun would rise as late as 9:15 a.m., and in Williston, ND, they would not see the Sun until almost 9:45 a.m.

The darkness of permanent daylight saving time would be especially harmful for schoolchildren and working Americans. As we saw in 1974, kids would either walk to school in the pitch black or schools would have to push back start times. The choice would be between danger on the one hand and disruption on the other.

Meanwhile, construction workers, farmers, and others who rise before the Sun or who need the Sun to work would be penalized. These workers might go 3, 4 or even 5 hours in morning without seeing the Sun, which would hurt their quality of life and, potentially, their safety in the workplace.

Then, of course, there are the health consequences of permanent daylight saving time. The Senators from Alabama and Florida correctly indicated that clock changes can be bad for health. But the best evidence suggests that the natural rhythms of our internal body clocks align more closely with standard time than daylight saving time. A shift to permanent daylight saving time would make it harder to go to sleep at night and harder to wake up in the morning.

Some of the Nation's top medical associations, including the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Neurology, and the American College of Chest Physicians have called for daylight saving time to be abolished, not extended. As one sleep scientist put it, of all the options available to us, ``permanent [daylight saving time] is the worst solution.''

Of course, the advocates for permanent daylight saving time try to put, well, a sunny face on this bill. Back in 2022, the Senator from Massachusetts argued that it would be mean ``more daylight hours'' and ``more smiles.''

By the way, since the Senator from Rhode Island mentioned it, let me say a word about what happened in 2022. We heard from him that the Senate ``unanimously passed'' this bill. It is true, as far as it goes, but the story is a little more complicated than that. To let you in on how things operate, when Senators want to seek unanimous consent to pass a bill without a recorded vote, as my friends are doing today, an email goes out to all other Senate offices asking if a Senator objects. I didn't personally object in 2022 for two reasons. First, I hadn't adequately communicated to the staff the depth of my opposition to this bill. Second, because of a miscommunication, I expected another Senator who also opposed the bill to object. I take full responsibility for this mistake--though the search for someone else to blame is actively ongoing. A chief suspect, as usual, may be the Republican floor Secretary.

In any case, it is only a mistake if you don't have time to fix it. Fortunately, I fixed it later that year with like-minded friends in the House.

Despite that setback, the proponents of permanent daylight saving time refused to, if you will, let the Sun set on this bill. They allege, as we heard, that the change would stimulate the economy and even save the environment by reducing energy use. On the contrary, permanent daylight saving time would have negligible effects on energy use, as indicated by most studies and plain common sense. Any reduction in electricity use in the afternoon will be counterbalanced, of course, by increased uses in the morning. It is, largely, six in one hand and half a dozen in the other.

As to the supposed economic benefits, no doubt that a handful of industries would gain from the bill. That is why they lobbied so hard for it over the years. This bill would benefit, for example, outdoor entertainment venues, seaside resorts, and bars. My good friends from Alabama and Florida sponsor this legislation, and they are representing their States well by doing so. An extra hour in the winter for the resorts in South Florida, the beautiful golf courses in southern Alabama and across the State of Florida, or deep-sea fishing in the Gulf of America or the Atlantic would be welcome by many of the residents of those communities.

As for my friends in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have you ever spent a winter in Boston or Providence? The Sun disappears there barely after 4 p.m. Little wonder they have joined the effort. These Senators represent States that overwhelmingly benefit from year-round daylight saving time because of their latitude and longitude. I understand, and I respect their positions.

But as is often the case, these highly concentrated benefits for a few industries and a few regions are offset by widely distributed costs across many more industries throughout the entire country, that is to say nothing of moms sending their kids to school in the dark of night.

So why should we repeat history? It is probably because we have forgotten it. Most people don't remember the permanent daylight saving time debacle of 1974. Just about everyone hates to ``spring forward and fall back,'' as the saying goes. I don't like the biannual clock changes any more than the rest of you do. But unless we are willing to adopt permanent standard time and sacrifice the extra hour of evening light in the spring and summer for Little League ball games and summer vacations across the country, there is just not much to be done, which is, when you think about it, a fundamentally conservative outlook.

Not every human problem has a legislative solution. Sometimes we have to live with an uneasy compromise between competing priorities and interests. That is doubly true when considering how the movement of the stars and the planets affects the lives of 350 million souls spread across our vast continental Nation.

It brings to mind the story of King Cnut, who wanted to teach sycophants a lesson about the limits of mankind's power. He famously set his throne on the seashore and forbade the tide from coming in. Of course, the tide, nonetheless, came in and, as one historian recounted, ``disrespectfully drenched the King's feet and shins.''

The moral of the story, the King reminded his fawning court, is that ``the power of kings is empty and worthless, and there is no king worthy of name save Him by whose will heaven, earth, and sea obey eternal laws.''

Good King Cnut's wise words are as true now as they were then. No earthy ruler--not even this Congress--can alter the movements of the heavens, not today, not 1974, not ever.

Therefore, I oppose the Sunshine Protection Act and will always oppose any effort to adopt daylight saving time year-round.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, at long last, our friends in Israel have won the war by defeating the depraved Hamas savages that launched the heinous, unprovoked attack from Gaza on October 7. After the most devastating assault on Jews since the Holocaust, which was followed by 2 years of fighting and suffering and death, the living hostages are home, and a new day has dawned in the Middle East.

Earlier this week, I joined my fellow Arkansans in rejoicing and thanking God for answering our prayers and bringing those hostages home to their families.

At the same time we celebrate their reunions, though, we also pledge that we will never forget the innocent deceased victims of Hamas's atrocities, many of whom have not yet been properly laid to rest. We will work to secure their remains and honor their memory through our commitment to a lasting and enduring peace in the Middle East.

When terrorists attacked, raped, maimed, and killed innocent Israelis

and Americans and citizens of other nations, on October 7, the Middle East was forever changed, but not in the way Hamas intended. Instead of pressuring Israel to surrender, President Trump rejected the Obama- Biden policy of appeasement and weakness, and we backed Israel to the hilt.

Because of President Trump's unrelenting pressure on Hamas and Prime Minister Netanyahu's decisive military action, Iran's terrorist ring of fire around Israel is now a ring of smoke--smoking ruins. We have crippled Iran's nuclear weapons program. We have weakened the Houthis. We have devastated Hezbollah, and we have destroyed Hamas's political and military leadership.

This graphic shows just some of the depraved savages who are now rotting in hell. If you have a chance to be Hamas's next leader, you might want to think twice. This is how we deliver ``peace through strength.''

Though good has once again triumphed over evil, we must keep the pressure on to compel Hamas to demilitarize once and for all. As President Trump said this week, ``if they don't disarm, we will disarm them''--because let's be clear: There can be no lasting peace for Gaza with Hamas sitting at the table.

For those who say otherwise, consider that, as the rest of the world celebrates the return of the hostages and a cease-fire, Hamas terrorists have been publicly executing members of the opposition in Gaza in a last-ditch effort to hang on to their waning power. This is appalling, but not surprising, given Hamas's track record of using the people of Gaza as pawns to achieve its ultimate aim of eliminating Israel.

Time and again, we have seen Hamas use innocent people as human shields and weaponize humanitarian aid by withholding food and supplies from children. These are the sort of vile intimidation tactics that Hamas terrorists have used for decades to remain in power--no more.

Today, with our friends in Israel and the Arab world, we have the opportunity to chart a path toward peace and prosperity for the people of Gaza. And while today is a day for rejoicing, let it also serve as a reminder of one of history's timeless lessons: Bad things happen when you lose a war, especially when you started the war. These men can attest to that lesson.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank Senator Gillibrand for her work on this legislation. I think most Americans, if not a few Senators, are shocked when they learn how little defenses our troops have against drones that are approaching their military bases. They really have to wait until an unidentified drone demonstrates hostile intent before they can neutralize the threat. That is not what we would say if a box truck was driving up to a base. We shouldn't have to say it when a drone is approaching a base.

Senator Gillibrand has cited a lot of recent threats here. This legislation would close the gap, simplify military guidance, and make our troops safer.

I would urge everyone a ``yes'' vote, and I think Senator Gillibrand and I would welcome a voice vote as well.

Vote on Amendment No. 3759

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.J. Res. 105.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, incredibly, the Democrats are here to condemn President Trump's recent strikes against narcoterrorists operating in their backyard. Maybe they want to distract from the Schumer shutdown by tying the President's hands and siding with narcoterrorists who have the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans on their hands. Whatever the reason, this would be foolhardy.

If you think I am exaggerating here, let me remind you of the kind of depraved savages we are dealing with. Recall the Tren de Aragua gang member who tried to rape 22-year-old Laken Riley while she was out for a jog on a college campus. After Laken fought back, this savage smashed her head with a rock and strangled her to death.

Also, recall the two Tren de Aragua gang members who, after being released into our country by Joe Biden, raped and murdered 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray. These animals threw this innocent little girl's body off a bridge.

Finally, consider the recent arrest of the Tren de Aragua gang leader who kidnapped three women and shot them in the back of the head in an alley in Chicago. Only one survived to call for help.

These are the sorts of horrific acts of violence that narcoterrorists commit against Americans. And, of course, these narcoterrorists--many affiliated with Tren de Aragua--also flood our country with dangerous drugs that have taken the lives of tens of thousands of Americans every year after year after year. They target every State in our Union with their poison.

This is among the many reasons why President Trump was well within his constitutional authority to take action against these narcoterrorists who put American lives at risk. These recent strikes fulfilled President Trump's constitutional duty to protect Americans as their elected Commander in Chief.

This should come as no surprise. President Trump stated very clearly and repeatedly during the campaign that he would attack these cartels if necessary. This is simply him keeping his word to the American people.

Also, the President's strikes were lawfully sound and extremely limited. Because they have been going on for less than 60 days, they don't even fall within the War Powers Resolution threshold.

I would also note that Presidential action like this is hardly unheard of or unique. For context, as of the mid-20th century, scholars identified more than 100 military deployments or actions that lacked express prior congressional authorization.

I could go back to the beginning of the Republic, with the Barbary pirates off the coast of North Africa, but there is another example much closer in time and, for that matter, on the border. That would be President George H. W. Bush's decision to invade and topple the Government of Panama in 1989. Without prior congressional approval, he ordered 12,000 American troops into that country. We toppled Panama's illegitimate regime. We apprehended the country's dictator, and he spent the rest of his life in foreign custody.

Let's compare these two cases. In both cases, you had the leader of a country who is indicted by the U.S. courts for drug trafficking. In both cases, that leader is not recognized by the U.S. Government as the legitimate leader of his country. I would say the comparison ends there because the case is much stronger here than it was in 1989.

Maduro also has I think a $50 million reward on his head from our government. Maduro is associated with a designated foreign terrorist organization. Noriega didn't have a reward. Noriega wasn't associated with a designated foreign terrorist organization. Maduro is in league with China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba. Noriega was not. Yet George Bush invaded Panama and overthrew its government.

I don't hear many Democrats, in retrospect, saying that this was an unwise action or it made our country less safe. And somehow Donald Trump is doing those things merely by striking a few boats of drug traffickers in international waters?

Even if you had misgivings about these strikes, even maybe if you were a Democrat in Congress in 1989--as some of our colleagues were-- and you condemned President Bush for taking action to defend our country, I would still point out that the resolution before us is overbroad.

The resolution prevents the President from taking offensive action against any foreign terrorist organization designated on or after February 20 of this year. This includes the Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen.

It appears our Democratic friends have forgotten that the Houthis are responsible for at least--at least--150 attacks against the United States and allied naval and commercial ships, which have killed at least 3 people. These terrorists have also targeted our friends in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates--mostly civilians, for that matter.

So if the Democrats had their way, President Trump would not be able to, for example, strike a secret meeting of senior Houthi leaders; wouldn't be able to strike imminent attacks on our friends in countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, or United Arab Emirates.

I think we should all agree that we want a President, when terrorists are gathered together for the purpose of planning attacks against American civilians, our troops, or our friends abroad, to have the authority necessary to take action.

The Democrats claim: Oh, there is a carve-out in our resolution. Oh, we have a saving clause. We have a rule of construction that says our troops can defend themselves.

Once again, they are misleading the American people. I invite you to read it closely. They may allow our sailors to defend themselves if these Houthi terrorists shoot a missile or a drone directly at their ship, but it absolutely ties the President's hands if, for instance, we have intelligence about a senior meeting of Houthi terrorist leaders. It absolutely ties the President's hands from protecting our friends in places like Jerusalem and Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. There is no question about that. It is the black letter of the resolution. It only goes for about three lines. I would invite anyone to read it, and you will understand that the Democrats are once again dissembling.

No reasonable person denies the authority of the President to strike a terrorist threat on foreign soil. Yet the Democrats are here tonight questioning the President's authority to do the exact same thing in our own backyard--in international waters, no less; not even foreign territory. This is a dangerous double standard.

Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to vote no on this resolution and to get back to the more pressing business of reopening our government.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, it be in order for the majority leader or his designee to make motions to proceed to H.J. Res. 104, H.J. Res. 105, and H.J. Res. 106, respectively, if the Senate companion measure has been discharged from committee, and for Senator Schiff or his designee to make a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 83.

I know of no further debate on the nominations.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, well, here we are again. Republicans merely want to fund the government for 7 weeks. The House of Representatives passed a simple bill with no partisan tricks or poison pills. Yet, for the second time this year--the second time in barely 6 months--we again find ourselves on the cusp of a Schumer shutdown.

Now, I am not here to remind you that Senator Schumer came to the Senate in 1999 and that, since then, he has supported and voted in favor of a

continuing resolution to keep the government open more than 56 times.

I am also not here to remind you that, when Senator Schumer was in charge last year, the Democrats had 224 days to bring 11 bipartisan spending bills to this Senate floor, and even though 6 of these bills were passed out of committee unanimously and the other 5 with overwhelming bipartisan support, then-Majority Leader Schumer failed to bring a single one of those bills to the floor--not one.

I am also not here to tell you about the impact the Schumer shutdown will have on our national security, on our economy, and on the American people and their families.

Instead of doing any of that, I think I will just let the Democrats speak for themselves. Let's turn the clock way back to the fall of 2013, when the series finale of ``Breaking Bad'' was aired and when the word ``selfie'' was added to the Oxford Dictionary. Though it may seem like ages ago, many of the Senate Democrats who are here now similarly found themselves on the edge of a government shutdown in 2013. Let's listen to what they had to say.

Senator Durbin said shutting down the government was ``no way to run a country.''

Senator Hirono agreed, stating:

Dysfunction is not the proper way to govern.

Senator Warren also echoed her colleagues and explained:

Hostage tactics are the last resort for those who can't

otherwise win their fights through elections, can't win their

fights in Congress, can't win their fights for the

Presidency, and can't win their fights in Courts.

I don't disagree. The American people made the winners very clear when they went to the polls last November, and the Democrats lost their fights for Congress and for the Presidency. I would be remiss not to note all of the leftwing radical policies that continue to be challenged and also lose through the courts.

Out of touch with reality and fresh out of ideas, the Democrats have made a shortsighted play to back the Schumer shutdown. Look at the dog and pony show they are putting on right now. The Democrats are attempting to extort a laundry list of what President Trump has rightly called ``unserious and ridiculous demands.'' These demands include restoring taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens, wiping out a $50 billion rural hospital support fund, and sending your tax dollars overseas for climate initiatives.

In short, Democrats want to add $1.4 trillion in new spending to pay for the partisan pet projects that were soundly rejected by the American people last November.

Radical Democrats refuse to be reasonable and negotiate in good faith. This reinforces a point that Senator Jack Reed made back in 2013 when he said:

Forcing the government to shut down for reasons the vast

majority of Americans disagree with is a terrible signal and

could create undue hardships for families and businesses.

This statement is as true now as it was then. Democrats who support the Schumer shutdown are voting to withhold the paychecks of air traffic controllers, our troops, Federal custodial staff, and countless other hard-working Americans.

As Senator Sanders put it in 2013, ``shutting the government down will disrupt the economy and cost us jobs.''

Senator Schatz added:

Every moment that the government remains closed endangers

our economy and American families across the country.

The bottom line: The Democrats have acknowledged that a shutdown is not some political stunt. As they said, a government shutdown can threaten national security by, for example, disrupting military training and recruiting, disrupting ongoing work to modernize our nuclear forces, and creating uncertainty in our defense supply chains.

That is not the model of peace through strength that Americans have demanded of their elected officials.

But rather than listen to the American people, Senator Schumer and the Democrats are making their own absurd demands. To make matters worse, the Democrats are conflating the budget process with policymaking, an approach that they have long condemned.

Senator Murphy perhaps put it best, in 2013, when he said:

There is a time and place to debate healthcare, just like

there is a time and place to debate energy policy

and immigration and education--but not when the funding of

the federal government, and all the lives that are

impacted by it, hang in the balance.

Senator Murphy in 2013:

[T]here is a time and place to debate healthcare . . . not

when the funding of the federal government . . . hang[s] in

the balance.

Enough is enough. Again, in 2013--more than a decade ago--Senator Klobuchar called for an end to the ``political gamesmanship.''

Likewise, Senator Blumenthal pledged to ``do everything possible to work with my colleagues to make sure budget brinksmanship and political gamesmanship are halted.''

Yet, solely because of the Democrats, here we are. The political gamesmanship and the budget brinksmanship are still going on.

So let me state clearly: A Schumer shutdown will be carried out at the expense and on the dime of the American people. Remember, it wasn't happenstance that the American people threw radical Democrats out of the Oval Office and congressional leadership last fall. So don't be fooled. The Schumer shutdown is a last-ditch effort to save face after spending years passing disastrous policies that led to rising costs and skyrocketing crime.

Let me leave you with one last quote from 2013:

Don't hold the American people hostage, simply because

you're so sure you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Any guess who said that one? You've got it: Senator ``Shutdown'' Schumer--because he has decided to move forward with this Schumer shutdown and has refused to take his own advice, unfortunately, the American people will be left paying the price.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I would like to offer my congratulations to Mr. Kelley Erstine for his induction into the Arkansas Insurance Hall of Fame. A native of Sheridan, AR, Mr. Erstine is the CEO of Independent Insurance Agents of Arkansas. As CEO,

he has dedicated his career to advancing the insurance industry in the Natural State with excellence, professionalism, and a commitment to serving his fellow Arkansans. I would like to recognize Mr. Erstine for this professional achievement, for his more than 20 years of work in the insurance industry, and for his numerous contributions to the state of Arkansas.