Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is a debate worthy of the body, and I would like to give my belief about what we are doing here--my opinion. Senator Kaine has introduced a resolution that basically requires President Trump to come to the Congress before any other military actions can be taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran. I think that would be a disaster for the country. You can only have one Commander in Chief, not 535. Mr. President, you have been in it. You have been right close to the face of the enemy, and you, probably above all others, know what warfare is like dealing with radical Islam, and I applaud your service as a Navy SEAL. So it says in the Constitution: The President shall be [the] Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States. Well, they left out the Air Force because, back then, we didn't have one. Since the founding of this country, it has been understood that the Commander in Chief can act as the Commander in Chief to protect our Nation from threats; that he is in charge of the military. He sits atop of the--he is the civilian in charge of the military, and it is his decision to use military force. It is Congress's decision to declare war. How many times do you think we have declared war since the founding of our Nation? I will give you the answer: Five. Just think about all of the military conflicts that have existed in the history of our country, and we have only declared war five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War against Spain, World War I, and World War II. So to my colleagues, if Congress has only declared war five times, does that mean all of these other military operations are illegal? No. That is ridiculous. Because we have power to declare war--us, the Congress only--it doesn't mean the Commander in Chief can't be Commander in Chief. This country cannot be put in a legal state of war unless the Congress decides to do that, but to suggest that means the Commander in Chief can't do anything without our approval makes all of us Commanders in Chief. Do you think they had that in mind? Do you think they really meant for the Congress to be the Commander in Chief, not the Commander in Chief? The logic of this is as follows: Because we have the ability to declare war, therefore, the President can't act unless we agree. You have taken his power to be Commander in Chief away. The War Powers Act of 1973, referenced by Senator Sanders, is not worth, in my view, the paper it was written on. It was an effort by the Congress back then to limit President Nixon's involvement in the Vietnam war. The way you do that constitutionally is that Congress has the power of the purse. If we don't like what a President is doing in terms of military engagement, we can stop the funding for that engagement. Just think of the chaos that would ensue in this country if there were not one Commander in Chief but 535, and we had to sit down and talk among ourselves and debate as to whether or not we should go forward with the military operation in question. That would paralyze this country. And this leak of the defense intelligence assessment tells you exactly what would happen if they brought this problem over to us to solve. So it has been clear to me that only five times in the history of the country have we declared war, and we have had hundreds of military operations that the Founders never envisioned. The ability to declare war means the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, cannot act unless we agree because that makes us the Commander in Chief. And that is not what they were trying to do. They were trying to make sure the country could not go into a legal situation involving war without the body as a whole making that decision. But when it comes to how to use the military, when to use the military, we have a single person who does that. That is the Commander in Chief, and that person can be limited by Congress's ability to cut off funding for military operations they don't approve of. So the War Powers Act, I think from its very founding, is unconstitutional, but this is a case study of the chaos that would be created if we accepted the proponents' version of this: that President Trump would have to come to the Congress as a whole before he decided to strike the next nuclear facility that maybe we don't know about, or there is some imminent threat to our troops in the region. That is just not practical, and that is not what the Founders meant. They put a single person in charge of the military, and that was the President of the United States. They made sure that going to war was a group decision. And in this country, we have used that process five times in 250 years. So not only did President Trump have the constitutional authority to engage in Operation Midnight Hammer; it was an incredible success. If you look up ``obliterate'' in the dictionary, it means to destroy utterly and wipe out. These three facilities were destroyed utterly, and they were wiped out. They were obliterated. Now that doesn't mean that the threat from Iran is over. The desire of the regime still exists, and we will have to deal with Iran down the road. But on this vote, I think, we all need to vote no because what we are doing here, if we don't watch it, is having 535 Commanders in Chief. That would paralyze this country. But something, maybe, we can agree on very quickly: Since the attack, the Iranian regime has gone on a terror campaign against their own people. They have arrested at least 700 people for ties to Israel. Dozens of people been hanged. They were basically drug out of their houses and hanged. ``Iran turns to internal crackdown in wake of 12-day war.'' I will be doing a resolution condemning this regime's action. What they are doing is they are trying to maintain power over their people after this attack. People in Iran are getting fed up with the Ayatollah. Instead of listening to the people and changing the behavior of the regime, the regime is engaged in a terror campaign of extrajudicial killings, imprisonment, and beatings to suppress the people. And I think this body and the civilized world should condemn what is going on in Iran right now. As to negotiations to solve the Iranian nuclear ambitions, to try to get a deal with Iran that we can all live with, count me in for that. But you have got to remember, the people you are negotiating with, as you talk to them, are killing their own people to try to keep them in control. I have got one idea. Before we negotiate with Iran, they need to say one thing: We don't like Israel. We don't agree with Israel. But we recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist. The policy of the Iranian regime is to destroy the State of Israel, purify Islam, and come after us, the infidels. Until they change that policy, nothing is really going to work. So what I want to hear, before we sit down and talk to the Ayatollah and his henchmen, is that, for the first time ever since the founding of the Iranian regime, they recognize Israel's right to exist. Is that too much to ask? Finally, this is the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. Eighty years ago this past month, the Nazis surrendered. And one of the hallmarks of the Nazi regime was to kill all the Jews. Eighty years later, we are having a debate about a regime that wants a nuclear weapon to kill all the Jews, and we are wondering what to do. You know what we should do? We should make sure they can't kill all the Jews. We should make sure that this homicidal maniac, the Ayatollah, who is a religious Nazi, is not allowed to get a nuclear weapon and reign havoc on the region and come after us. It is hard to believe that 80 years later, we would be having this debate: What should we do? To my good friend Senator Sanders, your solution will lead to World War III. You will appease evil. World War II happened because people like Senator Sanders did not stand up to Hitler. They did not choose wisely, and they did not stop him when they could. That is exactly what is going on now. Until this religious Nazi regime gives up their desire to destroy the State of Israel, to wreak havoc on the region, and to come after us, chanting ``Death to America,'' then we should stand up to them. I am not advocating invading Iran, but I am advocating being tough--no sanctions relief and don't reward this behavior. Vote no to Senator Kaine's proposal. Stand up for the Constitution as it has been implemented for over 250 years. And all of us pray for the Iranian people and for our friends in Israel that better days are ahead. And these better days only come with sacrifice. And as I speak, people in Iran are sacrificing because they just want to live free. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I would like to be recognized to make some comments about the conflict we are watching unfold on our television between Iran, Israel, and now the United States. Someone asked me: What is this talk all about? I think a good title would be: ``What is this all about?'' To the American people, what is this all about? Let me tell you what it is all about. It is all about religion. A fanatical string of Shi'ism is now in charge of Iran, and they have three goals: to purify Islam--about 80 percent of Islam is Sunni; Saudi Arabia is the center of that part of the religion--to purify Islam in the image of the Ayatollah, to destroy the Jewish State, to drive us out of the Mideast because we are infidels. This is not a democracy. It is a theocracy. If you have got any time on your hands, go on the internet and check out the theological bases of this regime. You would understand why Israel has to get this right as well as we do. But it was not always that way. Iran is not inherently a radical group of people, a radical place. As a matter of fact, it is a very cultured place. It used to be one of the real ``Pearls of the Middle East.'' Before 1979, Iran shared intelligence, had economic ties, and military cooperation with Israel and the United States. This is from 1950, where Ben-Gurion--the first President of Israel--is talking to an Iranian diplomat in Israel. Iran had a very vibrant Jewish population. So it has not always been this way. So what happened? They had a revolution. In 1979 to 1981, there was an uprising in Iran that led to the installing of the Ayatollah as the leader of Iran, the first Ayatollah Khomeini. Now we are on the second one, Khamenei. What is this thing all about? These are students pouring over the U.S. Embassy. Our Embassy personnel--50 American hostages--were held for 444 days by these nutjobs. They were subjected to intense physical and psychological torture throughout their captivity, such as mob executions, beatings, solitary confinement, and very bad living conditions. This is what they did when they took over. They came after us, held our people hostage, and treated us very brutally. In 1984, the United States made Iran a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law because of the way the Iranian regime, under the Ayatollah, was conducting himself. They were wreaking havoc throughout the region, and they were doing things against Israel and the United States that justified their designation in 1984 as a state sponsor of terrorism. And that has not changed. Why are they a state sponsor of terrorism? Because they are terrorists, and they support terrorists. Hezbollah--$700 million, we project, was given to Iran by Hezbollah. It is almost their entire budget. They are a terrorist group, mainly in Lebanon, of the Shia branch of the tree. Hamas, who conducted the October 7 attack against Israel--Israel projects that 93 percent of Hamas's military budget came from Iran. We have the Houthis. All of their missiles and rockets came from Iran. We have got Shiite groups in Iraq funded by Iran. Why are they a state sponsor of terrorism? Because they sponsor terrorism all over the world, and they did it with petrodollars from the Iran nuclear deal and other sources of revenue, which was a really bad idea. That is why Trump pulled out. Here is the reporting over the period here: Hamas-Iran alliance: Captured documents expose decades-long terror funding. When Israel began to liberate Gaza from Hamas and drive out Hamas terrorists, they found a treasure trove of documents showing the history between Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran--suitcases stuffed with cash, U.S. flow of funds to Yemen to help the Houthis. What else have they done other than funding terrorist groups? They have threatened to kill American officials: President Trump, Brian Hook, General McKenzie, Robert O'Brien, Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. All these people were involved in the Soleimani attack. Why did we go after Soleimani? Because he was the leader of the more radical elements of their military that had been targeting Americans and he was planning to attack our forces in Iraq and Trump took him out: in 1983, the Beirut barracks bombing, Hezbollah, supported by Iran; Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, a terrorist group supported by Iran. That is why they are terrorists. They have been coming after our interests. They have attacked our shipping in the Red Sea, the Houthis have. They couldn't fire one missile without Iranian support because that is where all their rockets come from. Some cast of characters here. The recent new President was sworn in, in Iran. During the swearing-in of the Iranian President, the crowd started chanting: ``Death to America,'' ``Death to America'' during the swearing-in of the new President not long ago, July 30, 2024. It is not quite a year ago. People wonder what they are up to. Let me tell you what they are up to. They are up to enacting a religious agenda that has no place for anybody but them. If you are a Christian, they want to destroy your faith. If you are Jewish, they want to wipe you off the planet. And if you are a Muslim and you don't agree with them, which most don't, they want to take over the entire faith and make you bend a knee to their view. These people are religious fanatics. What is this all about? Religion. Do you want any of these people to have a nuclear weapon? I don't. They are religious Nazis. Are there any telltale signs that may tell us what they are up to? Do you really have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this out? This is a missile in Iran. In Hebrew, it says: ``Death to Israel.'' This is the freaking missile they took a photo of in Hebrew that said ``Death to Israel.'' I wonder what they want to do with that missile. If you are confused about this regime, you should not be allowed to drive because you are a danger to yourself and others. If you think this is not our conflict, you have missed a lot. You have been like asleep at the switch since 1979. You don't know anything about these people. You are talking gibberish. If you don't think this is our concern, look what they have done. They have attacked Americans. They have American blood on their hands. They are trying to build a nuclear bomb, and one of their targets is us. How do I know that? Because that is what they say. Last July, they were chanting, ``Death to America'' while they were swearing in their President. We don't do that here. Why? Because we are not crazy. These people are crazy. The Iranian people are not, but the people ruling the place are fanatical religious Nazis. If you don't think it is our concern, you really have missed a lot. You need to study before you talk. If that is not enough, the missile that says ``Death to Israel''-- let's see, when was this? Oh, 2015. ``Amid Nuke Talks, Ayatollah Says: `Death to America.' '' This is during negotiations that Obama had. In 2022, they had 95 pounds of highly enriched uranium at 60 percent. Is there a commercial purpose for uranium enriched at 60 percent? No. In 2025, 3 years later, they have 900 pounds of this stuff. So, clearly, they are not stopping their enrichment program; they are accelerating it, and they are enriching it at a level that has no commercial purpose. They actually have one reactor in Iran. The fuel for that reactor comes from Russia. They haven't taken 1 gram of their enrichment program to run the peaceful reactor they claim they want. To run a reactor, you need to enrich between 3\1/2\ and 5 percent, not 60. Weapons-grade enrichment is 90 percent; 60 to 90 is like walking across the street. If you can't figure out what they have been up to, again, you should not be allowed to drive. They are trying to build nuclear weapons. They are making material consistent with a bomb, not a peaceful nuclear powerplant. They chant ``Death to America.'' They chant ``Death to Israel.'' They kill their own people. They are the largest sponsor of terrorism on the planet. They have been that way since 1979. I wonder what they want to do. The Ayatollah's nuclear ambitions have been spread and fed for decades now. I take him seriously. Hitler wrote a book. Nobody believed he wanted to kill all the Jews. They should have. Hitler wrote a book about a master race. People should have taken him seriously. They wrote it off as just talk. They excused Hitler's provocative behavior, saying: He is just saying these things. Well, we know that didn't work out too well. Last month was the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, the Nazi regime. One of the centerpieces of the Nazi regime was to kill the Jewish people. They put the Jewish people in concentration camps, gas chambers, and they tried to extinguish an entire race of people--our Jewish brothers and sisters--killing 6 million. Just a few years ago, the Jewish people got back to the numbers before the war. Eighty years later, we are having a discussion about what should we do, as civilized people, regarding Iran. I will tell you what we should do. We should do something different than we did with Hitler--because if we do the same old thing, there goes Israel and, eventually, us. So their nuclear ambitions are not to build peaceful nuclear powerplants and fuel them. Their enrichment program is designed to make bombs. They intend to use these bombs because they are religious fanatics. Does anybody doubt that if Adolf Hitler had a bomb, he would have used it? If you doubt that the Ayatollah would use a bomb against the State of Israel, you don't understand his religion. What drove Hitler: a sick, twisted, distorted view of the master race. These people want a master religion, not a master race. They want to dominate the world religiously. That is what they are all about. They export terrorism in the name of religion. They support groups that want to take down secular regimes. They want a master religion like the Nazis wanted a master race. And let me tell you what our friends in Israel are saying: Hell, no. Once is enough. So what should Israel do? Here is what Israel should do. They should fight back. To the American people: What would our country do if there was one missile shot into South Carolina or Alabama from a foreign power that killed our citizens? Everybody in South Carolina and Alabama would be wanting to end the terror and go after the people who did it, and it would be the entire Nation. Why should we expect Israel to tolerate what we wouldn't tolerate? There have been over 1,000 missiles shot into Israel. Since their founding, people have been trying to kill them all. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis have one thing in common: They are all funded by Iran. All the weapons come from the Iranians. What is this all about? Killing the Jews and, eventually, us and dominating the world religiously. If you think that is weird, then you need to get on the internet and listen to what they are doing. You need to watch their behavior. And they mean what they say. And don't be like the people in the thirties that got it wrong. Israel is not going to get it wrong the second time. Donald Trump. God bless President Donald J. Trump. I am so glad he won. What has he tried to do? Make peace, not war. He gave the Ayatollah 60 days to find a peaceful settlement regarding their enrichment program. They could have nuclear power, but they can't enrich. There are 20 nations that have nuclear power that get the fuel for their reactors outside of their country. We would have done that for Iran. They were tapping him along. Then 61 days go by, and the rest is history. They are not interested in peace. They are interested in fulfilling a religious agenda that has no place for us or the State of Israel. Hitler didn't want peace. There was not a part of a country you could give him to stop him from enacting his sick and twisted agenda. He didn't want German-speaking populations. He wanted the entire world to speak German. He wanted the entire world to fall under his Nazi regime. He was nuts. And it took a bunch of people from all over the world, particularly America, to destroy the Third Reich, and about 60 million people died because we got it wrong in the thirties--6 million Jews. We are not going to let that happen again as long as I am around, the Presiding Officer, or President Trump and the people of Israel. We are not going to let that happen. We are going to stick with Israel because sticking with them is helping us. They are fighting the people that want to kill us as much as they want to kill all the Jews. Their fight, in my view, is our fight. Operation Midnight Hammer: After day 60, all the negotiations went nowhere because the Iranians didn't want them to go anywhere. President Trump acted, and it was brilliant, it was bold, and it will live in history. To all those who took part in this, God bless you. We have the finest military on Earth. We proved that yet again. But you can have the best military, and if you don't have the right Commander in Chief, nothing happens. We got the right Commander in Chief married up with the strongest military in history, which will make us safer. We are not looking to take over Iran. We are not looking to invade Iran. We are looking to make sure that the fanatics who run Iran can't hurt us and can't destroy our friends in Israel. And President Trump did something about it. He sent B-2s to Iran, and everybody thought: Well, what is that all about? Well, they missed the other B-2s that went to Iran and put a hurting on these three enrichment sites. To the pilots, to the air crews, to everybody involved: Well done. I spent 30-something years in the Air Force, and I have never been more proud. Fly, fight, win. What is next? They shot missiles at our airbase in Qatar--the Iranians did--today, about 16 or 19. One may have gotten through. I think they called us. But just remember what I said. They shot missiles at us today. They shot missiles at Israel last night. The strikes a couple of days ago were designed to shut down the enrichment facilities used to make this weapons-grade uranium. I think we were substantially successful, and I have never been more proud of President Trump and our military. And I think we set back their military program substantially. But here is what we didn't do: We didn't change their desire for a nuclear weapon. We changed the capability to make one. Here is my goal: to have people in charge of Iran who don't want a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel, who will not be the largest state sponsor of terrorism but live in peace with their neighbors and have a good relationship with the United States. That is what I want. And if you don't want that, there is something wrong with you. How do you get that? Two ways: The religious fanatics reject their agenda; they change their behavior. Maybe that will happen. I don't know. Or you change the people and you replace the religious fanatics with people in Iran who do not want to destroy the world, who do not want to create a master religion, who want to live in peace. And I think that is the vast majority of the Iranians. If we get this right, stick with Israel, stand up to this bully--this religious, fanatical regime--let Israel do what they need to do, then I think peace is coming. The Presiding Officer and myself went to Saudi Arabia and Israel to talk about Saudi Arabia recognizing the Jewish State under certain conditions. Before the attack of October 7, we were very close to expanding the Abraham Accords to include a deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel that, basically, would end the Arab-Israeli conflict--an amazing moment in history. October 7 comes along: a vicious, brutal attack on Israel by Hamas, which is fully funded by Iran--raping women, killing children in front of their parents, and doing things that we really don't need to be talking about on the floor. That was designed to stop reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Israel because, for the Iranian fanatical regime, the worst nightmare is for the Arab world to make peace with Israel and move toward the light. These people want darkness for the world. So what do we do now? Israel has had it. I talked to the Prime Minister yesterday before I went on television, and I asked him: What would you like me to tell America, Bibi? He said: Three things. We are profoundly grateful to the American people for what you do to help the Jewish State. We couldn't be here without you. We are profoundly grateful to President Trump for his strong leadership. He also wanted me to urge the people of Iran to seize the moment to end the nightmare you have been living. And the third thing he wanted me to tell the American people is: Israel is not going to live this way anymore. They are not going to raise their children in bomb shelters. They are not going to have their life interrupted daily by ballistic missiles coming from religious Nazis who want to kill all the Jews like Hitler. They are not going to put up with that. Regime change is coming to Iran, one or two ways: The regime renounces what they have been doing since 1979 and changes course, or it is replaced. To expect Israel to do anything else is offensive to me. You are asking Israel to accept as normal being attacked every day and every night by over 500 ballistic missiles? Over 24 Israeli citizens have been killed. The missiles going into Israel are designed to kill children. The attacks by the Israelis are designed to shut down the regime's nuclear capability. But the targets are changing. They are now going after the police force that keeps the Ayatollah in power, the intelligence services that scare people into submission, the prisons that house dissidents. Israel has made a fateful decision to go to the heart of this regime, to take these religious Nazis down one way or the other--reject Nazism and the former religion or get new people. And I am with them. I am with them to the bitter end. I am with them because being with them is in your own interest if you are an American. Being with them is in your own interest if you believe in religious tolerance. Being with Israel means you reject a regime that would take a 16-year-old girl off a bus and beat her to death because she didn't have a head cover. This is evil we are fighting. They are as evil as the Nazis. Now, 80 years later, we are having a debate about what the Jewish people should do to a group that wants to kill them all? Really? We are debating among ourselves what is too much against a regime trying to build dozens of nuclear weapons to blow people off the planet they don't like or agree with? What kind of world are we living in? To all those who want to hold Israel back, what would you do if it were our country? Would you hold us back? If you tried to, we would run you over. We are not going to live this way as Americans. So what is this all about? I am going to end where I began. It is about a fanatical regime that took over the country by force, that started out imprisoning Americans, has been trying to build nuclear bombs--multiple nuclear bombs--has been the largest state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, has American blood on its hands, has attacked Israel over and over and over again, has suppressed its own people. It is about a religious agenda. Why do they do what they do? Religious, fanatical beliefs; a master religion for the world. And if you don't believe that, you have missed a lot. That is what they want, and the only way they are not going to get there is for somebody to stop them. What did Hitler want? To take over the entire world and create a master race--anybody that didn't fit his definition of the right kind of person was in prison or killed. The Ayatollah and his henchmen have that same view, but it is religiously driven. So what happens in the next few days is going to determine the course of history for the State of Israel and the region for decades to come. To our friends in Israel: Finish the job. Do what you have to do to bring about the regime change that will allow your children to sleep through the night. To the American people: Wake up. Understand what we are fighting. The Ayatollah is not normal. These are not normal people. Stand with Israel. Standing with Israel, you are standing by your--you are helping your own self; you are helping your own families. I will make a prediction. Israel is going to win, and this regime is going to fall. This regime is going to fall of its own weight. The people in Iran are going to have their chance, as the regime gets weakened, to rise up and take back their own lives. I don't know when that day is coming, but it is coming soon. I believe that. I believe that the day of reckoning is here for the religious Nazis running Iran; that their terrorism is coming to an end; that it is going to be replaced by a region that moves together, where Sunnis and Shias and Israelis and all different groups--Christians-- work together to build economies for all those rights. We live in a time of choosing. I choose to stand up to evil. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Zimmerman nomination.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am on the floor today with my good friend and colleague Senator Scott. He has a resolution commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Mother Emanuel Church shooting. June 17 was the 10th anniversary, and I just want to thank Tim for all he has done for that church and for the victims of that horrible day. You have been a real inspiration to the church and to the State, and I am glad to join with you here today. It is the oldest Black congregation in our State, opened in 1816. The man who did this, Dylann Roof, killed 9 people, seriously wounded another. He is facing the death penalty. His goal was to go into that church-- invited in, by the way--and shoot people in a house of worship, African Americans, trying to start a race war. He failed pretty miserably. People in South Carolina embraced Mother Emanuel, the victims. We loved the church, the church family, and I am proud of how our State has rallied around this horrific event. And to the people who lost their loved ones, there is a hole in your life that can never be filled. The senseless act of violence motivated by sheer hate and bigotry devastated your life. But I do want to let everybody in the country know, Mother Emanuel is still standing, stronger than ever. People in South Carolina came together in a way that I haven't seen in a long time; and by this horrible, terrible tragedy, I think we are stronger than we were before. This involved a man who had serious issues, was able to get a gun in violation of existing law about background checks. They finally reached a settlement with the victims, and that was done a few years ago. So the lessons learned for me from this horrible event was that there is no safe place when it comes to bigotry and hate. The churches all over the country, synagogues, houses of worship now have armed guards. I hate we are where we are, but as we look back over the last decade and how this has affected the people of Mother Emanuel and our State, I am here to tell you that that church is stronger than it has ever been. To the victims and their families, the hole that has been placed in your life by this senseless act of violence can never be fully filled, but we are trying to do our best to fill that void. And to my good friend Senator Scott, thank you so much for your leadership from day 1. And 10 years later, because of your leadership, we are remembering on the floor of the U.S. Senate that tragic day. And I am just honored to call you my friend and colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Andres nomination.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield back all the time on our side.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of Senate amendment No. 2307, and I ask for the yeas and nays. Vote on Motion

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be making a quick presentation here and then Senator Ernst will follow, and I just want to compliment her for all the effort she has made to stand by Ukraine and make sure that this war ends in a way that is honorable and just. And we can stop the killing but do it in a way that we don't have future wars because we made a mistake here. So there are so many things going on in the world right now that are very dangerous. You have Iran close to a nuclear breakout. You have the war in Russia and Ukraine. It is killing 5,000 people a day. Only God knows how many people are actually being killed or wounded, hard to track, but it is just massive. It is a major land war in Europe, and we thought those days were behind us. We have threats from China. We have got all kinds of things going on in the world. So my advice is, when you have a hard decision to make, make sure you look at it through a moral clarity lens. Make it simple. Russia is the problem, not Ukraine. Ukraine didn't invade Russia; Russia invaded Ukraine. We need moral clarity on all these issues. Iran is not trying to have civilian nuclear power; they are trying to build a bomb. We need to take them at their word as to what they intended to do over time. They intended to destroy the State of Israel, purify Islam, and come after us. That is what they say. They write on their missiles ``Death to Israel,'' and they call us the ``Great Satan.'' They have 600 pounds of highly enriched uranium--60 percent. That is enough for six or seven or maybe more bombs. They went from 60-percent to 90-percent enrichment in less than a month. They have one civilian nuclear reactor. How much uranium has been used to run that reactor enriched by Iran itself? Not one gram. Think of all the fuel needed to run the civilian reactor from Russia. So they are trying to stockpile weapons-grade uranium to make a bomb; and they lie, cheat, and steal, and we catch them all the time. So some moral clarity here. Iran with a nuclear weapon is not only unacceptable, it is the biggest threat to the planet, as I see it. The Arab nations want a nuclear weapon of their own. And Israel--one Holocaust is sufficient. This is the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. It happened a few days ago. During that war, there was an effort to annihilate the Jews. Founding the State of Israel in 1948 was a significant world event. And there is a saying in Israel, ``Never again.'' They actually mean it. (Mr. SHEEHY assumed the Chair.) How about moral clarity from the United States here? We are with Israel. If Israel has to use military force to destroy or degrade the nuclear capability of Iran, we should be with them. I am glad we are trying to find a peaceful solution to the uranium problem. If you can get Iran to dismantle their nuclear program, then that gets us to where I want to go. But they have to dismantle. Right now, there are discussions between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States and Europe about how to end this war. Putin, in my view, is playing us all. President Trump called for a 30-day cease-fire. Ukraine said yes; Russia said no. President Trump urged Zelenskyy and Putin to go to Istanbul--I was over there--and meet to have direct talks. Zelenskyy went; Putin didn't. So there was a call a couple of days ago between President Trump and Putin. The Russians now are supposed to submit a terms sheet about what it takes to get a cease-fire. That is supposed to happen in a few days. They are talking about going to the Vatican and having direct negotiations. I am for all of that, but I don't know about how. I think most people feel like I do. We have given Russia plenty of opportunity to find an honorable and just end to this war. They are not interested, and they are not going to change until we up the ante. So we need moral clarity here. Putin is dragging this out. He believes he is winning on the battlefield. I don't believe he is. He is defying every effort that has been earnest by President Trump to find a solution to this war. President Trump says he wants to stop the slaughtering and the killing. He is right to do so. But this is a time of decision-making. This has gone on too long with too many games being played. I will tell you in just a minute what the Senate can do. But what we need when it comes to Russia-Ukraine is moral clarity. When President Trump focuses on an issue and takes a firm stand, it always works. He is standing up to China and the world who has been ripping us off on trade. He has a policy now that whatever you charge us on tariffs, we are going to charge you. It is called reciprocal trade. He has imposed tariffs on China. Everybody in this body goes home and talks about how China rips us off. Trump is actually doing something about it. China steals our intellectual property, they manipulate the currency to get them a trade advantage, and that needs to come to an end. When President Trump focuses on fixing a problem--righting a wrong-- he gets good results because the world now is calling Washington wanting deals. I think you are going to see a lot of good trade deals to right the wrong of trade abuse because President Trump stood up and insisted we get a better outcome. The border. When he got in office, one of his top priorities was to fix a broken border. Look at what has happened. The lowest daily number of border encounters fell to less than 200, the lowest in history. He turned it all off because he was firm and resolved with Mexico and others. His border policies have worked. He has shut down a broken border, literally, in months because he had the desire and the will to do it, and people responded. And we are getting a great result at the border because of his determination and his will to do so. We went from 7,200 in March down to 200--that drop is amazing--because of his policies. China, I just talked about. He is taking China on, and I am hoping we can reach a deal with China that will level out the trade playing field. China is talking to us; we are talking to China. The world is responding to President Trump's tariffs. We are going to get a bunch of good trade deals. And I very much appreciate that. What did he say about Iran? You know, it's not complicated formula. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That's all there is. That is moral clarity. You can understand that, no matter where you are at on the planet: You know, it's not complicated formula. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That's all there is. We are in talks with Iran. Whether or not they achieve a result, I don't know. I don't mind trying. I do know this: Time is not on our side. President Trump said we are going to end the nuclear program one way or the other. When he said it, I think the Iranians believed it; and when he says it, I believe it. And the best chance to stop the Iran nuclear program is with President Trump's leadership. Moral clarity, again, regarding Russia and Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor. Russia must end this bloodbath now. He has talked about ending the bloodbath. I am saying, from my point of view, Russia is the aggressor. Ukraine, like every other Nation, is not perfect. But they have fought like tigers. In 1994, 1998--I can't remember--they gave up 1,700 nuclear weapons, the Budapest Memorandum. In return, Russia, the United States, Great Britain promised territorial integrity. They gave up 1,700 nuclear weapons with a promise from these countries they would be safe territorially. Russia has violated that promise numerous times. They are constantly harassing their neighbors. This is the second invasion of Ukraine by Russia. They have a view Ukraine belongs to them. No, it doesn't. It belongs to the people of Ukraine, a sovereign nation. If you have a dispute with a country, there are ways to arbitrate land disputes. Putin is trying to rewrite the map of Europe by force of arms. If he gets away with it, if he is seen to having been rewarded for, you will get more of this. There goes Taiwan. Russia is the aggressor. Russia must end this bloodbath. That is my view of this situation. Let's look at history and see what happens when you have moral clarity and see what happens when you lose it. September 27, 1938. Here is what Chamberlain said: How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing. That was his view of what Hitler was doing. Why do we care? We don't know these people. We don't speak their language. That is not exactly moral clarity in the face of Nazi oppression: However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbour, we cannot, in all circumstances, undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. We know what that small country was. It led to the slaughter of 50 million people. It enticed Hitler to keep going, and Hitler told you what he was going to do. He wrote a book. Chamberlain, obviously, didn't read the book, and he didn't have the moral clarity to confront the Nazi regime. And a lot of people died. September 30, 1938: I believe it is peace for our time. A paper signed by Adolf Hitler that he waved to the world. Less than a year later, the world is on fire. This is what happens when you don't realize what is going on. You misread evil. You think Hitler is something he is not. This is an example of not having moral clarity. It leads to a worldwide war. Russia, the Soviet Union--this is an example of moral literacy, President John F. Kennedy: Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty . . . When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. He was talking about Berlin--moral clarity to the Soviet Union. He stood up for freedom, stood against the Soviet Empire. And along comes my favorite, Ronald Reagan: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! How clear could you be? On the other side of this wall is an evil empire that moral clarity, over time, brought the Soviet Union down to its knees. Russia today, Putin's Russia, is an evil country oppressing his own people, harassing his neighbor, wanting to take things that are not theirs, wanting to recreate the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire. And they are using every terrible tactic in the military book--bombing civilians, killing people by tens of thousands. So when it comes to Putin, we need to have moral clarity, as Reagan and Kennedy had with the Soviet Union. It is not enough to give speeches. These were great speeches. But what we did against the Soviet Union is we built up our military. Ronald Reagan went to ``Star Wars'' and they couldn't keep up. We not only opposed the Soviet Union rhetoric, we opposed it in capability. What do we do now with Putin? How do we end this war? I am not out to humiliate Russia or Putin, but I am out to end this war soon--not later but soon--in a way not to start another war. When we left Afghanistan dishonorably and disgracefully, it set in motion a belief that the United States will not stand by its allies and we are apparently weak. I believe that. And the Presiding Officer of the Senate understands what happens when politicians get it wrong. People like him, in his old job, pay a heavy price. They go all over the world fighting these guys because when we pulled out of Afghanistan, every jihadist was on steroids. Putin licked his chops and went into Ukraine and Iran, kept enriching, and sort of the rest is history. That was a horrible decision, and we are paying the price for it today. To my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, if we don't get Ukraine- Russia right, it will be worse than Afghanistan. If it is seen, when this is all over, that Putin was rewarded for his aggression--I am not trying to humiliate Russia, but I am trying to make sure they are not rewarded in a way that China will be enticed to take Taiwan or Iran will believe we are all talk in the West when it comes to their nuclear capability, isolating Israel even further. Speeches are important. Moral clarity is the right lens from which to look through regarding aggression and evil. But we have to do more than talk. I appreciate President Trump's earnest effort to bring the parties together, to find a solution we can all live with, to keep an independent, sovereign Ukraine and end this war sooner rather than later. It is clear to me after all these months, the earnest efforts by President Trump are not being equally met. I think Zelenskyy is ready to make concessions to end this war. Putin seems to be more talking and less acting. What can we do to up the ante? What can we do in the U.S. Senate to change the equation? What can we do to persuade Russia to get to the peace table? We can impose bone-crushing sanctions on Putin's Russia. And he has earned that. I hate it for the Russian people, but it is now time to increase the cost of this war on Putin. The sanctions packet that we have put together has 80 cosponsors. Do you know how hard it is to get 80 Senators to agree on anything? Eighty of us--and the number is climbing--are ready to impose sanctions on Russia if he does not come to the table and earnestly seek peace-- Putin. And these sanctions are geared toward China. There are tariffs in these sanctions on any nation that buys Russian oil and gas from the shadow fleet. Putin's war machine is propped up by China and India buying Russian oil at a massive discount to keep the war machine and Putin running. So what have we decided to do here? Focus on those causing the problem, not just Putin; focus on his customers. Most of Europe has weaned themselves off of Russian oil and gas. That is a major advancement. But it is now time to let the Chinese know: If you want to be a normal country, act normal. If you want to have a better relationship with the United States and Europe, help us. Don't fuel the flames of a bloodbath. Don't buy cheap oil from a despot because you can with impunity. Those days of buying cheap oil from Putin with impunity are coming to a close. We are going to act. And how we act and when we act will be a political exercise among the body, talking to the White House, and talking to our allies. To China: I would like a better relationship. We have a lot of opportunity to grow our economies together. But if you keep supporting Putin and fueling his war machine, you will never have a normal relationship with the U.S. Senate. To our friends in India: Watch what you are doing. To my colleagues: Seldom do we have a chance to speak with one voice at such an important time. The entire world is watching the U.S. Senate. I just got back from T rkiye with Secretary Rubio, who invited me to go. He allowed me to speak to every Foreign Minister of our NATO allies, talking about the Senate bill, telling them that the Senate is an independent body and that we are moving down the road to holding Putin accountable. The world is watching the Senate in a way I haven't seen since I have been here. We have a chance, my colleagues, to help end this war. We have a chance to push Putin to the table. And if we fail as a world, not only does this war continue, but we are going to start new wars. I have never been more proud of this body than I am right now. We have come together in a bipartisan fashion. There are a group of House Members who will take the Senate bill and sign a discharge petition. What does that mean? It is coming to the floor of the House no matter what. So we stand ready. I am going to talk to the majority leader, talk to all of my colleagues who have a say in how this bill moves forward, and I am going to urge them to get ready to act. We have sat on the sidelines too long. We have watched too many people get slaughtered by Putin. We have put sanctions on, but they haven't worked the way they should. What we are doing in the Senate is a game-changer. It will affect China, which provides the most fuel to Putin's war machine in a dramatic fashion. To China: I don't want to do that. I will, if I have to. I want you to help us in this war. I am not looking to punish or destroy your economy or hurt our economy. I am looking to get a result here. But I will end where I started: If we have to, we will. President Kennedy said: ``We shall pay any price and bear any burden.'' He was right. President Reagan said: ``Tear down this wall''; end this evil empire. Sometimes, freedom comes at a heavy price. The Ukrainians are paying that price, and I am so proud of them. They are fighting like tigers, and they are dying by the thousands. And they are not going to quit no matter what we do--nor should they. This is a moment of reckoning. This is a moment that matters. All of us got to the Senate, and it is not an easy path to take to get elected to this body. But now you are here, and you have a chance, my colleagues, to make a real difference, to make this world safer and more peaceful. Let's not shirk the responsibility history has put upon us. This is a historical moment. Let's rise to the occasion like those before us. Let's have moral clarity when it comes to Putin. Let's do more than talk. Let's act. I will yield to Senator Ernst, who has been a champion for getting a good outcome for Ukraine and the world. I very much appreciate all you have done in this cause.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, H. Con. Res. 14, the fiscal year 2025 congressional budget resolution, included an instruction to the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget to file enforceable levels in the Senate in the event the budget was agreed to without the need to appoint a committee of conference on the measure. On April 5, 2025, the Senate amended and adopted H. Con. Res. 14, and on April 10, the House agreed to the amended resolution without changes. As such, I am submitting the required filing. Specifically, section 4002 of the fiscal year 2025 congressional budget resolution requires the chairman to file an allocation for fiscal year 2025 for the Committee on Appropriations and an allocation for fiscal years 2025, 2025-2029, and 2025-2034 for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations. The figures in the filing are consistent with the spending limits set forth in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 and the levels included in H. Con. Res. 14, as adjusted for the budgetary effects of recent legislation, pursuant to section 4006 of the resolution. Adjustments were included for the budgetary effects of the following enacted legislation: Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2025, H.R. 1968, and Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service relating to ``Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales,'' H.J. Res. 25. Section 2002 of the fiscal year 2025 budget resolution included reconciliation instructions to six Senate committees to increase the deficit by not more than a given amount. Pursuant to section 3001 of the resolution, I am holding the corresponding amounts in reserve until the consideration of reconciliation legislation. For purposes of enforcing the Senate's pay-as-you-go rule found in section 4106 of the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution, I am resetting the Senate's scorecard to zero for all fiscal years. The 2025 congressional budget resolution's budgetary levels and the budget baseline used to enforce it reflect current tax policy and assume provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are permanently extended. I am also including in this filing the Joint Committee on Taxation's estimate of the budgetary effects of these current tax policy adjustments relative to the Congressional Budget Office's unmodified baseline. The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation will provide cost estimates of legislation using both the budget resolution baseline and CBO's unmodified baseline. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the following Senators join me in this statement: Tim Scott, Bill Hagerty, Marsha Blackburn, Thom Tillis, Ted Budd, and John Boozman. The day after Christmas, when both Houses of Congress were in recess, the Biden administration released a final rule setting new energy efficiency standards for tankless water heaters. Like any last-minute rule from the previous administration, this effort was ill-advised and ill-timed. It should not, and cannot, stand. However, the enactment of H.J. Res. 20, which provides for congressional disapproval of the rule titled Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters, will create a structural imbalance. This imbalance results from the Biden administration's issuance of an efficiency rule for commercial tank and tankless water heaters in October of 2023, as well as residential tank-filled water heaters in April 2024, neither of which could be overturned by the Congressional Review Act because it was unlikely to achieve a veto-proof majority in the Senate. Through rulemaking, the Department of Energy should write new rules to address this regulatory imbalance, whereby traditional tank water heaters and commercial gas-fired instantaneous and tank water heaters continue to be subject to regulatory standards. This structural imbalance, if not addressed, will result in an uneven competitive marketplace for water heater manufacturing and sales. While the enactment of the resolution may limit the Department of Energy from issuing a substantially similar rule, there remains a need to rectify the regulatory misalignment. Accordingly, we strongly encourage the Department of Energy, with input from congressional leaders and affected industry partners, to use its rulemaking authority to ensure that regulatory standards for consumer and commercial gas-fired water heating equipment are aligned, thereby removing any market imbalance.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have a different view on this. To my good friend from Oregon, who has been a real gentleman to work with-- and you have great staff, and I appreciate our ability to work together. But we have a little different view of what we are doing here tonight, so I am going to give you our side of the story. I have charts too. I never thought I would have a chart, but I have one. We are trying to do sort of four things tonight: Start a process that we can make the tax cuts permanent; give money to the Department of Homeland Security to continue to secure our border; cut trillions of dollars of waste, which does exist; and support our military. Now, the bill tonight, the resolution, opens up that process that will be done by the House and the Senate authorizing committees. So this doesn't do anything other than start the game, and it is time this game started. Now, what is in this for you if you are not a billionaire? Which I am not. If we do nothing, if we do nothing, the 2017 President Trump tax cuts expire in December. None of them voted for it. They are going to expire, and what does that mean to you? Six million jobs will be lost. The average taxpayer would see a 22-percent tax hike if the tax cuts expire. A family of four making $80,610--the median income in the United States--would see a $1,695 tax increase if they expire this December. This is worth about 9 weeks of groceries. Forty million families would see their household child tax credit cut in half. If any of you all are listening out there that is not a billionaire, you might want to keep listening. If this expires, you are going to get hit hard, and we don't want that. Twenty-six million small businesses would be hit with a 43.4-percent top tax rate if section 199A of the small business deduction expires. Well, why do I know about that one? I can't walk 5 feet in South Carolina without somebody begging me to make sure that expensing and deductions and accelerated depreciation don't go away, because they run a business. Our friends over there run the government. That is all they know. They are very good at making it bigger; not very good at making it efficient. There is no amount of money that is enough for these folks. So if you are looking for that crowd over there to cut your taxes, you are looking in the wrong direction. I have about a hundred years to prove that point. The point I am trying to make is these tax cuts expiring matter to real people raising a family and trying to run a business, particularly small businesses. This would be devastating. We are not going to let that happen. Now, if you are waiting for this crowd, our friends on the other side, to cut spending, you are going to die waiting. Now, we have a chance as Republicans, if we pass this resolution tonight, to cut spending and make the tax cuts permanent without one Democratic vote. It is called reconciliation. To my Republican friends who may be watching, four times in the last 100 years, the Republicans had the House, the Senate, and the White House. This doesn't happen a lot. But with that construct, through reconciliation, what we are starting here tonight if we get 50 plus 1, we can make the tax cut permanent and cut spending without one Democratic vote. This is what they used--our Democratic friends--to pass ObamaCare, all the spending around infrastructure spending, the Inflation Reduction Act, which really didn't do much to reduce inflation. They have done this, and we are going to do it a different way. They did it to grow the government; we are going to do it in a way to get more money back to you. And we are going to look at the budget we have up here and see if we can find a way to save some money. Don't you think it is time that we looked at the budget up here like you look at your budget? We are going to do that. We are going to secure our border. We don't talk enough about this. In this package, there is $175 billion that will allow the Trump administration to finish the wall. Now, President Trump said during the State of the Union Address: The Democrats said we needed new laws; we just really needed a new President. We got a new President, and the flow has really almost stopped--one of the most amazing things that we don't talk enough about. But we want to make sure that it doesn't come back on again, so this bill gives the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, Tom Homan, $175 billion to finish the wall and to find more detention bedspace--40,000 to 125,000--so we don't have to let people go. Laken Riley was killed by an illegal immigrant. He was released because they had no bedspace. We don't ever want to do that again. We are going to build enough detention beds so we don't have to release anybody. I think most people like that. We are going to hire more ICE agents to kick the gang members and the crooks out faster so we can get control of our country and our security. This bill allows $175 billion. That is enough for the entire 4 years--if Republicans stick together. So, as a Republican, if you said you want to cut waste, you want to cut people's taxes, and you want to secure the border, your ship has come in. What is near and dear to my heart, like most everybody here, including our Democratic friends, is supporting our military. Well, the budget agreement we reached a few years ago was terrible. The continuing resolution to fund the government through September is below that number. We are spending below inflation on our military. In case you haven't missed it, the world is literally on fire. So this bill gives the Pentagon $150 billion right now to help them upgrade their capability to deal with threats like Iran getting a nuclear weapon. This is good stuff, and the only thing standing between you and this good stuff is a vote tonight, continuing a process in the House and the Senate to make it a reality. But if we don't get it right tonight, all this dies. All of this opportunity dies if Republicans don't stick together. And you know what. We will. All right. So now all this stuff about being the Budget chairman. What did I do? Well, I made a decision. Last time I checked, if you win an election, you get to make decisions. I am the Budget chairman. It has been a lot of fun. I have learned a lot, I can tell you that. So in the 1974 Budget Control Act, when it comes to spending, you never have to offset it. Anything above $50 million in spending, you can use current policy, which is a budget-scoring device that just assumes everything goes forever--no offsets. It is my belief that when it comes to tax reductions, I, as the Budget chairman, can apply that same concept, called current policy, to the budget on this floor, and I will do that. I have done that. Now, what does that mean? If we are able to do for taxes what we have done for spending, that means the tax cuts never expire again, and you don't have this cliff putting everybody at risk. That means if we pass what we have put together in the Budget Committee--and Senator Marshall is a member of the committee. We passed a really good proposal to make sure that these tax cuts that we are going to reauthorize stay in place so people throughout the country can count on some certainty when it comes to tax credits for their children, deductions, expensing for their businesses, and having lower rates. I did it, I am proud to do it, and my Democratic friends who are hollering and screaming have done it, too, but it always relates to spending. Judd Gregg, who is a good friend of ours--one of the smartest guys I have ever met--was on the Budget Committee. He and Kent Conrad were a great team. There was a question: Can the farm bill be added to the baseline? Here is what Judd Greg said about a Democrat's ability to do that: The chairman of the Budget Committee declared a new baseline under a new budget. The budget chairman has a right to do that. The budget chairman changed the baseline to accommodate the farm bill. I am declaring current policy to make sure the tax cuts stay in place. When there was an inquiry of a Parliamentarian about whose job it is to declare the baseline, this was what Judd Gregg asked: Who is the proper scorer of points of order relative to revenues and expenses? Here is what was said: The Senator is entitled to an answer under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, Determinations and Points of Order, section 312. Budget Committee Determinations. For purposes of this title and title IV, the levels [for measuring] budget authority outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of the estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as applicable. That is us. That is me. They asked that question in 2008, and that is what they said. Judd Gregg said it is the Budget Committee chairman's authority to determine the baseline, and that is what I did. Ok. And even Bernie agreed, so we don't need to overly dwell on that. This is what the law says: Revenues and spending ``shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as applicable.'' That is us. We are elected officials. And wouldn't it be odd if you wrote a law and managed a law that nobody voted for? That makes like zero sense. All right. So bottom line: Tax cuts are going to be permanent. It will help the economy. And when it comes to estimating what happens around here, CBO--great people--JCT, Joint Committee on Taxation, they make estimates. The one thing they have been consistent about is being wrong when it comes to tax revenue. They have got it wrong, like, every time. So if history is any guide to what has happened in the past, we are going to get more revenue by cutting taxes. Why do I know that? Because it always happens. What happens all the time too? When we get the new money, we spend it faster than we get it. That is going to stop. If you live in the real world, you get a pay raise; that is a great thing. But if you spend it all and then some, you go right back in debt. So we are going to do two things. We are going to start a process that would allow the tax cuts to be permanent to give the economy certainty to grow, to create more revenue, to help the government do what it needs to do, and we are going to cut spending to make sure that we lower the amount we are spending--because we are spending too much-- with the hope of one day doing this: balancing the budget. I said it. I have not been struck dead yet. Our goal, to the American people, is to create more revenue and lower spending to balance the budget like you do. Now we don't do this in this resolution, but we start the process because we are $30-some trillion in debt. The only thing between the tax cuts being permanent, having money to secure the border, helping the military and--what is the other thing that we are going to do?--cutting spending, is a vote tonight. Sometime after midnight--before breakfast, I hope--we will have a vote in the U.S. Senate that would trigger a process to do these four things. I am proud of the Budget Committee. We have worked hard. I am proud of Leader Thune, who has pushed this process forward. I appreciate the cooperation to the extent they can do it on the other side. We have a philosophical difference. I totally understand that. But we have chosen a different path, and a major step along that path will occur later tonight. And if we get this right, by Memorial Day, it is my fervent hope and prayer--and I just talked to President Trump--that we can pass ``one big beautiful bill'' that makes the 2017 tax cuts permanent and even more, tax on tips for all those people working out there as waiters and waitresses. We have a chance here to look at the Federal budget, line by line, to make sure things end there that make no sense and are taken out to save you money. And, boy, we are going to have some fun tonight talking about those things. And if you believe securing the border is a good thing and what we are doing is the right thing, by Memorial Day, we will have fully funded what President Trump needs for all 4 years. That will be amazing. And if you are in the military, money is coming your way to help you do your job, to make sure the rest of us are safe, and we are going to fix the problem of the continuing resolution by giving the military less than inflation at a time when the world's literally on fire. So if we can get it right tonight, by Memorial Day, I am hoping and praying that the men and women in uniform will have $150 billion that they desperately need to do their job and to stay safe. This is the most important thing I have done yet in the Senate in my view. I have set in motion, along with my colleagues--and if there is ever a team sport, it is politics--the ability to do something that we haven't done before: make taxes and spending the same in terms of policy. Quit playing this game that the American people lose. You will not lose a dollar revenue if we make these tax cuts permanent. You will get more money. But if you keep spending more and more, that doesn't matter. But if you get more revenue and you cut spending, one day we will be on a glide path to balance this budget. It is my fervent desire to do that, and President Trump wants to do that. Let it be said that that starts tonight. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of H. Con. Res. 14, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2025, the majority and the Democratic managers of the resolution, while seated or standing at the managers' desk, to be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text displayed on wireless personal assistant devices and tablet devices. I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators--and I know we still have them--be permitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution; further, that the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the resolution, if necessary, consistent with amendments adopted during Senate consideration, including calculating the associated change in the net interest function and incorporating the effect of such adopted amendments on the budgetary aggregates for Federal revenue, the amount by which the Federal revenue should be changed, new budget authority, budget outlays, deficits, public debt, and debt held by the public.

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

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

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

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits. In addition, sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and revise allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. The Senate will soon consider H.R. 1968, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025. The measure provides full-year appropriations for 2025 and contains spending that qualifies for cap adjustments under BBEDCA. First, H.R. 1968 includes appropriations designated as emergency funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of BBEDCA. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill's emergency-designated spending amounts to $12,375 million in nonsecurity budget authority and $8,600 million in associated outlays in 2025. Second, the measure also includes $22,884 million in nonsecurity discretionary budget authority designated for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of BBEDCA. This budget authority is expected to result in $963 million in outlays in 2025. Third, the measure includes appropriations for certain program integrity activities that qualify for adjustments pursuant to sections 251(b)(2)(B), 251(b)(2)(C), and 251(b)(2)(E) of BBEDCA. The adjustments for these activities amount to $2,531 million in nonsecurity budget authority and $1,894 million in resulting outlays for 2025. Finally, H.R. 1968 includes $2,750 million in nonsecurity budget authority for wildfire suppression operations pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(F) of BBEDCA, which is associated with $945 million in outlays. In total, the adjustments for H.R. 1968 amount to $40,540 million in nonsecurity budget authority and $12,402 million in outlays. I am also filing adjustments to reflect the emergency designations in two bills enacted last year: the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, P.L. 118-83, and the American Relief Act, 2025, P.L. 118-158. Together, the emergency-designated appropriations in these bills increase security category budget authority by $11,775 million, nonsecurity category budget authority by $105,395 million, and total outlays by $26,511 million. Consequently, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised security budget authority by $11,775 million, revised nonsecurity budget authority by $145,935 million, and outlays by $38,913 million in fiscal year 2025. I am also increasing the budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2025 by $157,374 million in budget authority and $38,611 million in outlays. I ask unanimous consent that this notice and the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, my colleagues will soon be starting what is commonly called a vote-arama. If you have never been in one, it is OK. But know it is a chance to have a spirited discussion and debate about policy and about the budget resolution. So what has happened here is that the Budget Committee reported out S. Con. Res. 7. That will allow, through the reconciliation process, the spending of money and the reduction of spending based on different committees. This resolution allows for $175 billion of border and immigration policy enhancements, but it doesn't spend a penny. It allows the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee to come up with an up-to $175 billion plan to secure our border and do immigration reform. And what will happen is that those two committees will work with the Trump administration to meet their priorities. There is nothing in this resolution directing one dime of spending, and no spending bill can be implemented without Presidential signature. So I want to make sure that is clear. There is $150 billion in increased defense spending. Why? Because we have a lot of threats. Since the withdrawal of Afghanistan, radical Islam is on the rise. We have got a hot war with Russia and Ukraine. Israel is facing enemies on seven sides. We have provided weapons to allies in Ukraine and Israel. We have run out of 155 howitzer rounds. We have got to reinforce our industrial base. We need more money into our military yesterday to make sure that we can deter a war, and, if we get into a war, we win it. So the $150 billion will be allocated by the Armed Services Committee. We don't direct how the $150 billion is spent. We just allow the Armed Services Committee to spend that much, if they choose. They decide what to spend it on. So this idea that there is somehow money in this resolution for Ukraine or any other specific purpose is not true. All we do is create a number for the committees to mark up to, and it is up to the committee as to what is in the $150 billion package. And to all the colleagues here, you eventually get to vote on that work product, and, if you don't like it, you can vote no. And, eventually, that work product will have to be signed by the President. So that is the way the process works. What we are doing today is jump-starting a process that will allow the Republican Party to meet President Trump's immigration agenda through the reconciliation process. And the Democrats chose this very process to pass ObamaCare and the Inflation Reduction Act. We are going to use it to secure our border. We are not going to grow the government just for the sense of growing the government. We are not going to create a Green New Deal. We are going to create border security transformational in nature. Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to embark on a plan to jump-start the most transformational border security bill in the history of the United States because we need it yesterday. We have had 11 million people come to this country illegally. Fentanyl kills 3,000 Americans every 2 weeks. It comes across that southern border. We are running out of detention space to hold people. Tom Homan, the border czar, came to the Republican Senate last week or 2 weeks ago and said that ICE is out of money. This resolution jump-starts the process to get Tom Homan the money he needs to fulfill the promises we made, to build more detention beds so you don't have to let people go. Laken Riley's murderer was in detention and released because of lack of bed space and wound up killing the young lady. That should never happen again. When you are detained, we should hold you and process you according to law, not release you. We need more detention beds. We need to finish the wall. This $175 billion will be allocated by the committees in question, and it will allow President Trump to finish the wall, secure the border, and deport criminals. ICE is out of money. If you think it is a good idea to go after the criminal gangs that have come here over the years illegally, then you are right. To my Democratic colleagues, you should be working with us, not against us. Everybody should want to clean up the mess of the last 4 years. Everybody should want to go after criminal gangs. Everybody should want to secure the border because it is a national security nightmare. And nobody should want the dilemma of a nation having to let somebody go who could potentially be dangerous because you have no place to put them. This $175 billion will allow for the most transformational border security bill in the history of the country at a time of great need. The $150 billion will be allocated by the Armed Services Committee. They will decide what to spend it on. There is a lot of modernization we need of our nuclear triad fleet. We need more weapons. Our stockpile is low. There are a bunch of things we can spend $150 billion, but we will let the Armed Services Committee decide those priorities. When it comes to border security--the $175 billion plan--the committees of jurisdiction will allocate that money, not this resolution. But without this resolution, we can't move forward. Why is this resolution important? Without this bill passing, S. Con. Res. 7, there is no hope getting money for the border the way it needs to be done. Without this resolution passing tonight or early tomorrow, we are not going to get any money for the military without having to negotiate nonmilitary spending increases. We don't have a lack-of-spending problem in our country; we have spent way too much on things that don't matter enough. Part of this process will be committees finding offsets, reducing spending. So we are telling the Armed Services Committee: Spend $150 billion the way you see fit. We are telling two committees to spend $175 billion to secure our border. We are telling seven other committees: Find savings inside your committee to offset the spending we are creating in this bill. I think they can do that. I think what DOGE is doing is good. This is a form of that. Every committee that has been instructed to save at least $1 billion will be able finally to go into the committee itself, see what they spend on, and reduce spending because we are directing them to. My hope is that the $342 billion we are going to spend to secure our border, help the military, and enhance the Coast Guard will be offset with $342 billion of cuts in other parts of the government. We can do it, but this resolution has to pass or we won't do it. I am highly confident that the Republican chairmen of the committees in question will deliver. I am highly confident that we can find savings in the government to offset the spending we are creating. The Democratic Party used this process for their Green New Deal. They used this process for ObamaCare. We are using this process to help our military, who needs help, to secure a border that has been broken, and to enhance the Coast Guard. That is the difference. We are doing things that need to be done to make us safe. Mr. President, 3,000 Americans die every 2 weeks because fentanyl comes across the border. We are going to fix that. Since President Trump has been in office, border crossings have gone down by 90 percent. We want to reinforce this success. We want to finish that wall. We want to make sure we never release another person in this country because we don't have a bed. We are going to make sure the criminal gangs keep leaving, not staying because ICE doesn't have enough money. Why are we doing this? Because Tom Homan and Mr. Vought, the head of OMB, told us 2 weeks ago that we are out of money to finish the job President Trump started. To my House colleagues: I prefer one big beautiful bill that makes the tax cuts permanent, that does the things we need to do on the border and with our military and cuts spending. I wish you all the best. I prefer what you are doing to what we are doing, but we have to have a plan B if you can't get it done soon. What is the Senate doing? We have decided to front-end load security. We want to cut taxes. We want to make the tax cuts permanent. We are going to work with our House colleagues to do that. They expire at the end of the year, but we have time to do that. It is the view of the Republican Senate that when it comes to border security, we need not fail. We should have the money now to keep the momentum going. When it comes to the Republican Senate, we believe the military needs money now because the world is on fire. To my House colleagues: We will all get there together. If you can pass the one big beautiful bill that makes the tax cuts permanent--not 4, 5 years--then we will all cheer over here. Nothing would please me more than Speaker Johnson being able to put together the bill that President Trump wants. I want that to happen, but I cannot sit on the sidelines and not have a plan B. This Nation is under threat. The illegal immigrants who have come here by the millions need to be sent back by the millions. The border needs to be secured. The wall needs to be finished. We need more detention space. We need to upgrade our military capability now. The reason we are doing it now is because we were told ICE is out of money now. I am hoping the House can deliver, but I am very confident that in the Senate, early in the morning, Republicans--not one Democrat vote-- will set in motion a process that will transform our border security to the most modern, aggressive border security plan in the history of the country, north and south; that it will set in motion $175 billion of new spending to secure the border in a way that has never been achieved in the past. If this resolution fails, God help us all. If this resolution passes, help is on the way. If you believe that America needs to be serious about securing our border, this bill gets the job done. If you believe the military needs to be stronger, not weaker, at a time of threat, this bill gets it done. If you believe the Coast Guard needs more capability to deal with drugs and national security threats, this bill delivers. This is a security bill. This is a bill that will combat fentanyl killing Americans. There are more Americans dying every 2 weeks from fentanyl than on 9/11. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans--young and old but mostly young--have died from fentanyl poisoning coming across that southern border. We are going to go after those cartels. I am confident that President Trump is the new sheriff in town that we need. But without resources, it won't work. Tom Homan came to us and begged us for money to continue the plan he has enacted to get gangs out of this country, to secure that border, and to add more detention space. Tom, we heard you. We are going to meet your needs. I am excited about this debate. I am excited about Republican-led chairmen finding ways to reduce spending to pay for this. This is a big deal, folks. The Republican Party is going to go all in on border security. We are going to upgrade our defense capability, and we are going to pay for it. Has anybody at home ever had to pick between two things? You couldn't do everything. You couldn't have it all. You had to spend because your child got sick or hurt, and you had to cut somewhere else because there wasn't enough money to do both. We are going to set priorities. If you have a sick child or something bad in your family happens, that goes first. That means you have to pick somewhere else--except in Washington. That model is over. We are going to start a new way of doing business. We are going to spend on things that need to be done and should be done by the Federal Government to keep us safe, and we are going to offset it by reducing spending in areas that are not as important. I am excited about this process. I urge my colleagues to come down on both sides of the aisle and participate in this debate. This is what I was elected to do, I think--make America safe and prosperous and do it in a fiscally responsible way. The idea that we are going to actually offset spending is a great day. We are going to deliver. This is going to go into the night. Our Democratic colleagues are going to have a chance to offer a lot of amendments to our approach. They will want this and they will want that. What breaks my heart is they don't see the value what we are trying to do. Every American should want more money going into DHS to secure our border. Every American should want more capability in the hands of the military at a time of great threat. But we can't get there. We can't reach common ground on those issues. So we are going to use the process they used. They used the process to create ObamaCare, the Green New Deal, and the Inflation Reduction Act. We are going to use that very same process to make the cartel's life miserable, to go after criminal gangs, to finish the wall, upgrade the capability of the Coast Guard, and make our military the most lethal it has been since Ronald Reagan, and we are going to pay for it all. In a bit, I will read a script that starts the process. To the Senator from Ohio, the Presiding Officer, this is why you came. This is what you promised to do. I was on the campaign with you, and you looked your voters in the eye and said: We are going to do things different. We are going to secure our border, we are stop the fentanyl from poisoning your kids, and we are going to be serious about fiscal responsibility. We are going to pay for all of this. Mr. President, you have a chance here to do what you promised you would do. All of us on this side of the aisle--people are counting on us. They are counting on this Republican majority to deal with the mess that has been created for the last 4 years. They are counting on this Republican majority to give the President the money he needs to do the job that he promised to do. And we are going to deliver. We are going to do it, and we are going to do it tonight. If it is 5 o'clock in the morning--I don't care how long it takes--we are going to deliver, and we are going to pay for everything we do. In a little bit, in a small period of time, around 5 o'clock, we are going to start this process. This is a big deal, folks. This is not just business as usual in Washington; this is a different way of doing business. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have two unanimous consent requests. I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of S. Con. Res. 7, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2025, the majority and the Democratic managers of the resolution, while seated or standing at the managers' desk, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text displayed on a wireless personal assistance device and tablet devices. I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution; further, that the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the resolution, if necessary, consistent with amendments adopted during Senate consideration, including calculating the associated change in the net interest function and incorporating the effect of such adopted amendments on the budgetary aggregates for Federal revenue, the amount by which the Federal revenue should be changed, new budget authority, budget outlays, deficits, public debt and debt held by the public. Further, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote during consideration of S. Con. Res. 7.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, yeah, this is a big-time no. They are rewriting the budget resolution. They want to take half of the $342 billion and spend it on things not related to what we want to do. We want to secure the border. We want to give President Trump $175 billion to secure the border through Homeland Security and Judiciary, and we will figure out how to spend it. We want to do $150 billion for defense because the world is on fire. We want to do $20 billion for the Coast Guard to help us become safer. They are rewriting the resolution. They are taking half the money we have dedicated for border security and defense and spending it on more nondefense stuff. We are tired of that. We are not going to do that anymore. We are going to defend America in this resolution. We are not going to take half the money and spend it on more social spending. We are going to defend our border. We are going to make the military more lethal, and we are going to help the Coast Guard, and we are going to pay for it--something you would never do. So vote no. Vote on Amendment No. 878

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to my colleagues, it has been a very long day. To the Budget Committee staff, Nick and your team, thank you very much. Through this process, I have gotten to know Senator Merkley better. It has been a pleasure. We are one step closer to fixing a problem that all Americans want us to fix, I think. The man who murdered Laken Riley was released from detention because we had no bed space. That should never happen again. There is $175 billion in this bill to make sure we have enough bed space; we complete, finish the wall, and kick gang members and other criminals out of the country; $150 billion for a military that has been worn out--they need the money; and $20 billion for the mighty, mighty Coast Guard. We are one step closer to fulfilling the promise Republicans made to make you safer. I hope we can get one big, beautiful bill in the House, but we need to act on border security and national security now. We are running out of time. Thank you all.

Mr. GRAHAM. This bill will be paid for. I ask for the yeas and nays.