A (4:29)

And explain what you mean by normalized, because this is one of the things that happened the last, really, 24, 48 hours that went viral. And I'm not sure people understand how you could claim you were going to have a secure border while also saying 5,000 can come in here, and then another five and another five and another five. Explain that.

B (4:49)

Well, the way it was written is it said that if 5,000 illegal aliens a day are crossing the border, then, as the proponents of the bill would say, the border is shut down and they could no longer accept asylum applications. That was their pitch, and they pitched this as an emergency provision. As a practical matter, if this passed, we would see 5,000 a day for all time, for all perpetuity. We'd see 5,000 a day. 5,000 a day, as I said, is 1.8 million a year. 1.8 million a year means over the three years of the Biden presidency so far, we'd have nearly 6 million illegal aliens. We have in fact had 9.6 million illegal aliens. So what Republicans were saying, idiotically, is we're for 2/3 of the Biden open borders and it's not even 5,000 a day, it's more than that. So there were a bunch of exemptions. So for example, the 5,000 a day did not count unaccompanied kids, which means there's a huge incentive for a massive flow of unaccompanied children. These are little boys and little girls that get brutalized by human traffickers coming in. Also the so called shutdown authority when you cross 5,000 a day was for a limited duration. In the first year it could be a maximum of 270 days. In the second year it could be for a maximum of 225 days. In the third year it could be a maximum of 180 days. So that means it's 5,000 a day for half the year. And then for the other half of the year you can go back to 10,000 a day, which is what we had in December. And it didn't have anything to limit it. And then insanely enough, it gave the President discretion to reopen the border at any time, quote, if it is in the national interest to temporarily suspend the Border Emergency Authority. In other words, it said to Biden, we're being so tough, we're going to say once you get to 5,000 a day, you got to shut it down. Well, unless you think you don't and then you don't have to. That made no sense. Not only that, what else did it do? It gave immediate work permits to people coming here illegally. That, that is insane. It gave.

A (7:11)

And by the way, they've been pushing hard for that over the last several weeks. And their talking points is, and we've seen this in places like Denver, Colorado, we've seen this in New York City, we've seen this in sanctuary cities time and time again. Now over the last several months are like, well, look it, we, we wouldn't have this crisis that we have right now if you guys would just let em hurry up and work already. And that was part of this. Put a gun to the head of, of, of this country saying, well everybody that's here legally, if you'll Just let em work and, and just let em stay and just let them maybe vote by 2030, then, then we can finally secure the border. But then when you read the bill, as you just described it, there was no securing the border here at all.

B (7:51)

Yep. It did not secure the border. Not only that, it gave billions. It gave 2.3 billion that would go to sanctuary cities. It gave $1.4 billion that would go to nonprofit organizations that are providing shelter to illegal aliens and that are helping funnel this invasion. So it literally spends billions. You know, you mentioned the $20 billion fund amount. That 20 billion is not to secure the border. That's not actually. That's not money for building a wall. That's not money for border patrol agents. That's money to pay off sanctuary cities and to pay off the nonprofits, the NGOs that are producing this invasion. And so on the face of it, this bill made things worse because it didn't solve the problem. And so as a policy matter, it was putting into federal law, federal statute, Biden's open borders. That was a spectacularly bad idea.

A (8:56)

I want to talk to you real quick about what's happening with our economy. And you may be looking at what's happening. You may be looking at our national debt exceeding 34 trillion. And you may be also noticing the push for central bank digital currencies. That means that our financial freedom is at stake. And that's why I want you to know about Freedom Gold USA. If you have $50,000 or more in retirement savings, you may be at risk in times of economic uncertainty. Securing your family's financial future is essential. And Freedom Gold USA is here to empower you to protect your hard earned assets. You can act now by calling them 1-800-655-8843, or you can visit them at freedomgoldusa.com verdict. The team at Freedom Gold USA is ready to help you preserve your wealth and provide stability in uncertain times. Plus, there's also something else that's really cool. You can also see if you qualify for up to $10,000 in free silver. That's right. You can learn how to add gold and silver to your IRA or have it shipped to your home. Safeguard your wealth of physical gold and silver and take control of your financial future today. So call them 1-800-655-8843 or visit them online at freedomgoldusa.com verdict to see if you qualify for up to $10,000 in free silver. 1-800-655-8853 or freedomgoldusa.com verdict center I I the part that after you just described the the initial things that were so wrong in this bill that so many listening are going to want to ask you is then why did Republicans actually even work on this? Why did they agree to some of this? Why were they selling us out? Because without the Republicans working on this, if they would have just walked away, we would have never gotten this close.

B (10:53)

Yeah, because it was political malpractice. And that's the second piece of it I mentioned. The policy was terrible, but the policy was terrible because the politics were terrible. Now why were the politics terrible? You know, we had in our lunches and so understand what goes on behind the scenes at the Senate. Every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, all the Senate Republicans, we had lunch together and that's where we have discussions. And I'll tell you, for the last several months we have had knockdown, drag out battles in the Senate Republican lunches over this issue.

A (11:24)

Can you set the stage? Like when you're eating lunch, is this like cafeteria food, box lunch? Are you in coat and tie? Is it more casual? How's the room seated? Do you have a seat that you seated that you're seated in every time? And is anyone from outside of just being a center in that room? Are they coming and going? How does it work?

B (11:43)

Yeah, so the lunches are in the United States Capitol. So in the Capitol building itself on the second floor, which is the same floor that the Senate floor is on. So it's kind of the middle floor of the Capitol. And on two days a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, we have lunch in a room that's called the LBJ room. And it's called the LBJ room because there's a portrait of LBJ on the wall. And look, this is the Capitol. So it is ornate, it is gilded, there's beautiful painting and gold leaf and I mean it's gorgeous. It's the United States Capitol. So it's an amazing building. The LBJ room is relatively small. So there are a whole series of round tables in the LBJ room and it's pretty packed. And all 49 Republicans are typically there having dinner and they're usually a half dozen staff members. So it's basically senators and maybe a half dozen staff members for leadership that are in the room. But it's almost exclusively senators in the room. And the lunch is typically, it's the food is prepared at the Capitol. It's actually pretty good food. It's surprising. You know, it varied. Like today we had fried chicken and had some shrimp and beef and some broccoli. So it was, you know, it's kind of a. It's nicer than a school cafeteria. It's not gourmet food, but it was, you know, it's. The food is surprisingly decent. And we're sitting there. And then so two days a week we're in the LBJ room. And then on Wednesdays, we're in what's called the Mansfield Room. The Mansfield Room is bigger. And so the majority gets the Mansfield Room on Tuesday and Thursdays because we're in the minority. We're in the smaller room, the LBJ room, on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

A (13:22)

So the Democrats are meeting at the same time. You guys are for lunch as well? Okay, yes. And then do you have assigned seating? Do you sit? Is it by rank and file or do you just sit with your friends?

B (13:31)

No. So they're like, they're, you know, I don't know, five or six round tables that are in there, and you go in and just sit wherever. And so it varies. I mean, people sometimes end up sitting next to some of the same people, but it varies quite a bit. You just kind of grab an open seat and you sit wherever. So there's no assigned seats. And then on Wednesdays, the Mansfield room is a bigger room. And the table, instead of being set up in a series of round tables, it's one big table that is a rectangle and we all sit around it. And that's called the Steering lunch. Steering is run by the steering committee. Mike Lee is the chairman of the steering committee. I'm on the executive committee of the steering committee. The Wednesday lunches is actually driven by conservatives. So the executive committee are the most conservative senators. And the Wednesday Lunch is designed to discuss policy. And so the way it works, the Tuesday lunch is the leadership lunch. And so Mitch McConnell and Republican leadership runs the Tuesday lunch. The Wednesday lunch is the steering lunch, and Mike Lee and the steering Executive committee, of which I'm a member runs that. And that typically is very policy focused. And then the Thursday lunch is hosted by a different senator every week. And what you do when it's your turn to host the Thursday lunch is you fly in food from your home state. So I often bring in barbecue from Texas. I'm gonna be doing it soon. I'm gonna fly in Tex Mex instead. Just cause we've done barbecue the last several times. I figured Tex Mex would be good. And when a senator hosts it, that has less of a structure that the Thursday lunch. You just kind of go around and recognize each person in the order they came in the room, and they stand up and they can say whatever they want. And it's usually a little more relaxed, it's less substantive, and people will tell a story, they'll raise a policy point, they'll kind of say whatever they want. So that's. That's how the three lunches are.

A (15:24)

So you have these lunches and then go into what these lunches and how they change. When you were dealing with this immigration, as you said, it was drag out. Is this where it's a. A grand debate? Is it you talk and someone else. Can you interrupt? Is there kind of a. A decorum of the room? How does that work?

B (15:40)

Yeah, yeah. So there's a speaking order. And so it just varies who wants to be recognized. And so, you know, we had at lunch today, oh, I don't know, we probably had 20, 25 senators speak, and you get up and you talk and you say whatever you want, and there's a difference of opinion. But it was like today it became clear this bill is dead. Like, everyone was agreeing. The votes aren't there. We're not gonna do it. It doesn't make any sense. But I'll tell you, the case I made. I made, and I've done this repeatedly for several months. I made the case on the merits. This bill was terrible, and it was bad policy because it would not secure the border. But I also made the case the politics was spectacularly bad. And here's why. The politics was spectacularly bad. Number one, the chances of this becoming law were zero. Why? Because the House of Representatives made absolutely clear they wouldn't pass it. The speaker of the House said this bill is dead on arrival. In fact, the top four. Four in leadership in the House said there's no chance the House would pass this bill. And so I've spent the past couple of weeks standing up and looking at my colleagues who were pushing this bill and arguing for it. And, and. And. And their argument was, well, look, this has some good changes to immigration law. And, and, and I'll concede there were some good elements there. They say, well, we toughened up asylum law. I'm like, well, it doesn't matter if you codify, catch and release and you put in place normalizing 2 million people a year coming illegally, like, okay, fine, you get some minor tweaks in. It doesn't solve the problem. Sure. But they would say, well, if we don't do it now, we can never make the law better. And they were arguing before and, and, and these improvements in the law, when Trump is president, he can use it to, to secure the border. And, and I said, look, that's wrong because A, Trump doesn't need it to secure the border. We had secured the border before without a law passing. But B, even if that were true, that won't happen unless this actually passes into law. And given that the House of Representatives have told us it ain't gonna happen, I repeatedly looked at the advocates for this bill. I looked at Mitch McConnell, I said, how do you pass the House of Representatives? The speaker of the House has said it's not going to. And if it's dead on arrival, what the hell are we doing? And if it's not gonna pass, this is where the political piece kicks in. I said, if it's not gonna pass, what's the purpose? And I'll tell you what the purpose is. Chuck Schumer is thrilled today. He is very, very happy. Because the political purpose of this was to give Democrats camouflage, to give them a defense, to get them out right.

A (18:15)

Where they're not taking heat.

B (18:17)

So every single Democrat running for office in America, every Democrat Senate candidate, every Democrat House candidate, they're all already saying word for word the same thing, which is they're standing up and saying, number one, nothing happens on the border, which is what they want. So the, the open borders continue. That's the policy outcome they wanted. But number two, every Democrat can now say, gosh, we wanted to secure the border, we were ready to secure the border, but the mean old Republicans wouldn't let us. And so it's their fault we have this border crisis. And I get why Chuck Schumer wants that as a political talking point, but why the hell would Republican leadership in the Senate? And as I pointed out to them, I said today, I said, look, you guys have given the largest in kind contribution to the Democrat Senate Committee in the history of the country because you've given them an out and provided a defense and you've done nothing, zero to fix the problem.

A (19:16)

So explain to me what your strategy would have been differently knowing now how this played out.

B (19:22)

Very simple.

A (19:23)

And who around you agreed with you and why was it so hard to get other Republicans to come to your rationale before this disaster happened?

B (19:33)

So our strategy was simple and it started off as the right strategy. We said, we're not going to pass Ukraine funding unless you actually secure the border. That was the right strategy. What was critical is actually secure the border. And the way to do that, the House actually passed a bill and it's called HR2, and it is very tough border security legislation. It is mandatory. It stops catch and release. It mandates detention. It mandates deportation. It mandates building the wall. It ties the President's hands. And it was designed to do everything possible legally to force Biden to stop these open borders. The House passed HR2. It was the right way to go. I've introduced HR2 in the Senate. I am the lead senate author for HR2. My position was very simple. You want to know how you get this done? Attach HR2 to Ukraine funding. By the way, I would vote for Ukraine funding and HR2. Why? Because securing the border is a massive national security priority for America. A massive public safety priority. A massive priority for saving our nation. That would be a good deal. You know what happened when the bill came over? Chuck Schumer said at the outset, said HR2 is off the table. We refuse to do it. Absolutely not. Why? Because HR2 would actually secure the border. And Chuck Schumer doesn't want to secure the border. And so Schumer immediately rejected HR2 because it was effective and he would only agree to something that was massively ineffective and that ensured this, this southern border invasion continues.

A (21:10)

So then how did leadership get this so wrong? Because the American people in the polling specifically on the border crisis, was overwhelmingly in the side of conservatives. And what we've been calling for, what we've been advocating for and for genuinely securing the border. In fact, it played even more into the hands of Republican Party after you had this fight between Texas and cutting the razor wire and the board in the. In Mayorkas. And what's happening with the Biden administration and the polling shows that the American people are not with Joe Biden on this issue.

B (21:48)

Yep.

A (21:49)

How could they not see that? How could Mitch McConnell not see that?

B (21:53)

Because Mitch McConnell, what he cares about is Ukraine funding. He has said repeatedly it is the most important thing in the country to fund the war in Ukraine. And so does he believe that or.

A (22:04)

Is there something behind the scenes politically that I don't know.

B (22:07)

I think he believes it. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity in saying that. But he is passionate about it. And when it comes to the border. Look, would he like to secure the border? Sure. Would he vote for something to secure the border? Sure. But. But it's not a driving priority for him if it doesn't happen. Well, okay, that's unfortunate, but it's not. It wasn't his objective in this whole thing. And so here's the fundamental challenge. And listen, this bill was negotiated by James Lankford, Republican from Oklahoma, by Chris Murphy, an extremely liberal left wing Democrat from Connecticut, and by Kyrsten Sinema, a liberal to somewhat moderate Democrat slash independent from Arizona. And Lankford. Lankford's a really good guy and Lankford has been just gone through a buzzsaw on this and basically what happened is his leadership pushed him out on a limb and then sawed the limb off behind him. And he's been getting pounded. But, but here was the problem for Lankford and Lankford was just followed orders and did what leadership asked him to do. And here was the problem. There were two mandates that were non negotiable. Chuck Schumer's mandate effectively was we will not secure the border. We won't agree to anything that is effective securing the border. That was Chuck Schumer's non negotiable. Mitch McConnell's mandate. His non negotiable was we must, must, must get a deal. Because what he cares about is Ukraine funding. So Lankford was essentially told, do whatever you can to get a deal from, from Schumer. But no is not an answer. You must agree to what Schumer wants. And so Lankford spent hundreds, thousands of hours negotiating with Chris Murphy, which I do not envy the guy, that, that was not fun. But he was operating from a position that McConnell wouldn't let him say no. McConnell's instructions were get a deal. So when you ask James, well, why are these terms so bad? Why aren't they better? He says, well, that's all the Democrats would agree to. Yeah, like, like it's real simple. If you want the Ukraine funding, pass HR2 and you gotta be prepared to walk away. Now, I don't know what they would have done if that happened, but we will never know. Because McConnell's immediate response when Schumer said, no, no, no, we won't do HR2 is, well, okay, well then we'll do whatever you want. And it's even worse than that. This was an incredibly misguided strategy. But I want you to listen to McConnell at a press conference today after our lunch. Give a listen.

A (24:45)

You know, Senator Schumer says that he worked extensively with you on this package. What do you say to your colleagues who said that you misread your conference.

B (24:53)

In helping to craft this border?

C (24:56)

I followed the instructions of my conference who were insisting that we tackle this in October. I mean, it's actually our side that wanted to tackle the border issue. We started it obviously with a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate. Our Negotiators had to deal with them. And James Langford, under those situations, did a remarkable job to pick off. The border council, which supported President Trump, certainly underscores that it was a quality product that that particular union felt would make progress toward making things better. But as I said earlier, things have changed over the last four months, and it's been made perfectly clear by the speaker that he wouldn't take it up even if we sent it to him. And so I think that's probably why most of our members think we ought to have opposition tomorrow. We'll see. And then move on with the rest of the supplement.

A (26:03)

I mean, that's a great story center, but it doesn't seem to necessarily add up with reality, does it?

B (26:09)

Well, and I want to underscore. So you're saying half of what was the biggest fight at lunch today. And so I wanted you to listen to that because that's what Mitch said at lunch. And I have a policy at the lunches which is I don't repeat what other senators say at the lunch. I think they're owed some expectation of privacy that we can have candid and really frank discussion. So I don't repeat what others say, but I repeat what I say because if I said it, I have a right to repeat it and say it elsewhere. Given that Mitch went out and just said it to the reporters, I can tell you that's what he said in the room as well. And when he said it, I stood up and I said, by the way, and you listen to the words he just said, that press conference. He said, well, gosh, it was the Republican conference that wanted to tackle this issue. Notice. Tackle this issue. Yeah, no, we didn't want to, quote, tackle this issue. We wanted to solve this issue, fix the border notice. He said, well, gosh, it's Democrats. So obviously we weren't going to succeed in solving the border. So we just had to tackle the issue and do what the Democrats want. That's his view. But when he made that argument and you just listened to it, I stood up immediately after him and I said, I gotta say, if Republican senators go out and repeat what Mitch just said, it would be spectacularly harmful and it would be a massive political favor to Chuck Schumer and every Democrat running. And let me explain to you why. Because what Mitch argued, notice, he said there, hey, you know, James did a fantastic job and this bill was a great work product. It was a terrific bill. And Mitch was like saying, well, just say, well, the House wouldn't pass and I Said, let me be clear. If a bunch of Republicans go out and say this is a terrific bill, but the House wouldn't pass it, every Democrat, John Tester this week has already said, look, I was ready to secure the border, but these crazy right wingers wouldn't pass it. And their story they want to tell is these knuckle dragging Trumpers don't actually want to secure the border because we had a great bill to secure the border and they're so crazy, they want, so their argument is that Republicans want the issue, we want to campaign on the border rather than actually fix it. And I'll tell you, I, I yelled at my colleagues last week when they were making this argument and I said, listen, for me, I've lived this border. There, there is nobody in this body who wants to solve this more than I do because it is a travesty that is hammering and destroying Texas every day. But I said, listen, if a bunch of Republicans go out and tell the story, this was a great bill that would secure the border, but you know, Trump is so crazy we couldn't do it. But the speaker of the House and the House Republicans, they're so crazy we couldn't do it. And so it's their fault, but we had a fabulous bill. I said, listen, you are literally repeating Schumer's talking points for every Senate Democrat incumbent. If you want Jon Tester to win, go say what you just said to the reporters. If you want Sherrod Brown to win, if you want every Democrat running to win, go say that. And I said, look what you ought to say. And I said, listen, you don't have to throw James Lankford under the bus. He's a good man. But the reason this bill sucks is because the Democrats are radical zealots who don't want to secure the border. And so they wouldn't agree to a bill other than a bill that sucks. And, and, and that's not a complicated message. You don't have to say, you know, Lankford is, is, is a horrible human being. You just have to say he was given an impossible task because it, it depended on the Democrats agreeing. And the Democrats want open borders. As long as they want open borders, they won't agree to legislation that stops open borders. But the infuriating thing is Mitch walked right out and said it to the press. So he's perfectly happy to say, hey, great bill, just crazy Republicans won't pass it. And that's exactly what Schumer is saying as well. The two of them, this wasn't a Lankford Murphy bill. This was a Schumer McConnell bill. This was the two of them. And why was it. Because both of them desperately want to fund the Ukraine war and on immigration. They just wanted to throw whatever fig leaf was necessary on the table to give, to give an excuse to try to get Ukraine funding passed.

A (30:28)

There's a lot of people that are going to be listening. They're going to say, all right, well, yes, this seems like this is a victory that we didn't have this bill become law. But there also seems to be a lot of frustration of, okay, what's next? I mean, Senator, we, we can't secure the border. That is their leverage on everything. Biden sitting there saying, okay, fine, we'll just keep having record number of illegal immigrants come across the southern border. You look at the numbers, they're, they're, we're breaking record after record. I, I go back to the basics. Biden said in his press conference, quote, the only reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump. We know that's a lie.

B (31:09)

Notice, by the way, that's Mitch McConnell's talking point, too. Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell are saying the same thing. Why is the Republican Senate leader repeating Biden and Schumer's talking point? That is a lie.

A (31:21)

I want to tell you about Patriot Mobile real quick. For 10 years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian, conservative wireless provider. And when I say only, I mean it. If you are sick and tired of giving your money to organizations that actually hate your values, that hate your family values, hate your Christian values, hate the First Amendment rights and Second Amendment rights, hate our Constitution, then it is time for you to switch to Patriot Mobile. They offer you dependable nationwide coverage, giving you the same exact coverage that you get right now because they use the same towers. But what you're getting rid of is the propaganda of the left and funding the left. Big Mobile gives big donations to Democratic causes candidates, including Planned Parenthood. And that is why I have switched to Patriot Mobile. When I look at my phone in the top left corner, it says Patriot. And I know that I'm sending a message that I support free speech, religious freedom and the sanctity of life. And every time I pay my bill, I also know I'm making a difference because they take 5% of my bill at no extra cost to you, and they give it back to conservative causes. So try Patriot Mobile. Make the switch. It's easy. They got 100 US based customer service team and you get to keep your same phone number and upgrade your phone as well if you want to their number. 972 Patriot. That's 972 Patriot. 972 Patriot. Use the promo code. Verdict. You'll get free activation as well or online@patriot mobile.com verdict. That's patriot mobile.com verdict. Not only is it a lie, Donald Trump's not the president right now. And you look at the numbers to also back up why it's a lie. In 2020, illegal border encounters are 400,000, 2021, it jumped to 1,735,000. Then in 2022 under Biden, again, it jumped to 2,379,000. 2023, 2,476,000. And yet he wants to say the only reason the border is not secure is because of Donald Trump. It's a lie. They're the facts to back it up. But what's next now because, well, and.

B (33:25)

Let me explain more why it's a lie. Listen, what Biden is saying, what Schumer is saying is that we had a fabulous bipartisan agreement that would have solved this problem, but then crazy Donald Trump and they're telling decided he didn't want to solve this problem and he threw a fit and said, don't pass anything because I want to campaign on this. And then their narrative continues to be and all the Republicans are sheep and they just obeyed Donald Trump. And the reason this failed is because, because Trump ordered Republicans to oppose this. That is Joe Biden's story. It is also Chuck Schumer's story. It is also the story of every single Senate Democrat. I'm reading the clips and it's word for word. Every Senate Democrat. And you know what? It's also Mitch McConnell story, and it's the story of several other Republicans who are going out and they're saying, oh, you're just following Trump's orders. Well, listen, I talk to Trump frequently, but I can tell you I haven't had a single conversation with Trump about this issue at all. I've been leading the fight against this issue from the beginning. We haven't talked about this supplemental bill, but it was obvious on the merits. I looked to the merits and said, does this bill solve the problem? And it doesn't. But it is incredibly harmful when Republican senators, many of them just, they don't like Trump and they're frustrated now. And so they're lashing out. But they're lashing out in a way that helps Democrats.

A (34:48)

So where do we go from here? I mean, there's also Another defeat. People are frustrated on the House side and impeaching my orcas that failed. Granted, it could come up for another vote, but as of now, that seems like that's a failure. We have an open border. That seems like another failure. Is this now just going to be a wide open border till election day? And that's what this, this, this next election's gonna be about. Hey, you vote for Republicans and you'll get a secure border. Only if we have the House, Senate and the White House.

B (35:15)

Look, in all likelihood, yes, Joe Biden caused this open border. Joe Biden could secure it tomorrow. He did it unilaterally, didn't pass any new legislation. He didn't change the law to cause this crisis. He simply defied the law. He made three decisions that caused this crisis. He stopped building the border wall. He reinstated the disastrous policy of catch and release, and he ended the incredibly successful policy, the agreement remain in Mexico. That's what caused this crisis. Biden could change that tomorrow. He doesn't want to. He's not going to. Now, actually, to fix this, we don't necessarily need a Republican president, Republican House, and Republican Senate. We just need a Republican president. If Trump were president again, we would secure the border again. Why? Because he would vigorously enforce the law. Biden is defying the law. Winning the White House is the key to securing the border. Now, with a Republican Senate and House, we, we can do more. We can be more effective. But. But you ask what's next? Well, listen, what's next? Tomorrow we're going to vote on, on this, this supplemental with the bad border provisions. That's going to fail. What we're anticipating will happen next is Schumer is going to go back to the supplemental that has Ukraine and has Israel and has Taiwan and does nothing on the border. That's what he tried initially that we blocked in the fall. And I don't know what will happen. I'm going to oppose it because what I said before, I still believe I'm not going to vote for this bill until we actually secure our border. When I said it, unlike Republican leadership, I wasn't just reading talking points. I actually believe that securing the border is the existential national security threat facing the United States right now. And we should use the leverage that, that, that the Democrats desperately want on Ukraine to try to get it done. So I think our view should be, if you want Ukraine funding, attach it to HR2 and you'll get your funding. But Schumer's going to take up Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan. He's probably going to begin tomorrow. And I don't know what will happen, but I think there's a very real possibility that a significant number of Republicans vote for that, that they care so much about the Ukraine funding. They're going to say, we tried on the border, we failed. Now let's fund Ukraine. If they get nine votes, which I think is probably pretty likely, they'll get 60, which is what it takes to pass the Senate. And so I think there's a reasonable prospect that a supplemental bill that funds Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan will pass out of the Senate. But then I think it's very likely to fail in the House. I don't think the House will take it up. And that means that McConnell and Schumer and Biden still have a problem if they want Ukraine funding. Passing a clean funding bill out of the Senate is not going to get the job done. And so what I would urge the House to do is take the Ukraine funding bill, attach HR2 to it and send it back to the Senate and keep fighting. Use the leverage we have to say, hey, you can have this funding if you want, secure the border first because that matters more and use that leverage. Look, that will not come from McConnell and Senate Republican leadership, but I'm hopeful the speaker and House Republicans will hold the line and I hope that's what's next.

A (38:34)

It's going to be very interesting to see where this all ends up. Senator, I appreciate you kind of taking us behind closed doors and explaining how the sausage is made here because even with this victory of it not going to become a bill, become law, there's still a lot of real, real genuine frustration from conservatives. And it may be that it is the election year issue. Don't forget we do this show Monday, Wednesday and Fridays. Make sure you hit that subscribe auto download button. Also help this show reach other people by sharing it on your social media. Whether you're on X, on Facebook, on Instagram, you can hit the share button and share this episode so others will know exactly what's going on with the border security issue as well as Ukraine funding. And the Senator and I will see you back here on Friday.