Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I do.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. Thank you. Is that a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. OK.

Mr. GRAHAM. The answer is yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I do believe it too, but I haven't slept in a while. But this is just normally not me. Senator Collins and I talked before. If we do this--if we can't get appropriations through until we solve a policy debate--we are never going to appropriate again. Today, it is immigration. Tomorrow, it could be abortion. The next day, it could be regulatory reform. Senator Collins is very worried that policy debates need to be done in authorizing committees. To my authorizing committees: What have you done lately? To Homeland Security Senator Johnson: What did we do? These committees are becoming political jousting. Authorizing committees have to be bigger than making points. And you get mad at the appropriators. Well, do your job. Senator Risch is working well with Senator Shaheen, but we haven't reauthorized the State Department in, like, 25 years. So this is a dangerous model. To my Democratic colleagues: You would be cheering on putting the clerk in Tennessee--or wherever she was--in jail for not recognizing gay marriage because she disagreed with the Supreme Court. You would be cheering: Put her in jail. But you are going to defend some mayor who says: I will not cooperate with the Federal Government as I am required to by law. That is politics for you. You are all politics all the time. I have worked on immigration. Senator Tillis has worked on immigration. Senator Collins has. When you got in charge, you blew by everything you said you weren't for.

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, let me end on this--and I have made my point, I hope. Laken Riley was murdered--dead today--because immigration policy was constructed to the point they had too many people and not enough beds and they let the man go. He was released because of a lack of detention space, not because of some merit under the law. She is dead. A year ago today, we signed the law. There are a bunch of cases like Laken Riley-- raped, murdered, dead. There are two sides of this debate. I get what you are saying about ICE going too far. I am with Senator Schmitt. God bless these people for being willing to do it. And as for the ones who did it wrong, hold them accountable. I am passionate about cleaning up this mess. It is a mess that needs to be cleaned up, and President Trump is adjusting with Homan. But I am not going to give up on the idea of the root cause of the problem. It is not Trump. It is not Miller. It is not Noem--all the people you hate. The real cause of the problem is you have instilled into your base that it is OK to defy the law when you like it. Twelve States are ignoring Federal law because it is good politics for those Governors and those mayors. Like the clerk, you don't have the ability to override a law or a Supreme Court case because you don't like it. If you don't like the decision of the Supreme Court on gay marriage and you are a public official, quit your job. You have got to follow the law. If you are a mayor or a Governor and the law is clear, follow it, and if you don't follow it, then you are committing a crime. We are never going to have law and order until we insist on it. I appreciate this moment. I appreciate my colleagues for listening to my frustration. I am ready to move forward. My requests are reasonable. I celebrate the accomplishments of the Appropriations Committee, but this debate that we are going to have in 2 weeks is long overdue. I would just ask to have a seat at the table and a voice. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object, as a matter of fact, I have been here a while. I can't think of a time that I felt the need to object. You are entitled to your opinion of me. How do you get in this group of eight people? Jack Smith went after my phone records. I am the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We found out later that this politically motivated hit job against President Trump by Jack Smith got eight of us, and there are probably more. What did I do to deserve this, Senator? I will just tell you. I don't know where you were at January 6. I was here. I was probably the leading voice on this side of the aisle to say the election is over; Biden won; Trump lost. But you keep talking about Trump because--if there is a case of Trump derangement syndrome, I think it has spread throughout the building. I didn't riot. I didn't give cover to the idea that the election was stolen--quite the opposite. What was my big offense? Being a friend of Trump's. What are you trying to do here? Do the right thing? The right thing is to continue to investigate Jack Smith for turning the law upside down, for creating a precedent that should scare every Senator in this body. The law is pretty clear--there is a statute on point--that the Senate, even with a nondisclosure order, is supposed to notify the Members when somebody wants our phone records. We are a separate branch of the government. You don't seem to be upset at all because they are coming after Trump and a friend of Trump's. Now, when we do something, you know, we are out to destroy Trump. And anytime we look at what you all did, you know, we are, I guess, a bunch of crooks. Now let's talk about me and enrichment. The Democratic majority leader, Senator Schumer, signed off on this. I want the world to know-- and the world is paying no attention because it is blowing up right now--that this provision was coordinated between Senators Thune and Schumer because a lot of people worried that if they can do it to Republicans, maybe they can do it to Democrats. So the idea that eight of us cooked something up is ridiculous. We talked to your Democratic leadership. The fact that they didn't talk to you is your problem with them. What happened? We sent to the Ethics Committee what we are doing, and they didn't send anything back. Now they have. So the bottom line is, Mr. President, this provision was a result of ``We are not going to take it anymore.'' The law was flagrantly violated, I believe, but he has already made a decision--Senator Peters has--that Jack Smith was lawfully in the right here. Have a hearing. He has already decided that Jack Smith was right--right--to find my phone records. Based on what? Being a friend of Trump's? I will take this to the court. If your goal is to intimidate me, boy, you don't know anything about me. If your goal is to try to cover up a valid inquiry and stop Jack Smith from being looked at, it ain't happening. I am more determined than ever to find out how Arctic Frost got so off the rails. Within 3 days of Trump's announcing ``I am going to run again,'' the process started, and within 6 months, he had 91 felony charges in Manhattan; in Atlanta, GA; in Washington, DC; and in Florida. I had to spend $1.2 million to go down to Georgia for the Fani Willis debacle. So this will be looked at. Was there a coordinated effort between Jack Smith--the special counsel--and the most liberal jurisdictions in the country to knock Trump out of the race by throwing everything you could at him, whether it made sense or not, and his friends? See, I don't know, but we are going to find this out, Senator Peters. We are moving forward. You have made up your mind. If it were up to you, we would not be looking at Jack Smith. You made a mistake there by defending somebody when you had no idea, actually, what he did. I think I pretty well know where you are coming from, so I object. I object because we did it in coordination with the Democrats. I object because we let the Ethics Committee know. The House? The House did it quickly. There are provisions in this bill from the House that his amendment would strip out--the notification requirement. Every Member should want to be notified if anybody in the government, in the executive branch, is looking at your phone records. This provision would strip that out. A private cause of action would strip it out. I live in America. We all live in America. If you cannot hold your government accountable for violating your rights or potentially violating your rights, you have a very dangerous government. I am no better than anybody else, but I am certainly--hell--no worse than anybody else. So I want to know why the government made a subpoena request that if you tell me about what is going on here, that I am likely to taint the witnesses and act irresponsibly. What have I ever done as a Senator to make you think that is me? There was no factual foundation that I would do anything illegal if you told me. I did nothing illegal except to be Trump's friend, apparently. I inquired as to whether or not I should vote to certify the election on January 6, and I did. I did not know this had happened, but if it can happen to me, then, to my colleagues over there, it can happen to you. So this unanimous consent request would strip the notification out, and it would strip the private cause of action out. I think that is the wrong signal to send to a government out of control. With the private cause of action, the $500,000 is to try to deter people from doing this again. The bottom line is the private cause of action needs to stay if anybody else in the future gets hurt like this or a private citizen. There are a bunch of groups out there--all conservative--that have had their phone records looked at, too, but we are not going to give up. No matter what Senator Peters says, we are going to look at it. There is Turning Point USA. There are a lot of shenanigans going on out there with Jack Smith, and we are going to look at it, whether you want us to or not. So I hope they can sue. As to me, I am a Senator. If this provision--the private cause of action--is seen out of line with what the Senate rules now, I will gladly fix that. But you are off base if you think I am doing this for $1 million. I am going to sue for much more than that, not just to try to make my life whole but to make people pay for trying to--you know, forget my phone records, for God's sake. That will be in court. I will have to prove that. I will make sure--and I will have that in just a minute. There is a provision to change the law so that there is no doubt that I and the eight others won't get a benefit from the $500,000. It won't be personal. But we do want to proceed with our case, and I want other people to proceed with their cases. If we do this right now, Turning Point USA and a bunch of other groups will not have a private cause of action. I want to preserve that private cause of action for a lot of other people who are not Senators. As to me, I don't know. You are implying that I did something to benefit me in the dark of night. You know, I will remember that, but life goes on. So I object. I object to what you are doing. I object to the fact that you think Jack Smith was legal when you have no idea what he did. I object.

Mr. GRAHAM. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent request be modified to include the adoption of my substitute amendment, which is at the desk.

Mr. GRAHAM. OK. Sorry about that. So, Mr. President, the objection is heard. Here is what the Ethics Committee said about my proposal, about my modification: that the amendment cures the Senate 37.4 issue previously identified in a letter sent to you. So I asked the Ethics Committee: Will this amendment cure any concerns that people have about this provision regarding me or any other Senator? It does. So, if that is what you want to do, I think we have fixed it. However, with all due respect to my colleague, I am never going to agree to drop the notification requirement. I have had a ton of House Members say: Please, don't do that. All of us here should want to be notified if someone in the executive branch is looking at our phone records. That would be terrible. The private cause of action goes away. I am never going to agree to drop that. Why? There are a bunch of people caught up in Jack Smith who are not Senators, who may have a cause of action, and they deserve their day in court. As to my cause of action under the statute, I am going to pursue it but in a way that is compliant with Senate rules. I just want to put everybody on notice: The statute is just one avenue to finding out what happened. There will be others. I will go to the phone company. I will sue Jack Smith's and Biden's DOJ--that is where I am headed--but I will do it in a fashion that is consistent with the rules of the Senate. But I am not going to drop the private right of action because there are a bunch of people out there other than me. As to the notification requirement, given the environment in which we are all living, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, I think we need to be notified if the executive branch is maybe doing something it shouldn't do. So I look forward to working with you, and I appreciate ending this thing the way we have ended it. I will be pursuing my legal rights consistent with the ethics of the Senate, and maybe we could work something out. But, Senator Peters, we live in pretty dangerous times now, and I can see it going bad on our side or on your side. We need to protect these institutions the best we can from things that may come our way. It is me today, but it could be you all tomorrow. And I love the institution. People want to change the rules, you know, to make it like the House. I don't. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I do, too, and we will start it here soon. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is an important debate we are having, and I will give you my view on how all of this works. Under the Constitution, two things occur: The President of the United States is designated as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, not Congress. So the Commander in Chief is one person, the President. Declaring war is a duty of the Congress. In the case of modern times, it requires 535 people to vote. The question is, Can you use military force as the Commander in Chief without a declaration of war? The answer is yes. There have been five declarations of war in the history of the country: the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. Only five times in the history of our Republic has the Congress exercised its responsibility and right to declare war--five times. Now, does that mean that other actions taken by the Commander in Chief don't exist where there were no declarations of war? The answer is no. They do exist. We have been able to find 130 examples of a Commander in Chief using military force without a declaration of war by the Congress and also without congressional authorization under the War Powers Act. One example is in 1989, when President Bush 41 literally invaded the country of Panama. He sent ground forces in, sustaining casualties, to take down Noriega, who was the leader of Panama, who was a drug kingpin. Panama was being used as a drug safe haven when President Bush 41 authorized the military without having congressional approval to go in and take him down--take him out of Panama and put him in an American prison. We used ground forces, and we lost people in that endeavor. Things like this, President Clinton used and threatened military force to take a military coup in Haiti down and returned power back to the elected leader of Haiti. I could go on and on and on about how different Presidents have used military force that has sometimes involved casualties without their having congressional approval. So I don't want to hear anybody tell me that this has never been done before. It is actually the norm. What is odd in America is to declare war by the Congress. The norm is for the Commander in Chief to use military force as he or she deems necessary to protect the national interests. The 1973 War Powers Act is a congressional statute, not a constitutional provision, that has a series of reporting requirements when military force is used, crescendoing with an approval process by the Congress, and if that approval is not given, the operations must cease. In my view, it is patently unconstitutional. You are creating, through the War Powers Act, 535 Commanders in Chief. The Members of Congress sit in judgment over the Commander in Chief, and under the War Powers Act, they have a veto under the law. I think that violates the constitutional structure that has been around since the founding of the Republic. Now, what can Congress do? If Congress doesn't like a military operation, the Constitution says that it is Congress that appropriates money, not the President. So, for instance, in Venezuela, if you don't want any American boots on the ground, I think you could come forward and pass through the appropriations process a prohibition of funds to be used to have American ground forces in Venezuela. If you don't like the seizing of the oil for the mutual benefit of Venezuela and the United States, you could say that no money could be used on behalf of the American Government to seize the oil. We would win the day because that is the way you check what you think is an out-of-line action by the President when it comes to using military force. You can do those two things. What we can't do is substitute our judgment for the decision itself. We can't all sit around up here and say: You know, I don't know if we should use troops here or troops there. I don't like the way this thing is shaping up. That is chaos. President Trump is well within his legal rights under article II to use military force to advance the national interest, which is to end the drug trafficking dictatorship of Maduro, which every Republican and Democrat condemned, and President Trump finally did something about it. He was flooding our country with drugs, and it was a safe haven for Hezbollah and other drug cartels. Everybody said he should go. Well, President Trump made those words real. He used military force in the advancement of a national security interest of this country: to stop Venezuela from being a safe haven for drug dealers and international terrorists. He has a plan to rebuild the country and eventually transition it, through an election, to a new regime. Regime change will come to Venezuela through the ballot box. In the meantime, he is threatening military force to people who want to undercut this effort. He is taking the oil and selling it and creating an account for the benefit of Venezuela, which is basically out of money. He is telling those people who are holdovers from the regime: I want to work with you to get to where we need to go, which is to rebuild the country and have a free and fair election, but if you don't work with me and you try to undercut what I am doing, then you can meet the same fate as Maduro. Maduro was an indicted drug guy. He had indictments for being a drug trafficker. The argument is that this operation was to enforce the warrant. It was more of a law enforcement activity because he was the President of the country--not legitimate, by the way, and everybody pretty much denied that he was the legitimate President when he stole the election. So the bottom line here is--the theory that some of my colleagues are hanging their hats on is that this is legitimate because it is actually a law enforcement function. I respect what you are saying, but I don't agree. This is clearly beyond issuing a warrant. This is clearly beyond using law enforcement power. The game plan is not only to take the indicted leader of the country--who is a horrible person--and put him in jail but to change the country in a way that doesn't threaten America in the future, in that it will not, in the future, be a drug haven for cocaine to be dumped into our country, and it will not be a safe haven for Hezbollah and other drug cartels. That is the goal. Well, that is going to take a while. That is not about the warrant; that is about our national security interests. People ask about ``America First.'' What does it mean? Here is what I think it means: ``America First'' means that we are not going to tolerate--in Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba--countries in our backyard that are run by international drug cartel leaders, who are not legitimate in terms of being elected, to poison this country; that we are going to clean up the drug caliphate in our backyard; and that we are going to use a combination of tools to do that, including military force. So there will probably be another one of these War Powers Act resolutions. I want to tell my colleagues where I am going to be on that: If you don't like what you see coming about threatening force in the future to have a transition to make Venezuela free and fair and if you don't like taking the assets of the country and selling them to prop up a failing economy, then limit the President's ability to do that by denying funding for those operations. That would be lawful. The War Powers Act, in my view, is unconstitutional because you are not denying funding; you are basically vetoing the decision of the President to enact a national interest, and the national interest is far beyond taking Maduro down and putting him in jail. It is about transforming the country so we will never live again with Venezuela threatening America by dumping cocaine into our country--killing tens of thousands of people--and being a safe haven for international terrorist groups like Hezbollah. They are aligned with Russia. The goal is to make sure that it never happens again, and that will be a process that involves military force, potentially, and diplomatic engagement. What the Congress, I fear, is going to do is to limit the President's ability to achieve that national interest by misapplying the War Powers Act--by substituting our judgment for his when it comes to how to change Venezuela. The bottom line is, if you don't want troops on the ground--right now, there is no need for them--and if you think that is a bad idea, then let's pass an appropriations bill that denies funding for that. If you don't like taking the oil, selling it, and putting the money in an account to get Venezuela back on its feet and to help pay us for the operations, then say through the appropriations process: No money can be spent to do that. That is within our lane. The idea that we are going to reject the plan of transforming Venezuela that has been drafted by the Commander in Chief because you don't agree with it means that he is not the Commander in Chief; we are. So, if a congressional enactment can veto the Constitution, then we are really off script here. A congressional statute has to give way to the Constitution. The Constitution names the President as the Commander in Chief--only the President. The Constitution says that Congress and only Congress can declare war. After 250 years, what have we learned? There have been five declarations of war. They are unusual. There have been over 130 military actions without congressional authorization that have used military force to advance the national interests. That is the norm. The War Powers Act throws that into chaos. So I look forward to future debates. President Trump has all the constitutional authority he needs to execute the game plan against Venezuela and to advance our national interests. Again, if you don't like what he is doing, there is a constitutional process available to you, and that is to cut off funding. The other process would be impeachment. If you think he is doing something unlawful under international law, you can impeach him. Those are your two options. So I will be voting against this idea, and I will be voting against this idea in a new form in perpetuity because I think it creates a constitutional imbalance of where the Congress, over time, becomes the Commander in Chief, not the President, and we cannot run this country having 535 Commanders in Chief. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be asking unanimous consent here in a second. To my colleagues on the Democratic side, a lot of people in the country are wondering if we can ever do anything together. We have done some things together but nothing more uniting in the Senate since I have been here than in the response we have achieved on both sides of the aisle regarding Putin's barbaric invasion of Ukraine. We have 85 cosponsors, giving President Trump the ability to tariff countries that buy cheap Russian oil to keep Putin in the fight. That has been a major accomplishment. We also have a bill making Russia a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law that I believe passed through the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously. Now, what does this bill do? It designates Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism based on the fact that Putin's Russia has kidnapped, for lack of a better word, almost 20,000 Ukrainian children in the occupied territories controlled by Russia in Ukraine. We had a hearing last week about this, and it was amazing what we learned. Some of these Ukrainian children are being taken from their families in Ukraine and are winding up in North Korea. I couldn't believe it. There are 200 different camps that these kids are being put into to make them Russian. This is one of the greatest outrages of the 21st century or any other century. We had compelling testimony from the Ukrainian Ambassador and the NGOs that follow this that detailed the brutality of Russia's effort to separate Ukrainian children from their families and turn them into pawns of Putin's. Some of these kids were taken as young children and, as teenagers, are now in the fight for Russia. The videos will just break your heart. Now, how does the bill work? Within 60 days of its passage, if Russia has not come up with a plan to return the kidnapped children--there is no process of reintegration--and if the Russian Government is still attacking civilian infrastructure, then Russia will be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. When you look at international terrorism activities, they include kidnapping under section 2331(1) of title 18. So this legislation is designed to label Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism for the kidnappings of we estimate up to almost 20,000-- probably more--Ukrainian children in the occupied territories. If this doesn't make you a terrorist state, what would? For us to turn our backs on this problem I think would be the worst possible signal we could send in terms of world order. I am confident that if we get a vote on this bill, it will pass overwhelmingly because most Senators want to be on record as saying: I did something necessary in the face of brutality. The one thing I have learned in my time here is that if you appease aggression, you get more of it; if you are silent in the face of evil, it will grow. To my Democratic colleagues Senators Shaheen, Blumenthal, and so many others, you have been great to work with. We have tremendous wide and deep bipartisan support for this. I am hoping that the negotiations in Berlin will bear fruit and that we can end this bloodbath in a way to prevent a third invasion, with an honorable and just outcome. I don't think Ukraine can evict every Russian soldier, but having said that, you don't want to reward Putin for this invasion; you will just get more of it. We have to prevent what happened in 2014 and in 2022 this time around. One of the tools in our toolbox is to label Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism for kidnapping these children. It would make the Russian economy radioactive. There are only four nations that are designated as state sponsors of terrorism under U.S. law. This would be number five. It is a well-deserved label based on the conduct of Putin regarding the Ukrainian children. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 246, S. 2978; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; that the Graham substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GRAHAM. No. 1, you are very consistent, Senator Paul, in the sense that you do not believe that standing up to aggression stops it. I do. When you appease it, you get more of it. In 2014, Putin invades Crimea. We end that conflict only to have him invade again in 2022. You can have your opinions, but you need to listen to what the enemy is saying. If you believe Putin is going to stop voluntarily, you are completely discounting everything he has said and everything he has done. He is going to go until somebody stops him. Not one American soldier has died in the effort to stop him in Ukraine. We have provided weapons. We put sanctions. We have done a lot of things, but the war keeps going. Senator Paul advocated for getting out of Afghanistan, Syria. You name it, he wants to leave. The problem is that the people you leave behind want to kill you. Senator Paul doesn't believe that radical Islam is dedicated to the destruction of the American people, our way of life. I do. Under his model, if you leave them alone, they will leave you alone. There is really no reason for us to be forward-deployed because we are safe if we just ignore them. If you ignore Putin, there goes Taiwan. All the negotiations--I appreciate them--they haven't worked. We are negotiating, and Ukrainians are dying. How many Ukrainians have died since these talks have been going on? To my friends in the Trump administration, you have an obligation to bring this war to an end for the good of the civilized world. I appreciate your going to Berlin. I hope we come up with security guarantees that will prevent another invasion like in 2014 and in 2022. I hope America will say the third time around: Putin, you come into Ukraine after we have a cease-fire, then you run into the ``coalition of the willing'' and the United States. And if you don't say that, Putin will come back. So the worst thing you can do is not understand the times in which you live. People didn't understand Hitler. These arguments made today were all made in the thirties, and 50 million people died when people in power, like us in the Senate, don't understand the world in which we live in. Putin has raped and murdered en masse Ukrainians who just wish to be Ukrainians. To Senator Paul, if he gets away with this, there goes Taiwan. But you will do nothing for Taiwan. I don't know if you would do anything if they actually went into Kentucky. The point is, the rest of us believe you are the outlier. There is nothing about the Washington establishment here. It is about common sense, learning from history, having a half a brain when it comes to dealing with aggression. If you think ISIS is going to leave you alone because you want to leave them alone, that is insane. If you think Putin will stop until somebody stops him, you have missed a lot. So what are we trying to do? We are trying to make it hard to do business with Russia. China is the No. 1 purchaser of Russian oil-- cheap; the No. 1 purchaser of Ukrainian oil--cheap; the No. 1 purchaser of Venezuelan oil. What does that have in common? China is propping up all these dictatorships. Without China, India, and Brazil buying Russian oil--cheap--Putin would have no money, virtually, to prosecute the war. So we are trying to make it hard to prop up Putin's war machine. A ``state-sponsored terrorism'' designation against Russia would matter. It would cripple his war machine because he would be radioactive in terms of doing business. And if you turn your back on a regime that kidnaps 20,000 children, takes them away from their family, appropriates them to Russia, then, boy, have you lost your way. If that is not terrorism, if that is not something Americans should care about, what the hell should we care about? We are labeling the conduct of Putin for what it is: ``state sponsor of terrorism.'' So let it be said that in 2025, almost everybody in the Senate, except two or three, believes that Russia should be a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law, not to go to war with Russia but because of their conduct of taking 20,000 children away from Ukrainian families, putting them in camps in Russia, and sending some of them to North Korea. If that is not something we should push back against, God help the world. If Putin gets away with this, the world will--only time will tell what would happen. To my Democratic and Republican colleagues, thank you for working together with Senator Blumenthal and myself. Senator Shaheen, you have been terrific. Thank you for letting Russia know if this war doesn't end honorably and justly, we are going to crush your economy. We are going to come after your customers. Putin will go as far as he can go until somebody stands up to him. That is what I have learned when it comes to Putin. And as to the U.S. Senate, this is one of our finest moments. This is one of our finest hours when we came together to create legislation to punish a country that would kidnap children of another country, rape and murder and pillage. Thank you very much. I turn the floor over to Senator Blumenthal.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to LTC Anna Ko for her exemplary dedication to duty and service as an Army Congressional Fellow. Lieutenant Colonel Ko currently serves in the Army Congressional Budget Liaison Office. Lieutenant Colonel Ko was born in the Republic of Korea and moved to New York City when she was 9 years old. In 2007, she attended Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, GA, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army's Logistics Branch. She earned a bachelor's degree in TV production from the City-University of Brooklyn and a master's degree in legislative affairs from George Washington University. Lieutenant Colonel Ko has served in a broad range of assignments during her 18 years as an Army officer, including company executive officer; battalion and brigade operations officer; company commander; and an aide-de-camp to a deputy commanding officer. She has served in multiple countries, including the Republic of Korea; Afghanistan; and Poland, in support of Atlantic Resolve. Prior to her selection to the Army Congressional Fellowship, she served with the 1st Infantry Division as the division supply and services officer, battalion executive officer, and support operations officer for the 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team. This past year, I had the privilege of working directly with Anna in her role as an Army liaison, and she escorted me on multiple congressional delegations, including to Turkey, Lebanon, and Israel. Her professionalism, performance, and commitment to the mission are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and made a lasting impression on both Members of the U.S. Congress and their staff. Throughout her career, Lieutenant Colonel Ko has positively impacted soldiers, peers, and superiors alike. Working with Lieutenant Colonel Ko during the 119th Congress has been a genuine pleasure. Our country has benefited from her extraordinary leadership, judgment, and passion for the Army profession. On behalf of the State of South Carolina, the U.S. Senate, and a grateful Nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending LTC Anna Ko on her service to our Nation. We wish Anna all the best as she continues her journey in the Army.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Was this provision socialized with committees of relevant jurisdiction?

Mr. GRAHAM. Was this issue sent to the Ethics Committee?

Mr. GRAHAM. OK. So this wasn't Republicans doing this; this was people in the Senate believing what happened in the Senate need never happen again. What happened in the Senate? There is a statute right on point that governs data to be released by the Sergeant at Arms, and it says in that statute: Notwithstanding a judicial order, data from the Senate cannot be released by subpoena or even a judicial order without the body being notified because of the separation of powers issue. That statute was violated, and there is no remedy. What are we trying to do to make sure this doesn't happen again to me or you? The reason I think Senator Schumer went with Senator Thune is they are worried about the body here. We have a contract with Verizon--the Senate does--that requires us to be notified if any Senator's phone records are requested or any member working for the body. There were 197 subpoenas issued in Arctic Frost. There are 430 Republican groups--Turning Point USA, the Republican National Committee, the Republican Attorney Generals Association, the Conservative Partnership Institute, Mark Meadows, Stephen Miller--400- some groups that were targeted. What was going on here? What was Jack Smith up to? What was he trying to do? I think what he was trying to do is use lawfare against Donald Trump. Within 3 days of saying ``I am running again for President in 2022 for the 2024 cycle,'' Jack Smith was appointed special counsel. Within 8 or 9 months, 91 charges were levied against President Trump in New York, Manhattan; Atlanta; Washington, DC; and the bluest of blue. I wound up getting subpoenaed by Fani Willis in Fulton County and spent $1.2 million going to that grand jury, having to testify what I did as Judiciary chairman. If you will remember, on January 6, I was actually here. I think I did my part to make sure we certified the election. I voted to certify everything. So what is going on here? Nobody actually knows. And to the two leaders of the body, thank you for making sure we are going to do something to protect the Senate not only from what happened to us but what could happen to anybody in the future. This is really outrageous. You want to use that word. I am really outraged that my private cell phone and my official phone were subpoenaed without cause, that a judge would suggest that I would destroy evidence or tamper with witnesses if I were told about what was going on. I am sure the other Senators--Hagerty, Hawley, Sullivan, Tuberville, Johnson, Scott, Lummis, Blackburn, Ted Cruz, at least one staff member, the Speaker of the House. Now we know Kevin McCarthy-- they asked for his phone records the day he was sworn in as Speaker, and AT&T apparently gave them to them. What is going on here? What did we do? This is why we need to go to court and have our day in court, and the burden will be on me that I was wrong. But there is no doubt, if you were the jury, I would have no chance. You have already judged what we are doing. You made a political statement. So you are not the person to judge. I am not the person to judge. It is the judge. All of us who were wronged need to have a remedy to that wrong, and we are creating a chance to go to court for what happened to us and in a fashion to make sure it never happens again. This was coordinated with people in the Senate in power. This wasn't an attempt to enrich anybody. It was an attempt to deter that what was wrong, in my view, never happens again. I am willing to work with my colleagues about the $500,000. I am going to sue. I want to let you know. I am going to sue Biden's DOJ and Jack Smith. I am going to sue Verizon. It will be a hell of a lot more than $500,000. This is twice that this has happened to me. I was hauled into court in Atlanta for no good reason. I spent a million dollars. And the crime is being friends of Trump, being supporters of Trump. This was an abuse of the law. This was weaponization of the law. It is just not me. I am going to open up the ability to other people who had their phone records subpoenaed--I think, unfairly--at least, a chance to make that case. There are 197 subpoenas with 400 groups. I am going to create a statute that anybody that was in this situation could make a claim. They will have to prove the claim. We are not going to shut this down. We are not going to act like it is OK when it is not. We are not going to say it is legal because you are a Democrat and I am a Republican. We are going to have a judge determine whether or not it was legal. I don't think it was legal at all because I know me. I have done nothing wrong here. I wasn't conspiring with anybody to overturn the election. I did my part to make sure 2020 ended the way it should have. So to my majority leader, thank you for working with Senator Schumer. And to Senator Schumer, thanks for trying to work together to protect the body. We will be working together to find a resolution that may be more accommodating. But as for the idea that I am backing off and I am going to let this go, you can forget that. It is just not me. It is not about me and what happened to me alone. It is about how this happened to any of us, and it should never happen to any of us again. You have to have a reason to do what they did that I can't fathom. This is a separate branch of government. Do you really want the Department of Justice coming after U.S. Senators' phone records when there is no warrant involved, when there is no alleged crime involved? You are just fishing around. This is what we are talking about. That scares me. It offends me. And I am going to do something about it. So I object. I think this provision can be changed in a way to be more acceptable to people, but we need to open up the courts to people like me and others that had our rights violated, I believe. But it will be up to the judge. What we are trying to do is remedy a wrong. I think that is why Senator Schumer and the committees of jurisdiction understood why we needed to create an avenue. It is me today. It could be you tomorrow. If you are at home, if they could do this to a U.S. Senator, what could they do to you? Maybe the Department of Justice doesn't like your post, doesn't like your political activity. They want to shut you down and find out who you have been talking to. This is scary stuff. To Senator Thune, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side to find a way to make this section more acceptable, but I am not backing off. I am not going to accept repeal because we need a way forward. To my friends in the House, you need to start worrying about your Members. The former Speaker and two Members I know of had their phone records spied upon. So we have our work to do to clean this mess up in a way to provide remedies to those who may have been harmed, but not just sweep it under the rug. Arctic Frost will not be swept under the rug. I will not go quietly. I will keep pushing back on behalf of myself and others in like situations. Majority leader, I think you have a proposal here.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I object to a lot of stuff being said, but let's just start with sort of the facts. You said this was a lawful subpoena. What did I do wrong? What did I do to allow the government to seize my personal phone and my official phone when I was Senate Judiciary chairman? What did I do? There was an order issued that said if I was notified of this breach of my privacy, I am likely to intimidate witnesses or destroy evidence. Based on what? There are 10 of us involved here. What did we do to justify having Jack Smith issue a subpoena for the phone records of a branch of government--the Senate--where all of us had to decide whether or not to certify the election? So, no, it wasn't lawful. You have determined it was. You don't get to decide; a court does. We are not going to let the Democratic Party decide my fate; we are going to let a judge decide my fate. But I have to get in court and prove my case. To the majority leader, was this provision socialized with the minority leader?

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, so here we are on a Saturday. It is beautiful outside. Every day gets better for us. If you are trying to get through the airport today, probably not true. If you are working for the government and not getting paid, not a good day for you, not a good day for us, not a good day for the country. This is going on way too long. Too many people are being damaged for no good purpose. We are not going to be extorted, held hostage. You are not going to terrorize the country to make us do something that makes no sense. I would like to work on healthcare, but we are not going to extend the debacle called ObamaCare. So ``every day gets better for us.'' You need to ask yourself in America: Is that true for you? I don't think so. Let me tell you who has a good day today: healthcare insurance companies. In 2024, UnitedHealthcare made $817 million per day under ObamaCare. So it is definitely a good day for them. Cigna, $677 million; Anthem/ Elevance, whatever they are, $480 million; Centene, $447 million; CVS, $358 million; Humana, $322 million; and Molina, $112 million a day. That is what healthcare companies get under ObamaCare every day. So when Senator Schumer says, ``It gets better for us,'' I guarantee you, every day we keep this system in place is a great day for the healthcare insurance companies that have been making out literally like bandits under ObamaCare. In case this job doesn't work out for any of us, do you want to go into the healthcare business? A big upgrade. At UnitedHealth Group, the CEO made $26.3 million; Cigna, $23.3 million; Molina, $21.9 million; Centene, $20.6 million; Elevance Health/Anthem, $20.5 million; CVS, $17.8 million; Humana, lagging still at $15.6 million. These people are doing very well. The problem is health insurance companies do great every day from ObamaCare. All these healthcare CEOs are doing fantastic, but you, the consumer, not so much. You were promised, when ObamaCare passed in 2010--President Obama said: Every family in America who participates in this thing will have about a $2,500 savings in premium reductions. It has been like a 100-percent increase. He didn't just miss it a little bit; he missed it a lot. This thing is unsustainable. Why do you call something the ``Affordable Healthcare Act'' when, every 5 minutes, you are asking me and the Presiding Officer to dump $350 billion in it to keep it afloat? It is not affordable. It has never been affordable. The only people winning from this are healthcare insurance company CEOs, and it needs to stop. And why is the government shut down? The government is shut down because our friends on the other side are insisting we continue this program for another year. I am not going to continue it for another day. I am not going to pour tens of billions of dollars through ObamaCare and the healthcare insurance companies with the result being your premiums have been increased by 100 percent. We are going to stop that. We would like to work with you to come up with a better deal. Here is the good news: It wouldn't take much to make it a better deal. But if you are wondering what kind of deal it has been for healthcare companies: UnitedHealthcare Group, 1,177 percent increase in their stock prices since ObamaCare. Look at these numbers. I mean, 822, 414, 490, 859, 604, 595 percent increase in stock prices after the passage of ObamaCare. These are the big winners, not you. And we are going to break this healthcare cartel. We are going to take this money that is flowing to insurance companies, and we are going to try to get it directly to you the consumer, so you can have more purchasing power and, actually, over time, create more competition and lower your healthcare prices, something ObamaCare is not doing. And to illustrate my point, I am going from no charts to a bunch of charts. This is big change in my life. Even I can understand that. That is like a rocket ship compared to the rest of the economy. So what have we discovered in the last few days? We have discovered that the subsidies under ObamaCare are a windfall for insurance companies. We have discovered that every day we talk about healthcare as it is today, they are making a gob of money, hundreds of millions of dollars a day. We have learned that these health insurance companies have had stock prices increase unlike any other sector of the economy, and it all happened after ObamaCare. They promised you lower premiums; your premiums have doubled. What has happened? The big winner is insurance companies, and insurance companies are doing the Democratic Party's bidding. They are signing up people for ObamaCare that haven't made a claim in 3 years. For every person they can find, they get money. So they have got incentive just to stack this thing with people, whether it is good healthcare or not. So what did President Trump say today? He said he recommended to all the Republicans: Stand your ground. Break this cycle. Take the money away from health insurance companies, and let's flow it to the people to give them more purchasing power and stop the money-sucking health insurance companies from taking tens of billions of dollars out of ObamaCare. So the Affordable Care Act is not affordable. There is a better way. We are going to insist on that better way. And to my Democratic friends, we are not going to extend this program for a year because that would be unfair to the taxpayer; that would continue a healthcare system that is out of control. It would enrich health insurance companies even more. We are not going to do that. We are going to replace this broken system with something that is actually better for the consumer to meet the goal of lowering healthcare costs. So you have to understand terrorizing the public is not going to get us, as Republicans, to continue a very bad healthcare bill. We are not going to do it. We will talk to you, President Trump will, all of us will about how getting better value is possible, how lowering premiums is possible. But you have got to change the fundamental precept of ObamaCare, which has proven to be anything but affordable. That is like the Inflation Reduction Act. All it did was cause inflation. The Affordable Healthcare Act has become unaffordable. ObamaCare is growing faster than almost any other thing in healthcare because it is designed to enrich healthcare companies. The more people they sign up, the more money they get. And it is not about quality. It is about stacking as many people as you can under the umbrella of government-run healthcare. And, apparently, it doesn't matter if the government-run healthcare is working. It does matter to us. We would like to get a better return on investment. So I want to congratulate President Trump. He has gotten into the game today. He has given us a pathway forward. I am going to heed his advice and counsel. I am not going to extend the unaffordable healthcare--ObamaCare healthcare--program for another year or another day. There is a better way. President Trump talked to me this morning, and he would like to sit down and see if we can come up with a better solution. I know we can. But we are not going to do it while the government is shut down. This is day 37, 38--whatever day it is. Every day is hundreds of millions of dollars to these insurance companies. Every day that we have shut the government down, it is families who work for the government that have no money. We are hurting our national security. We are hurting morale. It is getting dangerous to fly. So stop it. End this madness. We tried to shut the government down to build a wall. We eventually built the wall because it is a good idea. But shutting the government down to build the wall wasn't a good idea. So I would urge you, my Democratic colleagues: Keep working with us. Open this government. Let's find a way to provide better healthcare that doesn't enrich insurance companies. Let's see if we can break this cycle of all the money going to insurance companies. They are getting filthy rich off this. Let's see if we can take the money and actually give it to people to buy better healthcare, to lower costs, and create competition. Mr. President, in case you are listening out there, I think you have come up with a good idea. Count me on board. To my colleagues on this side, this is a fight worth having. To my Democratic colleagues, let's open up the government and act like adults and see if we can get this problem in a better spot. We will never do it with the government shut down. The only thing that is going to come from the government shutdown is misery, pain, and heartache. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, this is the first time I have spoken on the floor about the government shutdown. Like a lot of people, I have been hoping we could find a way forward and sort of stop the disruption and madness that it is causing throughout the country. I want to say to my colleagues who have been working together to find a solution to open up the government: I really appreciate your efforts very, very much. I know, in this polarized environment, it is hard to reach across the aisle, but this moment dictates that we try. I have had some discussions, and I know a lot of my colleagues--Senators Britt and Collins and many others--have spent a lot of time--Markwayne Mullin-- trying to find common ground to open up the government so we can move forward and have a debate about healthcare and maybe find a solution-- apparently to no avail. There is a group of my Democratic colleagues who believe that ``every day gets better for us.'' That is Senator Schumer. They, I guess, apparently feel emboldened by the election. The question I have for the country: Is every day getting better for you? If you are trying to get to an airport or fly somewhere, I would say not so much. If you are a government employee working and not getting paid, not so much. There are a lot of services that are being disrupted out there because the government is shut down. The truth of the matter is both parties have had government shutdowns trying to get a policy win. One time we shut the government down, as Republicans, to get money to build the wall. We eventually got the money to build the wall because it was a very good idea, but it didn't happen through the shutdown. So I learned that shutting the government down trying to get a policy win is probably not good government. Our Democrat friends, whatever day it is, they are shutting your government down--our government down--to try to make Republicans do something on healthcare we are just not going to do. They are trying to repeal elements of the working families tax cut, the Big Beautiful Bill--whatever you want to call it--that would prohibit healthcare funding going to illegal immigrants. They are trying to repeal many of the things that we think are just good reforms--over a trillion dollars--pulling back a trillion and a half dollars to go into programs we think are not good investments. Investing in a program where illegal immigrants can get free healthcare just gives you more illegal immigration. One of the things that we are trying to deal with is that Medicaid has grown 50 percent in the last 5 years, and we are trying to put it on a more sustainable path. Helping rural hospitals--they want to take the provision out of the bill that would give $50 billion to rural hospitals to help with Medicaid reform. So we are just not going to do that. That is never going to happen, nor should it. So what do we do next? I think the first thing we need to do is understanding that the statement ``Every day gets better for us'' is a lie--``us'' being the United States. Every day that this thing drags on is bad for America. It is dangerous for America. It is dangerous to our national security-- the people in the FBI and the CIA that have to work, no matter whether they get paid, simply to protect our Nation. So this madness really needs to end. I think there are plenty of people over here that try to go forward and have a debate on healthcare and maybe find common ground, but not this way. The one thing I learned, in my time up here, is that taking hostages--political hostage-taking--shouldn't be overly rewarded. Political terrorism should never be rewarded. And what you are doing over there by not finding a way forward is you are terrorizing the country for your own political benefit. You really are. You are engaging in political terrorism. You are making it hard for people to do things they need to do and have to do. You are making it hard for people to get services they need because of your political desire to beat us. Well, I will tell you what; that needs to stop. So to my leadership here, you all have done a great job--Senator Thune particularly--by saying: We will talk, but we have got to open up the government first. I really appreciate what Senator Thune has done in that regard. But I want my colleagues to know, the longer this goes and the more people you hurt and the more you try to extract from your political hostage-taking, the less votes you are going to get from us, starting with me. I am not going to give in to this. We are not going to reward people who do this. I understand trying to find common ground and getting something to give something. But you have gone way too far, and you are hurting way too many people, and you are asking for things that are really absurd. So don't think you are going to open up the government with a handful of Democratic votes if this continues. You are going to need much more than that because you are going to lose me. I am not going to play this game any longer. This is bad for the country. And if we do it now, it will never end. So, Senator Schumer, I couldn't disagree with you more. ``Every day gets better for us.'' You clearly need to get out of Washington and talk to people outside the wacky left. You are disconnected with real life in America. Every day this goes on doesn't get better for us. What are you asking us to do? You are demanding that we increase spending by a trillion and a half dollars from savings we obtained from the working families tax cut bill. We are not going to do that. But the main thing that is driving this debate is a desire by Democrats to continue a program called ObamaCare that is not well designed. It is costing way too much. It is not delivering for the American people. We are not going to do that. Senator Welch, a good friend, noted yesterday that the Affordable Care Act hasn't lived up to that billing, and there are things we can do on healthcare to lower costs to make life more affordable. But my statement is that the Affordable Care Act is unaffordable, and we are not going to reauthorize it because you demand we do so, because it makes no sense to keep throwing good money into this program. Now, President Obama told us back in 2010, if we pass the Affordable Care Act--which is the ``Unaffordable Care Act''--families would have a $2,500-a-year decrease in their premiums for healthcare. Well, that has turned out to be a big flop. Healthcare premiums have gone up 100 percent from 2013 to 2019. So the Affordable Care Act is anything but, and they are asking for $350 billion over a decade to keep these subsidies in place that they chose to do in a partisan way. They are due to expire. If they were that great, why did you let them expire? The bottom line is, you are trying to hold us hostage as Republicans, making us invest in a program that is just not a good deal for America. No matter what you call it or how you want to sell it, you are selling a bad product, and that product needs to be discontinued as it exists today. Who is the biggest winner of the Affordable Care Act? Not consumers. A dramatic increase in premiums--we didn't lower premiums by $2,500 per family. They have gone up 100 percent in just a matter of years. Now you are wanting to continue subsidies that create subsidies for the ObamaCare that nobody in the private sector has. The average person in America is paying about 25 percent of their premium that works for a company. What they are trying to do is have most people pay nothing and allow people making up to hundreds of thousands of dollars to get subsidies for their healthcare. We just can't afford that. Senator Klobuchar talked about a husband and wife that retired early from a union job that had a combined income of $130-some thousand, and that their premiums will go up. Well, the question is this: Do we need to be subsidizing premiums for people that make $130-some thousand that have defined benefit plans plus Social Security? The question becomes: What makes sense? What can we afford? What is the best way we can help the American people? I will tell you the best way to help the American people is to stop the madness when it comes to ObamaCare. What has happened since the passage of this bill? Let me tell you what has happened. Healthcare companies--insurance companies in the healthcare space--have had their stock go up since 2010 by over 1,000 percent. Now, what you want us to do is continue these subsidies that go to insurance companies that drive up the cost of healthcare. We are not going to do it. We are going to try to find a better way to use the money to give it to consumers so they can buy healthcare of their own choosing to create competition that doesn't exist to get the better healthcare outcome and save some money in the process. So Democrats are insisting that Republicans continue the practice of taking your hard-earned tax dollars and making healthcare insurance companies incredibly, filthy rich. Look at this chart. This is the S&P 500. These are different companies in the space. But the main healthcare companies that benefit from ObamaCare have seen their stock increase by 1,000 percent, with no end in sight. UnitedHealthcare, 1,177 percent increase in stock; Cigna, 822 percent; 414 percent; Humana, 490 percent--they need to up their game. M-O-L-I-N-A--whoever they are--859 percent; C-E-N-T-E-N-E, 604 percent; Aetna, 595 percent--since the passage of this bill. We are not, as Republicans, going to continue what you created, a windfall for health insurance companies, inflationary mechanisms in healthcare without an end. We are going to stop and fix what you created in 2010, which is an out-of-control, inflationary approach to healthcare that rewards insurance companies over anybody else. You told a big lie to the American people when you passed this bill-- that their premiums would go down by $2,500 per family. They have gone up 100 percent. We are going to stop the madness. We are going to come out with a proposal that will have a different outcome than this. We are going to come out with a proposal that allows this money to go to people to make better choices for them to create competition that doesn't exist. And the big loser will be the insurance companies. The big winner will be the consumer. And President Trump stands ready to work with you on the other side to get an outcome we can all live with. We cannot live with this, folks. We cannot live with ObamaCare and these subsidies as designed because they are creating runaway inflation in healthcare. They are rewarding the biggest healthcare companies in the country at the expense of the taxpayer. We are going to break this cycle. Now, how long will that take? I don't know. But I know this: I am not going to be forced to continue this wasteful, inefficient program called ObamaCare because you tell me I have to, to open the government. I will not. And we will have an election one of these days, and we will see how this plays out over time. We will see what the American people want. Do they want to continue throwing money at insurance companies like this, with increased costs to the taxpayers and people that participate in this program? Or would they like something new and different that would break the endless reward to healthcare companies and start rewarding consumers to get better outcomes in lowering their premiums? We will have a debate about that one day. We will have an election, probably, over that. But what we are not going to do is be held hostage for you to get your way, for me to vote to authorize a program that is failing, that was a lie. And I am going to do what I can to fix this. And if you want to continue to shut down the government, holding me and others hostage to continue this garbage, we are not going to do it. We will be rewarding the worst possible behavior in politics. You will just get more of this. So here is my advice to my Democratic colleagues: Work with people who are trying to find a way forward to reopen the government, to have a conversation about how better to deliver affordable healthcare, working in a bipartisan manner, and we will get to where we need to go as a country. We will not give in to political terrorism and hostage-taking. Your desire to keep the government shut down is terrorizing Americans. Americans are losing vital services. Their lives have been turned upside down because you care more about continuing a terrible program than you do them. We are not going to give in. I promise you I will work with you to get a better outcome. I promise you I will vote no to your political hostage-taking, and let the chips fall where they may. You are overplaying your hand. You are doing a lot of damage to good people that just want a better life and some certainty in their life. I try to work with you when I can on the other side. Sometimes we argue, and I try to argue effectively. But I will not be part of this process any longer. You are destroying the lives of Americans for a political desire that is unreasonable. You are asking me and others to continue a program that is fundamentally broken, that is inflationary. And the only winner of ObamaCare are the largest healthcare companies in America that are making excessive profits off a healthcare system you designed, and all you want is more people signed up on this program. And you are rewarding the insurance companies for finding more people who are making a fortune. And the delivery of healthcare is costing more, and the quality is going down. We are not going to do this. We are not going to give in to this. So my approach is a nightmare for the healthcare insurance companies. Our approach will be the biggest loser will be healthcare insurance companies. The biggest winner will be consumers who will have choices they don't have, to date, and money they can have that they don't have, to date, to buy a better product. That is what this is about. The insistence of the Democratic Party to excessively reward healthcare insurance companies who are doing their bidding to sign up people on government healthcare that is inefficient and is not working. You don't care it is inefficient and not working. You just want more people, and you are using the insurance companies in the healthcare space as your agents, as your proxies, and they are willingly doing your bidding. To the insurance companies in the healthcare space, your days are numbered when it comes to this crap. To my Democratic colleagues, you want a debate on healthcare, let it begin right now. Look what you are doing with taxpayer dollars. You are not relieving the cost of healthcare to working people, you are increasing their premiums. You are making healthcare more inflationary, and the only people that really are winning big are healthcare insurance companies who are willingly playing this game. And they will never stop. Why would they? Why would a healthcare insurance company turn their back on this program when they are making a killing? Well, I don't know what is going to happen or when it is going to happen, but I know this: I will never vote to continue this madness. If you are insisting that I have to continue this program, I will not. I owe it to the people of South Carolina and the country to break this cycle. We owe it to the people of America to open up our government and have a logical discussion about making healthcare more affordable and breaking the cycle of runaway inflation. You are on a course that is going to disrupt American people's lives to get an outcome that is terrible for the country, which is continuing ObamaCare the way it is constructed. You will not be successful. I will make sure there are enough Republicans over here to say no to your plan to hold us hostage and continue to terrorize this country. You have gone too far. If I were you, Senator Schumer, I would rethink because I am telling you, every day is not getting better for you because every day is getting worse for the people in this country who interact with the government, who travel, who are working and not getting paid. It is getting worse for them, and you are demanding something of me and others that we will not give in to. We will not be held hostage to continue ObamaCare that has been a miserable failure. We will not be held hostage to continue to give money to healthcare companies, insurance companies, to enrich them at the expense of the American people. So I don't know when it ends or how it ends, but I know what the outcome will be with my vote. We are going to break the cycle of rewarding healthcare insurance companies at the expense of the consumer. We are going to stop this madness with my vote. I hope we can find a way forward, but that way forward will not include what is going on today. So I will be voting no to the idea that we will continue these subsidies--rewarding healthcare insurance companies insane amounts, driving up premium costs, and getting bad outcomes--to open up the government. I reject that, and I will vote no to that. And the demands you are making grow every day. You are overplaying your hand, and you are hurting people. Stop it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be speaking here for a few minutes about the upcoming War Powers Resolution vote. First, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Wall Street Journal editorial about the War Powers Act, if I may.

Mr. GRAHAM. I have been asked a lot about this. In a prior life, I used to be a Judge Advocate in the Air Force for about 33 years-- prosecutor, defense attorney, and a military judge for a very short period of time. I enjoyed it very much, so this part of the law has been part of my life. The body is going to have a big vote today, and I think it is a consequential vote. Simply put, here is my understanding of the Constitution and how Congress and the President and the courts interact when it comes to making war. No President has the ability to put America in a state of war. That is reserved for the Congress. It says in the Constitution only Congress can declare war. When you look at the history of the country, we have declared war-- Congress has--five times in the last 250 years. So declaring war is an unusual thing by the Congress: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. So I would suggest that declaring war is something America doesn't do a lot, and there is probably good reason. When you declare war, it affects insurance contracts. It is a legal state that has a lot of consequence to it. We have done that five times as a nation. I wonder how many times a Commander in Chief has used military force to defend a nation without a declaration of war--hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the last 250 years. The norm in this country is that military conflicts are not carried on under a declaration of war. Military conflicts, which there have been a lot of--Korea, Vietnam, on, and on, and on--are engaged in by a Commander in Chief who feels a need to use military force depending on what the threat is. The question before the body is, Can the Congress stop a military conflict declared by the Commander in Chief because we don't agree with their decision, and without our approval it must end? The answer, unequivocally, to me is no. Under the Constitution, the authority to be Commander in Chief resides exclusively with the President. The power to declare war is exclusive to the Congress. Now, what could the Congress do constitutionally if they disagree with a military action that is not a declaration of war? We could cut off funding. The Constitution reserves the right of the Congress, beginning in the House, to appropriate money. So if there is a military engagement out there--you just pick the topic--and as a Member of Congress, you think America should not be in this conflict, constitutionally, you could terminate funding. And that would be a constitutional check and balance on the President's ability to use military force. The second thing you could do, as a Member of Congress, if you thought the President was doing something wrong by using the military, is you could do an Article of Impeachment, somehow create a high crime or misdemeanor; that the use of force in this circumstance is a high crime or misdemeanor and impeach the President. Those are two things that Congress can do to check and balance a President. But one thing we can't do, in my opinion, is to substitute our judgment for that of the Commander in Chief about a military operation because if that is the case, then you don't have a single Commander in Chief; you have 535 Commanders in Chief. There has never been in the history of the country a termination of military activity based on the idea of Congress did not approve. There have been a lot of military operations authorized by Congress. There have been a lot of military operations not authorized by Congress. The question of the War Powers Act is what we are talking about. In 1973--the frustration with the Vietnam war--Congress passed a statute that required the Commander in Chief to notify Congress about engaging in hostilities within a specific period of time, to make reports to Congress at the end of a defined period. I think it is 60 days. I can't remember. If Congress hasn't approved those hostilities, then they must be terminated. I think the War Powers Act is an obvious constitutional infringement on the ability of the Commander in Chief to conduct military operations because the War Powers Act, at its heart, takes away the ability of the Commander in Chief to decide military matters, and it resides with us. If you can terminate a Commander in Chief's decision through the War Powers Act, then that constitutional authority has been taken by us, the Congress. And that would be a disaster for this country. I would argue that the War Powers Act is, on its face, unconstitutional. Reagan and a bunch of other Presidents have said the same thing. The day that we terminate a military operation based on the idea that we haven't authorized it, then we become the Commander in Chief, we the Congress. That power has been taken from the designated Commander in Chief and usurped by us. That would be a disaster for our country. It would create paralysis at a time of need. Presidents have informed us of military actions under the War Powers Act, arguing the act is unconstitutional. I would continue to do that if I were a Commander in Chief. I would inform the Congress. I would brief the Congress about what I am going to do or not do using our military--just, I think it is good public policy. But the vote we are going to take this afternoon is basically we are going to vote, as the U.S. Senate, to terminate actions taken by President Trump regarding drug cartels. I think the day we do that, then we are saying to the world that, really, the Commander in Chief is the Congress, not the President. And if you don't like what President Trump is doing with drug boats and other activity in the Caribbean or anywhere else, you could pass a law saying no funds can be used for the purposes of these operations. I have been told by my colleagues: Well, that is hard. Well, it is meant to be hard. The President can veto any law we pass, and the only way we can override that veto is to get two-thirds of the body. It is meant to be hard. It requires us to find consensus. To my colleagues, please do not be confused about this. Never in the history of our country has a Congress terminated a military action because they did not give permission to the Commander in Chief. Never in the history of the country has the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress has the power to terminate hostilities simply because they disagree with the President--because the day that becomes the norm, then you have taken the power of the Commander in Chief away from the President, and you have conferred it upon us. This is a big vote. This is a consequential vote. What I am saying, I think, makes eminent sense. By making the Commander in Chief a single person--the President--sitting atop the military, you create a structure and order. If to get military action up and running and sustained you had to have a vote of 535 people, it would be chaos. If you don't like what the President is doing, then, again, the remedy is to use your constitutional tools as a Member of Congress, which is funding, not replacing your judgment for that of the Commander in Chief. I have said that about Obama, Clinton, everybody. That is just my view. In 1989, President Bush, 41, used military force to take down Manuel Noriega, the leader of Panama. And he was indicted and put in an American prison for being a drug lord, a drug kingpin. That was done without authorization of Congress. I think President Bush, 41, was right to take Noriega down. We can't tolerate nation states in our backyard becoming narcoterrorist centers. That takes us to Venezuela. President Trump has decided that these drug boats being operated by narcoterrorists, emanating from Venezuela, are a national security threat to our Nation. I think he is right in his assessment. All of these boats coming to our shores, heading for our shores, have drugs, and drugs are killing more Americans than any terrorist group out there. Fentanyl comes from China through Mexico. But cocaine production was up 85 percent over the last 4 years, and cocaine has destroyed a lot of lives in our country. So these drug boats are being interdicted by the military because President Trump believes that narcoterrorism is a national security threat to our country, and he is using the military in that endeavor, not law enforcement. I think he is right. Some people say have the Coast Guard stop the boat. Well, the Coast Guard is military, and it is civilian. I like the idea that our Commander in Chief is telling narcoterrorist organizations: You are not only a foreign terrorist organization, but when you engage in threats to our country--a boat headed to America full of drugs--we are going to take you out. That is going to stop the flow of drugs. We secured the border, but we now need to go to the networks that produce the products and distribute the products that eventually come to our shores and kill Americans. As to Venezuela, I would argue it is a narcoterrorist state. It is not a sovereign country in the sense of international law; that the leader of Venezuela, Maduro, is an indicted drug dealer with a $50 million bounty from the United States; that the recent election was stolen by Maduro. He is not a legitimate President under the laws of Venezuela, and he is not recognized as being legitimate by a multitude of international bodies. I would say that Venezuela, in the hands of Maduro, is an existential threat to the people of the United States; that it is a narcoterrorist state, run by a drug kingpin that is used as the base of operations to send deadly drugs into our country, and it needs to stop. And whatever power that President Trump would like to use to stop that, I think he has the authority under the Constitution. And if we don't like it as a Congress, we can defund the military operations; we can't replace our judgment for his. Finally, Maduro and Hezbollah have a long connection. The Presiding Officer of the Senate is a great Senator who understands national security. He was Ambassador to Japan and has been a great addition to this body. Hezbollah connections to Venezuela go way back. Hezbollah is a Mideast terrorist organization, Shiite, connected to Iran, that has a lot of American blood on its hands--241 marines killed at the end of a runway in Beirut in the 1980s by Hezbollah. They are running out of money because President Trump has really isolated Iran as their benefactor. So now they are upping their game by associating with Maduro. Maduro now has a business relationship with Hezbollah at a level we haven't seen before. Funding this terrorist organization from narcoterrorist activity in Venezuela threatens America's interests in the Middle East. This is not a hypothetical connection; it is a real connection. So I am hoping that the body will understand that what President Trump is doing is not only lawful but necessary. We have a drug caliphate in our backyard. We have Mexico; we have Colombia; we have Venezuela; and we have Cuba. These are all nations-- some of them allied with us--that have enormous drug problems, and they have lost their sovereignty in Mexico over parts of the country. But I am focused on Venezuela. Venezuela truly is not a legitimate government under Maduro. He stole the election. He is an indicted drug dealer. It is not legitimate. It is a threat to the United States. So I am glad to see that President Trump has put narcoterrorist drug organizations and countries that support them on notice that we will fight back to protect our people. As these drug boats flow toward us, I think President Trump sees it as a killing machine. If a boat full of al-Qaida guys were coming to the United States, what is the right answer? Blow them up before they get here. If you have a drug boat full of drugs, run by narcoterrorists associated with Mideast terrorists, blow them up before they get here. But we have to do more than blow up the boat; we have to go to the problem on the land: Who loads the boats? Who makes the money off the boats? So I don't know where this is going in Venezuela, but I know this: President Trump has said that Maduro's days are numbered. They should be. What I like a lot about President Trump: He is a man of peace until he is not. He is seeking peace all over the planet. He stopped eight conflicts. He will be the first one to tell you that. I like the idea of a President wanting to make peace, not war, but he is a man not to be trifled with. I think he decided early on that narcoterrorism emanating from our backyard is not going to be tolerated any longer. There is a new game in town. You do this at your own risk. I just want to let him know and the country know that not only do I think he has the legal authority; I think he is doing the right thing. You are saving a lot of lives by stopping this boat traffic from getting to our shores, and if you need to take down the organization that funds the boats and supplies the boats, that is a direct threat to the United States, associated with Mideast terrorist organizations, tell us what you are up to, but do what you have to to protect America. So at 5 o'clock, we are going to take a very consequential vote. I would urge my colleagues: Whether you like President Trump or not, whether you agree with him about politics, this is bigger than you, and it is bigger than him. I did the same thing for Obama. When he went into Pakistan to kill bin Laden, I didn't think for 1 minute Congress had to authorize that action. He was taking out a mastermind of terrorism. That made us safer. It was in a sovereign country called Pakistan that was no longer reliable when it came to policing bin Laden. I supported that operation because he had the legal authority, and it was the right thing to do. I supported President Bush 41. I supported Reagan when he went into Grenada to take down building Cuban influence, where Cubans were beginning to have a footprint in Grenada that was adverse to our national security interests when Cuba was aligned with Russia and other bad actors. So we have had a policy of policing our backyard. But on this vote--Senator Kaine is a good friend--we just see things differently. He is saying that in America, there is really not a single Commander in Chief. He is saying that in America, you can't conduct hostile actions unless the Congress as a body approves it. What he is saying is what the Constitution rejects. If they wanted us, as the Framers of the Constitution, to give approval to continue hostilities, they would have done so. They resided in us the power to declare war, and that is the power reserved to us, but that doesn't mean the President can't use military force when necessary to protect our Nation without a declaration of war. And the reason I know that is true: We have only declared war five times in 250 years, and we have had hundreds of military operations--some authorized and some not. So to my colleagues today: Please understand this constitutional check and balance. It has served our country well for 250 years. We live in polarized times. Don't let your emotions drive you into doing something that would weaken our Nation. I can't think of anything more critical to weakening our Nation than to have Congress be the Commander in Chief; us; 535 people who have a hard time deciding when to go to lunch. So I am hoping that this resolution--well-intended--will be voted down not because I like President Trump but because I believe the constitutional structure that was created a long time ago has served us well as a nation, and if we vote to change that structure, we will do great damage to our Nation and our national security. So I would urge a ``no'' vote this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled rollcall vote occur immediately.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Minister Ron Dermer for his exceptional service and dedication to duty as the Minister of Strategic Affairs for the State of Israel. Minister Dermer was born and raised in Miami Beach, FL. He earned a degree in finance and management from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, as well as a degree in philosophy, politics and economics--PPE--from Oxford University. From 2005 to 2008, Minister Dermer served as Israel's Economic Attache in the United States. Beginning in 2009, he then spent 4 years as a senior advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. From 2013 to 2021, Minister Dermer served as Israel's 18th Ambassador to the United States. Following his ambassadorship, he briefly left public service and served as a nonresident fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America and later as a partner at Exigent Capital Group. In 2022, Minister Dermer returned to the Israeli Government as Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs and a member of Israel's Security Cabinet. Working with Minister Dermer during my time in Congress has been a great honor. He has been one of the most effective voices for the State of Israel and his extraordinary career has been defined by his commitment to fostering peace and stability within the region. I consider Ron Dermer's contributions to the U.S.-Israel relationship and security of the Jewish state to be on par with any military or political leader that has ever served the State of Israel. Furthermore, Minister Dermer has played a critical role in strengthening the relationship between the State of Israel and the United States, and I know the State of Israel has benefited from his extraordinary leadership and judgment. It is my honor to join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending Minister Ron Dermer on his service to the State of Israel. We wish Ron all the best as he continues on to his next chapter.