Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists murdered 33 Americans and 1,400 Israelis in the deadliest terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. These depraved savages killed more Jews in a single day than any time since the Holocaust. Israel is now at war and on the verge of what could be its bloodiest battle in a generation. And the struggle is real. It is not only fighting Hamas and Gaza, it is fighting a confederation of Iranian- trained, funded, and armed terrorist organizations. From the Houthis in Yemen to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the West Bank, Iran is besieging Israel by proxy. At the same time, Iran is conducting extensive attacks against Americans in the region. Since Joe Biden took office, Iran and its proxies have attacked American forces more than 100 times. Let me say that again: 100 times. That is why we need a person of strength as the U.S. Ambassador in Israel. We need an ambassador who is a champion of the American-Israeli relationship who can bridge the Democratic-driven divide in the alliance. We need an ambassador who is clear-eyed about the Iranian threat and prepared to confront it. Instead, President Biden has nominated Jack Lew, who at times seems a better friend to Tehran than Jerusalem. The U.S. Senate should reject this nomination to be Ambassador to Israel. A vote for him is a vote to subvert, not strengthen, our ally in its time of need. As President Obama's Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew was the leading proponent of the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. The deal delivered more than $100 billion to the ayatollahs. Mr. Lew called the agreement a strong deal and said: [I]t will make our country safer, it will make our allies safer, and it will make the world safer. He apparently didn't consult our allies, though, before making that statement because our allies in Israel certainly didn't agree. In fact, Prime Minister Netanyahu called the agreement ``a very bad deal.'' And one poll found that 73 percent of Jewish Israelis believed that the deal posed an existential threat to the Jewish State. Prime Minister Netanyahu was so opposed to the Iran deal, which Mr. Lew championed, that he traveled to the United States and addressed a joint session of this Congress to urge our opposition. Mr. Lew condemned Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech as ``beyond the pale'' and ``a huge mistake.'' Apparently, Mr. Lew also did not consult our own Democratic leader, the Senator from New York, who also voted against the disastrous Iran deal. Worse still, Mr. Lew stood with President Obama when he refused to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel. This was nothing but an act of spite by Barack Obama against Israel's leadership. Yet Mr. Lew stood by his boss, dismissively asserting that ``I don't think it's a great thing for Israel to always have only the United States standing between it and condemnation.'' So, according to Mr. Lew, I guess it is better to have Israel condemned than to have Israel's back. Mr. Lew, apparently, doesn't understand that doing what is right is sometimes lonely business. The next American Ambassador to Israel must be prepared for the hard and lonely work of sometimes standing up against the rest of the region and, indeed, the rest of the world in defense of American and Israeli interests. Mr. Lew's glib comments demonstrate that he lacks either the nerve or the will to stand up for Israel when it really matters and the chips are down, as they are today. But Mr. Lew didn't just advocate on behalf of the Iran nuclear deal or attack its Israeli critics; he lied to Congress to protect the deal--indeed, to go beyond what the nuclear deal required. Mr. Lew told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the summer of 2015 that Iran would ``continue to be denied access to the [American] financial and commercial market.'' Mr. Lew also testified that Iranian banks ``will continue to be denied access to the world's largest financial and commercial market.'' But 7 months later, in early 2016, Jack Lew's Treasury Department granted a license to convert almost $6 billion of Iranian assets into American currency using our financial system. This was not required by the Iran nuclear deal. This went over and above the dictates of that deal. But apparently Barack Obama and Jack Lew felt bad for the murderous ayatollahs because they weren't getting enough economic benefit out of the deal. He even pressured two American banks to complete the transaction, and they, sanely and patriotically, said: No thanks. We don't want to touch Iran's blood money. If that is not lying to Congress, I don't really know what is. But in addition to lying, Mr. Lew neglected to inform Congress that his department was sending its representatives around the world to encourage foreign countries and companies to do business with Iran. According to a Senate committee report, authored by former Senator Robert Portman, the Treasury and State Department conducted more the 200 so-called road shows in foreign cities to encourage economic engagement with Tehran. Again, this is not required by the nuclear deal with Iran. Nothing said Jack Lew and his agents at Treasury had to act as the de facto investment bankers and business agents for the murderous ayatollahs. He apparently felt so much sympathy for the ayatollahs that he and John Kerry, as Secretary of State, would send their agents all around the world, hustling up business for Iran's terror regime. And now this is the man who is going to represent American interests in Jerusalem? The Senate should not confirm Jack Lew, a man who has lied to Congress both by omission and overt dishonesty. The Senate should likewise not confirm a man who has acted as the de facto business investment banker and business agent for the blood-thirsty ayatollahs. Mr. Lew's supporters have claimed that although flawed, we need an ambassador to Israel during this crisis, and Mr. Lew is the man in offering. But the fact is, no one is better than Jack Lew. And the sooner we defeat his nomination, the sooner we can find someone worthy of this critical post. I know my Democratic friends say we have to confirm Mr. Lew to show our support for Israel. I would turn that around and say: We have to defeat Mr. Lew's nomination to show that our Nation is finally serious about confronting the ayatollahs in Iran. And there is no clearer or immediate action that Senators could take to show a new direction for U.S. policy on Iran than to reject the nomination of one of the architects of the Iran nuclear deal. Both the United States and Israel deserve a lot better than Jack Lew. I urge my colleagues to oppose his nomination.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today marks the 40th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Grenada. This short and largely overlooked conflict is one of the most successful military interventions in history. In just 4 days, President Ronald Reagan toppled an anti-American regime, rolled back communism in the hemisphere, and saved American lives. In the years that followed, we built a strong, genuine, and enduring partnership with the people of Grenada. But this success was far from certain. It was only possible because of President Reagan's decisive and overwhelming military response to a crisis on the island. The seeds of this crisis were sown--like many others--during Jimmy Carter's disastrous Presidency. Under President Carter, communism began to metastasize in Latin America, and in the especially pivotal year of 1979, both Nicaragua and Grenada fell to communists. As he returned from Managua, Fidel Castro boasted, ``Now there are three of us.'' The Cuban dictator had big plans to add more captive nations to his anti-American axis in the hemisphere. Grenada is a small island located in the southeast Caribbean and strategically vital to both Cuba and Soviet Russia during the Cold War. Barely 150 miles off the coast of Venezuela, the island could serve as an offshore arms depot for communist rebels in Latin America and other Caribbean nations. Russia could also use Grenada as a base to launch submarines into the Caribbean Basin. Most concerning was Grenada's proximity to Africa, which made it the potential final link in a chain of communist air bases from Southern Russia to North Africa, to West Africa, to Grenada, and then finally to Cuba. Soviet bombers and heavy-cargo planes could fly between these lily pads of bases for refueling and largely beyond American detection. This grave threat materialized when Grenada welcomed hundreds of Cubans to construct a massive airport with a 9,000-foot runway. What Ronald Reagan called a ``suspiciously huge'' runway was far larger than anything Grenada's commercial aviation required. It was, curiously enough, just big enough to support the largest Soviet bombers and cargo aircraft. This airbase posed a two-way threat. Russia could use Grenada as a launching pad in the hemisphere to arm Cuba and other Latin American communists. Going the other way, Castro could export revolutionaries to the bloody war in Angola and elsewhere in Africa. Tensions boiled over into crisis in October 1983 when an even more radical, bloodthirsty gang of communists toppled the ruling communists in Grenada. The new government killed the former Prime Minister and instituted a 24-hour shoot-on-sight curfew that threatened hundreds of American medical students on the island. The Reagan administration feared a replay of the Iranian hostage crisis, and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States pleaded with the administration to intervene and prevent communism from spreading further in the region. Within days, Reagan had concluded that we had ``no choice but to act strongly and decisively,'' as he put it, and he authorized an invasion. This wasn't an easy decision. We had only spotty intelligence on Grenada's forces and capabilities and the presence of Cuban or other communist forces, we had little time to execute the mission, and many in Washington still hesitated to use military force due to Vietnam syndrome. But Reagan was undaunted. Then a disaster halfway around the world threatened to derail the operation. Just after Reagan authorized the invasion planning, a suicide bomber killed 241 marines in their Beirut barracks. Although heartbroken and enraged by the attack, Reagan didn't let the crisis in Lebanon crowd out the crisis in our backyard. He declared: There are Americans there and they are in danger. We are going. This is an important point. Contrary to liberal smears, Reagan did not authorize the Grenada invasion as cover for his withdrawal from Lebanon or to flex his muscles after the Beirut bombing. He authorized the invasion planning before the bombing happened in Beirut. The historical record on this is absolutely clear. Unlike Democratic Presidents, Reagan didn't act tough to conceal his true weakness; Reagan was tough on America's enemies and tough in defense of America's interests. On October 25, barely a week after the coup, around 8,000 American troops embarked on Operation Urgent Fury. They had a clearly defined mission: save the endangered Americans, depose the communist regime, and reestablish order on the island. Our troops had some setbacks, but they adapted, overcame, and prevailed. The incomplete intelligence and short timeframe for preparation hampered the operation yet vindicated Reagan's judgment. Military leaders anticipated only 200 Cuban construction workers on the island. In reality, 700 well-armed Cuban soldiers awaited American forces. Our troops also discovered huge weapons caches at the airbase, enough to arm the Cuban forces and thousands more communist rebels. Reagan had acted just in time. The war ended after 4 lopsided days. Our troops took fewer than 150 casualties, while the communists suffered nearly 500 casualties, and more than 600 Cubans surrendered. Our citizens on the island were safe. Reagan hit hard, he hit fast, and America won. Fidel Castro's dreams of hemispheric revolution soon turned to ash. Reagan destroyed communism in Grenada and besieged the communist regime in Nicaragua. A year after Reagan left office, Nicaragua ousted Daniel Ortega in a democratic election, made possible by American pressure. The Grenada operation was the first successful military rollback of communism during the Cold War. We had eliminated a deadly threat on our doorstep, and we had liberated a grateful people, who enjoy freedom and democracy to this day. Reagan worked to stabilize the island and later traveled there in 1986. Tens of thousands of Grenadians lined the streets and welcomed Reagan as a liberator. Grenada's Prime Minister described Reagan as ``our own national hero'' and ``our rescuer after God.'' Reagan passed banner after banner that read ``God Bless America'' and later wrote that ``I probably never felt better during my presidency than I did that day.'' What Reagan felt that day was the joy of American success, made possible by American strength and confidence. This success stands in stark contrast to other interventions, like the one we saw in Somalia 10 years later under Bill Clinton. I spoke here 3 weeks ago to mark the 30th anniversary of the Battle of Mogadishu. While Reagan delivered a crushing and decisive blow against a regime that threatened American interests, Bill Clinton used insufficient forces for an ill-defined, expansive mission in a nation where our interests weren't at stake. He then cut and ran after the first sign of resistance, emboldening our enemies, including Osama bin Laden. No two interventions were more different in rationale, execution, or result, and they offer important lessons for today. The most profound is that weak interventions with vague and self- righteous missions usually fail. Strong military action with well- defined missions focused on America's interests usually succeed. We must never confuse the U.S. Army for the Salvation Army. Our military is not a charitable organization, and it is not a tool of mankind. It is the most fundamental instrument of our national power and ours alone, and it should be used to pursue American interests and American interests alone. It is not the military's responsibility to right every wrong in the world or to be an avenging angel of liberal democracy. One of America's great statesmen, John Quincy Adams, once wrote that America is ``the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.'' Indeed, he famously observed that America ``goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.'' I have to observe, though, that Adams wrote that we do not ``search'' for monsters to destroy, but the architect of the Monroe Doctrine and chief defender of Andrew Jackson's conquest of Spanish Florida was no pacifist. When monsters rear their heads and challenge America, especially in her own hemisphere, America must indeed not hesitate to destroy those monsters. From Tripoli to Berlin, to Tokyo, to St. George's, we have done it before, and we must be prepared to do it again. When we must go abroad to destroy monsters, we must use overwhelming force. If Washington is unwilling to use the force necessary to win, we ought not use force at all. It is unfair and cruel to both American troops pursuing the mission and to our friends in the nation where the mission is being conducted. As we look for examples to follow in this new moment of international crisis and chaos, we should look to Reagan, not to Clinton. We need more Grenadas and no more Somalias. On this 40th anniversary of the invasion of Grenada, I would also like to recognize and thank the veterans of that conflict, along with their families, for their invaluable service. They made our country proud and helped bring communism to its knees in this hemisphere. God bless them all, and God bless the United States of America. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, 10 days ago, as Israeli families celebrated the Sabbath and the Jewish holiday, Iran's terrorist Hamas launched a barbaric surprise attack against Israel, killing at least 1,400 Israelis and 30 Americans. Hamas fired thousands of rockets at Israeli cities and infiltrated communities to massacre mothers, fathers, children, and grandparents. It was the deadliest day for the Jewish people since American GIs liberated the final concentration camp of the Third Reich. Hamas terrorists raped women, paraded corpses through the streets, and posted their crimes on social media. They burned families alive, and they murdered babies. In this time of horror and grief, my prayers are with the people of Israel, and I know I am not alone. Upon hearing the dark news last Saturday, God-fearing Americans across the country knelt in prayer for the people of Israel. I believe all of Israel is uplifted by the prayers of our people for theirs that day. But like Israelis, Americans don't remain on bended knee for long. And let me remind you again that Hamas also massacred 30 Americans and may hold as many as 13 hostage, making it one of the worst terror attacks against America in recent times. We have to avenge those deaths and do everything possible to bring those missing Americans home. We stand squarely with Israel and its objective to destroy Hamas, not only as a terror group but as a governing entity and a social movement. But Hamas did not act alone, and it shouldn't pay the price alone. Hamas wouldn't exist at its scale and savagery that it does without Iran. Iran funds Hamas's political organization in Gaza. Iran assisted Hamas in the manufacturing of rockets and drones it used on the October 7 attacks. And Iran trained many of the Hamas terrorists who organized and executed these attacks. Most damning, according to the Wall Street Journal, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps helped plot the attack against Israel, and Iran's Foreign Minister even attended meetings with Hamas and the IRGC to discuss the attacks. Yet President Biden could soon hand the terrorist regime in Tehran another $6 billion in cash. Joe Biden has already given the ayatollahs $90 billion through his lax enforcement of oil sanctions and his unfreezing of Iranian assets. Tehran has predictably used this Biden bonus to strengthen its military and arm its proxies. Just last year, Iran doubled the budget of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the shock troops of its terror regime, and it more than tripled its support for Hamas's military brigades. Worse, since President Biden took office, Iran and its proxies have attacked American troops more than 83 times, it has armed Russia in its war in Ukraine, and it has helped orchestrate the worst terrorist attack since September 11. The last thing we should do is give Iran another $6 billion in a dangerous ransom payment for American hostages. Under public and congressional pressure, the Biden administration purported to delay the release of the $6 billion in concert with Qatar, where the money is now located. But color me skeptical of a ``quiet understanding'' between a soft-on-Iran Joe Biden and a soft-on-Hamas Government of Qatar, especially since the administration refuses to freeze the funds and reserves the right to release the $6 billion at any time without notifying Congress or the public, and, even more especially, since the Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister stood on a stage last week with the Secretary of State and said in Arabic that there were no changes to the agreement under which Iran could access the $6 billion. That is why Senator McConnell and I have introduced a simple bill to prevent President Biden from making this $6 billion payment to Iran. It rescinds the sanctions waiver issued by Joe Biden and Tony Blinken, locking down those funds and preventing the Iranian regime from withdrawing them. Like Barack Obama before him, President Biden simply can't be trusted when it comes to Iran. Appeasement and accommodation are instinctual for them. Whether it takes days, weeks, or months, Joe Biden will revert to form. In fact, he already seems to be doing so. This legislation would stop such a predictable reversal. I am pleased to report that many of my Democratic colleagues have joined Senator McConnell and me to call for the freezing of this $6 billion--understandably so, since it means Iran will have an extra $6 billion to support Hamas, to expand the Revolutionary Guard Corps, and to accelerate its nuclear program. So will they allow this bill to pass today or are they all talk on the campaign trail and no action here in the Senate? Let's find out. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 3041 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I just want to respond briefly to my friend from Vermont, and he is my friend from Vermont. I don't mean that in the way that Senators usually say that when they say ``friend from another State'' but they are not actually friends and they oftentimes can't stand each other. He is my friend from Vermont, and he has been so since we served together in the House some time ago. First, I will note, as I said, that nine Democratic Senators have joined my call to freeze this money. Those would be Senator Rosen, Senator Manchin, Senator Baldwin, Senator Casey, Senator Sinema, Senator Cortez Masto, Senator Brown, Senator Kelly, and Senator Tester. I will observe from that list that seven of those nine are up for reelection in difficult campaigns next year, unlike my friend from Vermont, who just won his election in one of the most Democratic States in the country. So I wonder why these seven Democratic Senators who are at risk on the campaign trail next year weren't willing to join my bill. We offered them all an opportunity to join the bill, but it was radio silence. Could it be that they want to say one thing on the campaign trail and do another thing here in the Senate? A few points that the Senator from Vermont made--that this was a tough decision to free hostages and that we have to keep our word. It is always tough decisions when we face hostage situations overseas; however, paying $6 billion for five American hostages--$1.2 billion per hostage--simply encourages more hostage taking. We saw this the last time we paid ransom to Iran under the Obama administration. They immediately took more of the hostages whom we just freed by paying ransom. Just to note, just a few weeks after we paid that ransom, Hamas perpetrated this attack and took over 200 hostages. Maybe they took a lesson from what President Biden did with the hostages held by Iran. Really, we can't be so naive as to think that, well, we made this deal, we got the hostages back, so we have to give Iran the benefit of the bargain, as if you can deal in good faith with a terror regime like Iran. Second, the Senator from Vermont said there has been no better friend than President Biden to Israel over his long, long career in public office. I have to say, I find it hard to believe that Israel can have no better friend than a man who has spent decades, including 11 years as Vice President and President, empowering Iran--the worst enemy of Israel; a regime that still chants ``Death to America'' and ``Death to Israel''--by giving them hundreds of billions of dollars of sanction relief; by putting them on the path to get a nuclear weapon; by, for instance, not insisting that we continue the multilateral sanctions on Iran's missile program that expire under the nuclear deal tomorrow-- that is right, tomorrow, October 18, the 8-year anniversary of the part of the nuclear deal with Iran that says that multilateral sanctions on their missile and drones will expire--at a time when Iran is providing missiles and drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians. Joe Biden also, when he came to office, didn't just empower Iran; he empowered the exact terror proxies we are talking about. U.S. law prohibits the payment of aid to Palestinians that engage in so-called martyr payments--the grotesque practice of paying the families of suicide bombers and murderers of Jews or paying them if they survive. Congress stopped that practice with something called the Taylor Force Act. The administration has refused to enforce that law. To my knowledge, they continue to say they will make aid payments to Palestinian entities, which, in the end, inevitably free up more resources to attack Israel. Which gets to another point the Senator from Vermont made--that this $6 billion is sitting in Qatar in kind of an escrow account and is only going to be used for humanitarian purposes, things like food, medicine, and so forth. I understand that is the argument. I get that. But, of course, money is fungible. Iran now has $6 billion free to do other things. If a family in Arkansas is struggling to pay the bill for the groceries and they don't know if they can buy Christmas presents for their kids and they win a $500 gift card to a grocery store at a Friday Night Football Booster Club event, guess what--it may not pay for the Christmas gifts, but they now have $500 freed up to buy Christmas gifts. The exact same principle applies here. I know the Iranian Government doesn't care for its people. That is why they oppress them and murder them. I grant you that. But they also need some kind of social stability to maintain their grip on power. So, yes, it is a direct benefit to the terror regime in Tehran. If they get $6 billion for things like food and medicine, that frees up their finances for other activities, like supporting Hamas and supporting Hezbollah and supporting the proxies in Syria and Iraq that have attacked Americans more than 83 times. The Senator from Vermont also mentioned the suffering Iranians. They are indeed suffering. They have for more than 40 years under the yoke of the ayatollahs. They have occasionally risen up in opposition--in 2009, during the green revolution, when Barack Obama stood idly by and did nothing to support these brave Iranians, with Joe Biden sitting by his side. Where was he? Was he caught flat-footed? Was he naive? Was he an inexperienced President his fifth month in office? No. He didn't support the Iranian people when they were rising up against the ayatollahs in the summer of 2009 because he prioritized, above all else, atoning for America's sins against Iran in his mind and procuring a nuclear deal that would elevate Iran to a regional power that would balance off against our friends in Israel and the Arab nations so we could exit the region. That is the exact policy that Joe Biden has pursued in his nearly 3 years in office as well. There have been uprisings in Iran for over a year. Where has the administration been to support them? I would just say finally on the point about the intelligence on whether Iran had foreknowledge of these attacks, was involved at all in planning them, I think there are disputes about that. I find it very skeptical that an organization that gets more than 90 percent of its funding from Tehran would launch an attack like this against Israel without Iran at least tacitly blessing it. But I also say as a point of analogy that you cannot breed pit bulls, feed them, house them, train them to attack and kill, and then let them off the leash and claim no responsibility when they maul your neighbors. That is exactly what Iran has done with terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and militias in Syria and Iraq. So I regret that my friend from Vermont drew the short straw to come down here and object on behalf of his vulnerable Democratic colleagues. I will continue to work with my colleagues--hopefully, some of those Democrats who claim they want to stop the $6 billion from being released because the last thing we should be doing, after these atrocious attacks on Israel and on America, I remind you, is enriching the Ayatollah any further. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today is the 30th anniversary of the Battle of Mogadishu. At this very moment 30 years ago, nearly 100 Rangers and Delta Force operators were pinned down in the city, caring for the wounded and fighting off thousands of heavily armed Somali militiamen. Helicopter crews from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment--the Night Stalkers--provided aerial fire support. One of the most intense battles of modern times had been going for 7 hours. It would continue through the night for another 8 hours. In the end, 18 Americans died and more than 70 were wounded. This epic battle was immortalized in the classic book ``Black Hawk Down'' by Mark Bowden and dramatized in the movie of the same name. What most Americans know about the battle comes from his excellent reporting. What Bowden made clear is sometimes overlooked: These warriors accomplished their mission. The veterans of that battle should hold their heads high with pride, and the Gold Star families of those 18 fallen warriors in Mogadishu should know that their husbands, sons, and fathers were, indeed, heroes--no less than the men who jumped into Normandy or stormed Iwo Jima. Unfortunately, their leaders in Washington failed these heroes. No modern battle better reflects some enduring truths we ought to keep in mind today. We should only commit our forces when our vital national security interests are at stake, when the mission is so critical that it justifies American casualties, if necessary. Once committed, we should provide our troops with every last thing they need to fight and win, without tying one hand behind their backs. And we should be mindful of what dangerous lessons we teach our enemies when we handcuff our troops or squander their battlefield victories. Let's go back to how those Rangers, Delta operators, and Night Stalkers wound up fighting for their lives in the streets of Mogadishu. In 1992, an estimated 350,000 Somalis had starved to death in a famine of biblical proportion. The American media highlighted the atrocious suffering in Somalia, but the famine primarily resulted not from natural disaster but from rival warlords fighting a brutal civil war. The warlords stole food-aid shipments to profiteer, feed their own clans, and starve their enemies. Hunger was just another weapon. After the election and with the approval of President-elect Clinton, President Bush decided to intervene. He acted against the counsel of many of his senior advisers. CIA Director--and, later, Secretary of Defense--Bob Gates summed up their opposition by observing that ``no vital American interest was at stake.'' Moreover, the humanitarian disaster was caused by the warlords; so intervening to ensure the safe delivery of food aid merely addressed the symptoms, not the causes, of the famine. Gates lamented ``the first U.S. military intervention driven by CNN.'' In his diary, President Bush cited the shocking loss of life from the famine and the perception that America didn't do enough to help Black and Muslim nations as justification for intervention--not exactly core national interests. What everyone thinks of his decision, though, President Bush wisely used overwhelming force to pursue strictly defined and limited objectives. He deployed more than 25,000 troops to Mogadishu but only to secure the port and distribute food aid to needy Somalis. He refused the United Nations' proposal to expand the mission to disarming the Somali warlords. Faced with such overwhelming power, the warlords backed down and allowed the aid to flow freely into Mogadishu. Then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell later reflected that ``within weeks, we were so successful that we had upset the economics of the marketplace. So much free food came pouring into Somalia that it became tough to make a living by farming.'' When Bill Clinton took office in January 1993, he inherited a successful, narrow mission that was drawing down. Unfortunately, he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. He flipped President Bush's approach of overwhelming force with limited and defined objectives on its head. By March, President Clinton turned over the primary responsibility to the UN, reduced the American presence to barely more than 4,000 troops, and expanded the mission to encompass the grandiose objective of nation-building. Our UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright proclaimed that ``we will embark on an unprecedented mission aimed at nothing less than the restoration of an entire country.'' Gates later called the plan ``a pipe dream'' and ``hopelessly unrealistic.'' Powell scoffed that ``since the catastrophe had been provoked by feuding 14th-century style warlords, the solution was a dose of 20th-century style democracy.'' What happened next was all too predictable. The warlords no longer feared the shrunken American force and renewed their fighting against each other and the UN peacekeepers. By June, the militia of the most powerful warlord, Mohamed Farrah Aidid, massacred two dozen Pakistani peacekeepers. Two months later, Aidid's men killed four Americans and wounded another four in separate bombings. Faced with American casualties, the inexperienced President felt compelled to respond, but he only authorized half measures. He deployed 450 Rangers, Delta Force operators, and Night Stalkers to capture Aidid and destroy his command structure. Though these soldiers are among our Nation's very best, the mission creep was extraordinary. President Clinton simply asked too much of too small a force. Mogadishu was a dense city of more than 1 million residents, including thousands of Aidid's clansmen and fanatical supporters, some of whom probably received training from al-Qaida operatives on how to shoot down our helicopters. Yet the elite forces immediately set themselves to the task of rolling up Aidid's network. Their mission on October 3 was straightforward enough for these seasoned warriors. Intelligence reports placed key Aidid lieutenants in downtown Mogadishu. Rangers would fast-rope from Black Hawks to the street at the corners of the target house to establish a security perimeter. Delta operators would hit the house and detain the targets. Meanwhile, a convoy of Rangers would stage nearby, ready to transport our troops and their prisoners back to the nearby American base. Helicopters would provide covering fire throughout the operation. All told, the mission was supposed to last only an hour. But this operation occurred deep in the territory of Aidid's clan, and the fighting was intense from the moment the helicopters hit the target house. Aidid's militiamen and angry mobs rushed to the scene and the streets erupted in gunfire and explosions. The Rangers and Delta operators fought back ferociously, securing the house and beginning to set in the defensive perimeter. Then disaster struck. First, one Black Hawk was shot down, killing the pilots. A downed helicopter was a contingency for which the task force had planned, but it still greatly complicated the mission. Now, rather than returning to base with the prisoners, the Rangers and Delta operators first had to fight their way to the crash site, secure it, and recover the dead. And then another disaster struck. Militiamen shot down a second Black Hawk, a contingency for which the task force lacked sufficient search- and-rescue assets. Two Delta snipers, Gary Gordon and Randy Shughart, had been providing covering fire from another helicopter. Observing a mob rushing toward the downed helicopter, they repeatedly requested permission to be inserted to protect the crash site. Once on the ground and with nothing more than small arms, they heroically fought back the mob until they ran low on ammunition and were overwhelmed. The injured pilot, Mike Durant, narrowly escaped death and was, instead, taken prisoner. For their willingness to give their lives for his in the face of impossible odds, MSG Gary Gordon and SFC Randy Shughart posthumously received the Medal of Honor--the only Medals of Honor awarded between Vietnam and Afghanistan, to give you a sense of the intensity of the battle. Meanwhile, the Rangers and Delta operators had moved by foot to secure the first crash site and recover the remains of their fallen comrades. One pilot was trapped under tons of wreckage, complicating the recovery mission, but there was never any question that they would stay until they succeeded. Their creed permitting nothing else: Leave no man behind. In any event, they had no way out because the supporting convoy was decimated in the maze of downtown Mogadishu, a rat's nest of alleys, flaming roadblocks, and enemy fire. Rendered combat ineffective, the convoy had to return to base, leaving the dismounted Rangers and Delta operators isolated at the crash site. Bloodied and staggered, they hunkered down and prepared for the long night ahead. With Night Stalkers heroically suppressing the Somalis from the sky, the Rangers and Delta operators defended their position, tended their casualties, and continued the efforts to recover the remains of their fallen comrades. Their commanders cobbled together a new and more heavily armed convoy from the nearby 10th Mountain Division and Pakistani and Malay UN peacekeepers. This convoy reached their position early in the morning of October 4, as they still struggled to recover the pilot's body. Even the endgame was frightful for these warriors. Once they finally recovered the fallen and prepared to escape, nervous and poorly prepared foreign drivers sped away before all the American troops could load up, forcing several to run what became known as the ``Mogadishu mile'' to a different rendezvous point. Miraculously, given all they had been through, they nonetheless made it out alive. It is hard to overstate the ferocity of the battle. Jeff Struecker was a young Ranger who received the Silver Star for his actions. Struecker had seen combat before Mogadishu and many times after. Years later, he said of that night: Nothing came close to Mogadishu. I mean not even close. I once heard the saying from GEN Scott Miller, a legend with the Special Operations world and our last four-star commander in Afghanistan. He was a young Delta captain on the ground. He observed that ``I've seen a lot of firefights these last twenty years, but nothing close to Mogadishu.'' I have never spoken to a veteran of Mogadishu who said anything different. Against all odds and in spite of all of the horror, these warriors--I want to stress again--accomplished their mission and returned bloodied but victorious. They captured their targets, and they brought them out. Tragedy indeed struck, with 18 troops killed in action and more than 70 wounded. But our troops inflicted far, far more casualties. Even conservative estimates put enemy deaths over 500 and casualties over 1,000. As one Delta operator put it to Bowden, ``they'd just fought one of the most one-sided battles in American history.'' But the shocking videos of the bodies of American soldiers being desecrated and an American pilot in captivity overshadowed everything else. Most Americans had no idea we even had troops in Somalia, much less that they were engaging in such ferocious battle. President Clinton had failed to articulate what vital national interest justified his decision to massively expand the limited mission he inherited from President Bush. He neither deployed enough troops nor gave them enough firepower and engagement authorities to complete that expanded mission. Now, faced with political controversy, he cut and ran. His decision left many of our troops in Mogadishu confused and enraged. Many asked: If the mission was worth 18 American lives, why would they abandon it now? And if it wasn't, what were they doing there in the first place? And what about vengeance for the dead and wounded? President Clinton didn't trouble himself to answer these questions. He shut down Task Force Ranger. He announced that the American forces within the broader U.N. peacekeeping mission would come home by March. He released the prisoners that Task Force Ranger had captured, including the two targets from the raid on October 3. President Clinton later wrote that ``I knew how President Kennedy felt after the Bay of Pigs.'' I suppose so. He knew what it felt like to bring humiliation and shame to a great and powerful nation--and grave danger, because, among the unanswered questions was another one: What kind of lesson would it teach our enemies if America packed up and left at the first moment of bloodshed? For it wasn't just Americans and Somalis watching. The rest of the world was also watching. Among those watching was the obscure leader of a nascent terrorist network called al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden concluded that America, in his words, was ``a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.'' In fact, bin Laden regularly cited President Clinton's frantic withdrawal from Somalia in his many fatwas, statements, and interviews about America over the next 8 years. That dangerous lesson is also an important reminder for us today. We can control where we commit our forces, which we shouldn't do absent a compelling national interest. We certainly shouldn't commit them to quixotic, Wilsonian nation-building projects. But once American power and prestige is committed, the whole world is watching, especially our enemies, and, from Somalia to Kabul to Ukraine, they will learn dangerous lessons when our leaders are timid, irresolute, and weak. But one lesson our enemies will always take away from the battle of Mogadishu is never challenge the American soldier on the field of battle. Against all odds and despite political constraints, our troops in Mogadishu fought with unparalleled bravery and skill. They brought back their dead and wounded. They accomplished their mission. They made their country proud. On behalf of a grateful nation, I want to thank the men who served and sacrificed so much 30 years ago. God bless them. God bless their families. May God continue to bless America with warriors just like them. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Keith Stokes, a dear friend, a beloved Arkansan, and a trusted aide. On August 18, Keith tragically passed away from a heart attack at age 59. He is in our prayers, along with the entire Stokes family, especially his wife Julie and his children Chip and Abbey. Keith wasn't only a colleague, though; he was a close family friend. The Cottons lived just up the road from the Stokeses in Yell County. Julie and my mother worked together in middle school for years. Keith was a pillar of the Dardanelle community, from the school board to the hospital board, to mentoring young athletes, to cooking meals for teachers, charities, and even the Sand Lizard football press box, my father included. A year into my term in the Senate, I heard that Keith was looking for a new job. I jumped at the opportunity to hire him as an agricultural adviser. I knew how much Keith cared about Arkansas farmers, foresters, and ranchers. It was one of the best decisions I made as a Senator. Keith understood the Arkansans who lace up their boots in the morning and work with their hands, who aren't afraid to get dirty to get the job done--the men and women who shower at the end of the day, not at the beginning of it. He understood them because he was one of them. He lived on a farm. He worked in the pork and forestry industry for years, and he cultivated an encyclopedic knowledge of everything, from the crops in the fields to the beetles in the forest, to animals in the hunting season. He knew everything about Arkansas, from the soil to the people. Keith could go into a town and within hours learn what was worrying the farmers at the feed store and exciting the cattlemen at the sale barn. He had a way of making everyone he met feel important. Even if he was just getting a quick breakfast in a diner, he made sure to say something nice to the waitress and make the person behind the counter laugh. Keith knew kindness cost nothing, but its value is priceless. He was often the smartest man in the room, even if he didn't admit it and usually tried to conceal it. He never bragged or drew attention from others. He was always eager to listen and give credit. Ronald Reagan had a famous small plaque on his desk in the Oval Office that read: There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit. Few live by that creed. Keith embodied it. Keith was a trusted adviser and a steady hand during difficult times. At 59, he was a bit older than most congressional aides, but his extra years of experience were on full display when it was needed most. He navigated the high-stress situations with poise, humor, and calmness. When a tornado devastated the town of Wynne this spring, Keith was among the first people on the ground. He remained in constant communication with the mayor and other State and local officials. Anytime someone had a question about whom to contact or what was going on or what the locals needed, we knew that we could just ask Keith. He was great at his job. But that wasn't the most important thing about Keith or the people who worked with him. To work with Keith was like being adopted into the Stokes family. Some aides got a second father while others got a fifth grandparent. Keith's coworkers would often get a text message in the morning from Keith just checking in, saying hello. If you didn't reply, you could be sure that he would follow up quickly, and the same thing if you were traveling overseas. Each year, my aides crossed the State to have a Christmas party, and each year Keith would insist on barbecuing for the whole office, and each year he would cook too much and end up feeding much of the rest of the building too. During COVID, one of Keith's coworkers had to cancel a planned wedding shower. As he drove across the State, he stopped for what he thought was an impromptu visit, only to find Keith organized a surprise wedding shower. And for every parent in our office, Keith would get their kids' sizes and begin a one-man recruitment campaign to make them fans of the University of Arkansas. Many Razorback onesies, hats, and shirts made their way through our offices. When one coworker lost her father and mentioned that she would miss talking to him on the phone each day, Keith began to call her every day, even on weekends. He only missed one call in 3 years. And when she was stuck in an ice storm without water and couldn't drive her car, Keith drove over 2 hours at night in the bad weather to deliver water and a smile. When another coworker tragically lost a child, Keith was there in that time of loss to provide comfort and prayers. When asked to describe Keith, his coworkers used words like ``humble,'' ``honest,'' ``loving,'' ``caring,'' ``professional,'' ``God-fearing,'' and ``gentleman.'' One put it well when she said: They don't make them like Keith any more. There is a reason that, when Senate staffers came to Arkansas to visit, they fought over who would get to ride in the car with Keith. While his coworkers knew Keith as a beloved friend and colleague, most Arkansans knew Keith as the guy who raised Tusk. For those who don't know--and you all should; let's be honest--Tusk is the live mascot of the University of Arkansas. Other universities have easy, safe, cuddly mascots to raise, like the Oregon Beavers or the Georgia Bulldogs or the Minnesota Gophers--not Arkansas and not Keith. We have a razorback, a 300-pound wild boar with giant tusks and a well-deserved reputation for a bad attitude. For that reason, the University of Arkansas had long settled for a, frankly, embarrassing little pig as a live mascot, which traveled to games on a small trailer with little fanfare. But about 25 years ago, some former University of Arkansas football players decided to get a real live razorback mascot. They turned to Keith, who had experience working hogs. They also asked for his help designing a large and impressive trailer so the new mascot could travel in style. Keith took on the challenge with his usual enthusiasm, determination, and positive attitude. Ever since, Keith and his family have raised Tusk I through Tusk V, and I doubt any animals have ever been better treated or trained. Keith devoted thousands of hours of his time to domesticate the Tusks so they could travel and safely interact with fans. Keith would have Tusk follow him around everywhere on the farm and even raised a baby razorback in his home to acclimate it to human company. Keith was such a good handler that young fans could safely feed grapes to these giant boars. Risk takers could put an apple in their teeth, and Tusk would gently take it from their mouth--at risk, though, of getting some slobber on them. Keith and Tusk became celebrities in our State. Arkansans from every walk of life enjoyed seeing Keith's truck and giant trailer with the Razorback logo and Tusk riding in the back. The Stokes family saw it as their responsibility to the State to take care of Arkansas' prized mascot. Keith selflessly gave his time to Razorback fans, patiently answering their questions about Tusk, letting them play with Tusk, even handing out Tusk autographs. If Keith heard you hadn't attended a Razorback game, well, he got you tickets. If he heard your kid had outgrown the last Razorback shirt he sent, a replacement would soon be on the way. He showed the same kindness and generosity to strangers. When he heard that a young fan with Down syndrome was also a fan of Tusk, Keith went out of his way to be sure that he got to pet and feed Tusk. One former Arkansas football player said ``Keith Stokes was Tusk'' and that Keith gave as much to the Razorbacks as any player or coach. But as much as Keith loved his friends, our State, and the Arkansas Razorbacks, he loved his family most of all. Keith and Julie were inseparable and brightened each other's lives for 39 wonderful years of marriage. He was always so proud of his son Chip and his daughter Abbey. He joyfully welcomed his daughter-in-law Lori and son-in-law Tanner to the Stokes family. He walked Abbey down the aisle just this summer. And, of course, he adored his grandchildren Colt and Caroline, who called him George. He loved them all dearly, and they all loved him. Keith was a truly extraordinary man. It is hard to believe that he had time to do all the things he did. Few people who lead full and long lives do as much good and spread as much joy as Keith Stokes did in his too-short 59 years with us. I do have to say that Keith wasn't always right. One of his common jokes was that only six people would show up for his funeral, and they would all be the pallbearers. Well, I was there, and, boy, was he wrong. It wasn't just six or a dozen or hundreds. More than 1,200 people came to mourn Keith's loss and pay their respects to his family. And Keith departed the funeral as he would have wanted. Instead of a traditional hearse, Keith's bright ``Arkansas red'' casket rested in the bed of the truck he used to transport Tusk. Attendees were encouraged to wear red and, in accordance with his wishes, the Arkansas fight song took him to his final resting place. Keith's final act was, once again, to add a small smile to his friends' and family's faces, even in the depths of their sadness. I was blessed to know Keith, and I know he is looking down from Heaven right now, blushing from all the attention. But he deserves it, and his family and friends down here deeply miss him. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I will object to this bill and to the process by which we have reached this point. Several of my colleagues and I are studying this matter. This is a highly complicated, 70-page agreement. It only passed out of the House last night. It has only been on the Senate floor for barely a day. We were supposed to have 15 minutes ago gone to a joint meeting of Congress. The Senate should not be ramming through such agreements at the very last minute without our having had the time to review them. There is more than enough time for Senators and their aides, over the next 2 weeks of recess, to review this 70-page, complicated agreement and then address it in the month of July. So I object.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, it is my privilege to recognize the patriots and healers that work at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System's Russellville Community Based Outpatient Clinic. Those exceptional men and women have honored President Lincoln's famous admonition: ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.'' The clinic's nurses and doctors care for over 2,300 veterans in the area and facilitate 14,000 appointments each year. Since it opened 13 years ago, this place of healing has treated and restored the health of tens of thousands of veterans and their family members. As important as the quantity of patients they serve is the quality of the service these caregivers provide. And the Russellville clinic is renowned for showing their patients the respect and attention that veterans deserve. One patient, 98-year-old World War II veteran Jock Davis, was so grateful for the Russellville clinic's professional and diligent care, that he is helping organize a June 23 ceremony thanking the employees. I join my fellow Arkansans in gratitude for this clinic and its selfless public servants. The employees at the Russellville clinic are fulfilling a sacred covenant between the Nation and its veterans. Every man and woman in uniform who serves our country should know that when they return to civilian life, they will be cared for and honored by the Nation they sacrificed to defend. The doctors and nurses of Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System's Russellville Community Based Outpatient Clinic are making our State and country proud. God bless them, God bless our veterans, and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, after weeks of negotiating with an obstinate and capricious President, the House of Representatives passed legislation yesterday raising the debt ceiling and establishing budget caps for the next 2 years. Both Democrats and Republicans compromised in these negotiations, and, like every piece of compromise legislation, there are good parts and bad parts of this bill. I want to commend Speaker McCarthy for a number of commonsense victories. This bill improves the environmental review process for infrastructure projects, cuts funding for President Biden's army of IRS agents, and saves American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars by clawing back unused COVID funds. Now, the bill doesn't go as far as I might like. It reduces domestic spending to last year's levels, which is better than even more spending and taxes, as the Democrats proposed, but I think domestic spending could return to prepandemic levels. COVID emergency legislation was just that--an emergency compelled by Chinese communist lies. It shouldn't reset the Federal Government's budget in perpetuity. But, again, I sympathize with the Speaker's constraints of a small House majority and negotiating with a Democratic Party that seems to prioritize welfare for grown men who won't work over our military. As I have noted, there are some victories in this bill, and it prevents default. Unfortunately, this bill poses a mortal risk to our national security by cutting our defense budget, which I cannot support, as grave dangers gather on the horizon. The bill's supporters contend that it raises defense spending by 3.2 percent compared to last year. That is true at face value, but inflation was 6 percent last year. When you get a 3-percent raise but prices go up by 6 percent, even a small child could tell you that your money won't go as far and your family will have to tighten their belt. And it gets worse next year, when the defense budget will grow by only 1 percent. Who thinks Joe Biden will get inflation to prepandemic levels? Even if he did, inflation would grow at least twice as fast as the defense budget, causing even more real cuts to defense. Worst of all, this bill contains an automatic 1 percent sequester based off last year's budget. That means that domestic spending will go up, and defense spending will go down if the sequester kicks in. Let me repeat that. If the sequester takes effect, Democrats will get more welfare spending, while defense gets cut. Who thinks the Democratic leader will be dissatisfied with this result? More to the point, who thinks he won't use the threat of sequester to extort even higher levels of welfare spending? These three provisions--a cut this year in real dollars, a worse cut in real dollars for 2025, and the automatic sequester based on last year's spending bills--conspire to threaten devastating cuts to the defense budget at a time when we can least afford it. The bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission Report recommends a real increase to defense spending of between 3 and 5 percent annually over inflation. This bill would cut real spending by more than 5 percent in 2 years, effectively slashing tens of billions of dollars from defense. How bad is this defense gap? If we continued our recent bipartisan custom of increasing the defense budget from President Biden's irresponsible budget proposals, we could afford four additional Ford- class aircraft carriers, 500 F-35 fighter jets, more than 91,000 Stinger missiles, or half a million Javelin anti-tank missiles--all vital to our defense and to the defense of Ukraine and Taiwan. While we surrender our lead and erode our military edge our enemies are catching up. Last year, Russia increased its real military spending over inflation by 1 percent; China increased its real spending by over 6 percent; and Iran increased its real spending by over 8 percent. The United States reduced our real spending by over 3 percent, and this bill, as I have said, would only make matters worse. For years, Washington has gotten defense spending backward. The budget shouldn't shape our defense needs. Indeed, it cannot shape our defense needs. Our defense needs have to shape our budget. China doesn't become less aggressive or Russia less revanchist or Iran less extreme because our military has shrunk. In fact, the opposite is true; they grow more ambitious and dangerous. The defense budget should rise and fall with the dangers confronting our Nation, and I do not believe those dangers are receding. Who here believes the world here is safer or more stable than it was a year ago or 2 years ago? On the contrary, America is in greater danger than at any time in my life. Iran is rushing toward a nuclear bomb; Russia has unleashed the largest European invasion since the Second World War; and China is plotting the conquest of Taiwan. Our military stockpiles are depleted and our defense supply chains are broken or strained. At the same time, our border defenses have effectively collapsed, and cartel members, criminal aliens, and possibly even terrorists are pouring into our country. We need a military to match this perilous moment. After all, protecting the safety and security of our people is our first and most fundamental responsibility. We cannot shortchange the military today without grave risks tomorrow. The weapons we buy this year will be the ones we field in 2027, the time by which China will be at its greatest relative strength compared to the United States and when war is most likely. Now, I know that holding firm on defense priorities isn't always easy. As I said, there are parts of this bill that I support, but I cannot support the bill because it does not adequately fund our military given the threats we face. Supporters of the bill contend that the situation isn't as bad as I make it out to be. Their arguments don't hold up under scrutiny. Some claim that we could still get more defense funding through a supplemental bill or some other backdoor funding mechanism. But these same hollow promises were made when Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011, which devastated our military under President Obama. I ran for the Senate, in part, to reverse that disaster, and I won't vote for a new disaster with the same promises. And as I have explained, the sequester in this bill actually produces more domestic spending than the bill's core provisions, which encourages irresponsible Democrats to trigger sequester. Others have claimed that we can find efficiencies in the Pentagon to make up the difference. I don't disagree that there is fat to trim in some places in our military, but no serious person thinks that it is enough to make up for tens of billions of dollars in cuts. Moreover, this claim assumes the Biden administration will put our readiness ahead of social engineering. Color me skeptical on that one when they start looking for efficiencies. Still, other supporters have shrugged and deployed the commonly used but rarely persuasive argument that the bill may be bad, but there is no alternative, and it is too late anyway. But it was and it remains our job to craft an alternative. We hear a lot that things that add votes to these big bills get in and things that subtract votes don't. Again, we know, from recent experience the last two National Defense Authorization Acts, that a higher defense number gets nearly 400 votes in the House and more than 80 votes in the Senate. The first thing--the first thing--that should have been settled in these negotiations was a larger defense budget. Democrats have no argument against that recent history, and it is indisputable that increases to Joe Biden's defense budgets garner large bipartisan majorities in the House and the Senate. So why wasn't it the first thing settled? I don't know, but the result is that a Congress with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate have now produced a defense budget worse in real terms than either defense budget produced by a unified Democratic Congress. I cannot vote for that curious result. If it takes a short-term increase in the debt ceiling to go back to the drawing board, so be it. Before we vote, I would also ask all my fellow Senators a simple question: Do you feel more safe or less safe than you did a year ago? If you feel more safe, by all means, vote to slash our defense budget. But if not--and in your heart of hearts you know you don't--join me in demanding that we do what it takes to protect our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 106 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, colleagues, this bill has budget caps for domestic and defense spending. I don't like the defense number this year. I like it even less next year. That is why I am opposing it. But it also has a much worse provision. It has a 1-percent automatic reduction that is based on last year's omnibus, not the caps on this bill. Let me restate that: last year's omnibus, not this bill. So if we go to a continuing resolution on October 1, which we almost always do, domestic spending will go up by $61 billion while defense goes down by $27 billion--not the caps in this bill. If the sequester of 1 percent kicks in, domestic spending will go up by $61 billion and defense will go down by $37 billion. Progressives will get more welfare for grown men who refuse to work while defense is slashed. Think about the incentives this gives to the Democratic leader when it comes to appropriations bills. I ask for a simple change in this amendment. The sequester should be based on the caps that you are about to agree to, not last year's spending bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, 201 years ago today, a great American hero was born. Ulysses S. Grant rose from humble beginnings to stand next to Washington and Eisenhower, as one of America's truly indispensable generals. William Tecumseh Sherman once remarked that ``Grant is the greatest soldier of our time if not of all time.'' This great defender of the Republic won our bloodiest war and crushed the darkest forces of disunion. He was an unshakable pillar of strength, upon which this Nation's future rested time and again. Virtually no one foresaw Grant's rise to greatness before the Civil War. Although he had graduated from West Point and distinguished himself as a soldier in the Mexican-American War, he had stumbled from one failure to another in private life. When the Confederates attacked Fort Sumner, that all changed. He redonned his army uniform and marched into the history books. For the first 3 years of the Civil War, Grant fought on the western front, winning several of the Union's early victories while commanders in the East dithered. After Grant's first great victory, his Confederate counterpart sued for peace and asked what terms he would give them. Grant firmly responded that he would accept, ``no terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender.'' This earned him the nickname ``Unconditional Surrender Grant'' and resulted in the largest capture of enemy troops in the history of Western Hemisphere up to that time. Grant waged a relentless form of warfare. He knew that ``the art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on.'' Grant's warrior spirit famously moved President Lincoln to declare that ``I can't spare this man--he fights.'' When Grant's enemies spread the rumor that he was an alcoholic and should be dismissed, Lincoln wryly responded that ``if he could find out what brand of whiskey Grant drank, he would send a barrel of it to all the other commanders.'' Grant displayed his famous determination and grit during the brutal battle of Shiloh, one of the bloodiest episodes of the Civil War. In the first day of fighting, Grant's army was mauled by Confederate forces under the command of Alfred Sidney Johnston, the Confederacy's most capable general at the time. General Sherman approached Grant that rainy night beneath a great oak tree and said, ``well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?'' Grant replied between puffs of his ubiquitous cigar, ``Yes. Lick em tomorrow though.'' He made good on this promise, threw back the Confederate forces, and won the carnage- filled battle. Sidney Johnston was killed in the fighting and Confederate President Jefferson Davis later wrote that ``it was the turning point of our fate.'' This story remains so legendary in the Army that it was commonplace for young officers in the Iraq war to conclude a hard day by borrowing from Grant: ``lick `em tomorrow.'' After the bloodshed at Shiloh, scheming Washington insiders and armchair generals removed Grant from the field, only to be forced to return him to the fight. Grant continued his brilliant streak of victories and on July 4, 1863, the 87th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, he seized the fortress city of Vicksburg, splitting the Confederacy in two and securing the Union's control of the mighty Mississippi. This was perhaps the greatest strategic victory of the war. Combined with the victory at Gettysburg the previous day, Grant's seizure of Vicksburg put the Union on the path to victory. Soon after Grant's decisive victory in the Battle of Chattanooga a few months later and capture of the supposedly impregnable heights of Missionary Ridge, Lincoln promoted him to the rank of lieutenant general, a position that no one had held since George Washington. A few days later, Lincoln also named him the commander of Union forces. In his new command, Grant quickly turned eastward and confronted Robert E. Lee, a skilled tactician who had run circles around the Army of the Potomac for 2 years. Lee had spooked Union commanders for years with his audacious battle plans. But not Grant. ``I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do,'' an exasperated Grant admonished them. ``Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what we are going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do.'' As he marched into the Confederacy, he told a reporter, ``if you see the President, tell him from me that whatever happens, there will be no turning back.'' In the weeks and months that followed, Grant attacked Lee's army again and again. Whether he won or not, Grant continued to advance deeper into the Confederacy. Grant's army fought in the burning forests of the Wilderness and in the muddy trenches of Petersburg, experiencing extraordinary hardship but never allowing Lee to regroup or reinvigorate his shrinking army. Less than a year after Grant began his Overland Campaign, Union forces took the rebel capital of Richmond and broke the back of Confederate resistance. U.S. Grant wasn't a great general simply because he won the war. He was also great because he never lost sight of the first goal of the war: to reunite our shattered Republic and restore the ``bonds of affection'' and ``mystic chords of memory'' between Americans, North and South. Instead of humiliating Lee at Appomattox Courthouse, Grant offered him generous and honorable terms. Uncompromising in war, Grant was magnanimous in peace. He allowed Confederate officers to keep their sidearms and horses, did not demand Lee's sword, and promised not to prosecute rebels who laid down their arms. And as Lee departed the courthouse, Grant and his staff took off their hats in respect, a small act for the victors, but an extraordinary gesture to the defeated Confederates. Today, if you travel to his memorial and final resting place in New York City, you will see his four-word 1868 Presidential campaign slogan etched into stone, which summarizes the prayer of every soldier. Those words read ``Let Us Have Peace.'' Our country may not exist today if it weren't for Ulysses S. Grant. It may have been shattered and divided forever by civil strife, but for one man. That is why I was pleased last year to sponsor his posthumously promotion to the rank of General of the Armies of the United States, the highest rank in the U.S. military only held by George Washington and John Pershing. This was an important step towards recognizing the greatness of a too often neglected hero in our Nation's past. His close friend, General Sherman, reputedly said that he didn't understand Grant and didn't believe Grant understood himself. And for decades, our Nation too has misunderstood this American giant. But as we reflect upon his accomplishments two centuries after his birth, we realize how great they were and how extraordinary he was. I hope that we continue to reclaim this exceptional and noble American's legacy.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, it is my privilege to recognize the tremendous accomplishments of COL William V. Wenger on the occasion of his receipt of the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award from the Boy Scouts of America and the National Eagle Scout Association. Colonel Wenger has lived a life of honor, faith, and service. He is a patriot who has made America a safer and better nation. Colonel Wenger served in the U.S. Army for more than 42 years, commanding American soldiers across the country and around the world. He served in the Gulf war, helped reestablish order in Los Angeles after the Rodney King riots, and provided military support to law enforcement after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. In 2000, Colonel Wenger retired from the military, only to return to Active service after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He then volunteered for two tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where he worked to bring stability, security, and the rule of law to lands haunted by terrorism. Among other contributions, he trained Iraqi and Afghan police and led counter-IED training efforts to save the lives of his fellow coalition soldiers and police. Throughout his military career, Colonel Wenger demonstrated extraordinary tactical, strategic, combat advisory, and logistical leadership abilities. He consistently volunteered for difficult assignments, overcame daunting challenges, and relentlessly pursued excellence. He is precisely the kind of clear-eyed, tough minded, mission-oriented leader that every soldier should aspire to become. In the civilian world, Colonel Wenger has earned distinction as a manager, trainer, author, business leader, and professor of business, history, and military science. He is husband to Robin D. Wenger and father to two sons, John Paul and Patrick. He is also a committed philanthropist who participates in his local Kiwanis, Rotary Club, and Knights Templar, among other civic organizations. He is a U.S. Army Reserve ambassador and a leader of the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, which supports our Reserve servicemembers, their families, and their employers. The ESGR recently awarded Colonel Wenger its highest award, the prestigious James Roche Spirit of Volunteerism Award. More than any other civic organization, however, Colonel Wenger has demonstrated an exceptional, lifelong commitment to the Boy Scouts of America. He joined the Boy Scouts in 1954 and earned his Eagle Scout Award in 1963. He has since served in senior positions in the organization, including being elected the chief of the Tribe of Tahquitz. While serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, he devoted much of his limited free time to support the development of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in those nations. For his work, he will receive the highest honor bestowed by Scouting on April 23--an honor well earned. A nation is only as good as its people. America is not made great by its geography or its founding documents alone. It is made great by the patriots who serve the Nation and make us proud when we look up and salute the American flag. It is made great by men who dedicate decades of their lives to protect this Nation in uniform, more than half a century to educating our youth to be ``physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight,'' and who spend their later years teaching young adults about our Nation's history. In short, it is made great by men like Colonel Wenger. On behalf of a grateful nation, I would like to thank Colonel Wenger for his contributions to our Republic.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, we hear from Democrats a lot these days about ``ending the Iraq war.'' Let's pause for a moment to remember the first time they ``ended the Iraq war.'' President Obama pulled American troops out of Iraq just over a decade ago. The ``dumb'' war, as Obama called it, was finally over--except it wasn't. It turns out those American troops had kept a lid on a lot of chaos. When they left, the bad guys came back with a vengeance. President Obama dismissed ISIS as the ``JV team'' of the terrorist world, but even he couldn't turn a blind eye when ISIS seized Fallujah just 2 years after our troops left Iraq, then Mosul a few months later, and then threatened to bring all of Iraq into their so-called caliphate. So, ultimately, President Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and great ender of the Iraq war, had to start a new Iraq war not even 3 years after he had bugged out, although actually it was an Iraq-Syria war. Obama's retreat backfired so badly that he had to deploy our troops to two countries this time, not one. And guess which use-of- force resolution President Obama cited to fight ISIS. The same one that President Trump relied on in 2020 to kill Iran's terrorist mastermind, Qasem Soleimani, which is the same resolution Democrats want to repeal today. All of which goes to show that this debate is not about Saddam Hussein; it is about whether the President--whether any President should have maximum authority to pursue America's enemies in Iraq and Syria. The Democrats have argued that the 2002 resolution wasn't necessary to stop ISIS because the 2001 War on Terror use-of-force resolution also applied. That is true. But apparently President Obama didn't think the 2001 resolution was sufficient since he also invoked the 2002 resolution. I would welcome any Democrat to explain why the leader of their party was wrong. Somewhat to my amusement, some Democrats and a few Republicans have contended, not to worry, the President can always rely on his Commander in Chief authority under article II of the Constitution to order military operations like the Soleimani strike. I agree. Yet these are the very same Senators who usually argue that article II authorizes only the most immediate and modest actions in self-defense. Everything else, they say, takes congressional approval. I will be curious to hear from them the next time a President relies primarily on his article II authority to take necessary action to defend America. But enough with debating how many JAG lawyers can dance on the head of a pin. Let's ask a more important question. In the real world, will repealing these resolutions make America more safe or less safe? To which I answer, just look around the region. Iran's proxies are trying to kill Americans every day, and that is hardly an exaggeration. Just last week, a suicide drone made by Iran killed an American contractor and wounded six other Americans in Syria. An Iranian rocket attack wounded another American after that. Meanwhile, ISIS still carries out dozens of massacres and suicide bombings every year. That is not to mention new terrorist groups who may be waiting in the wings, ready for their shot at the title as America retreats. If we repeal these resolutions, will it make America more safe or less safe? The answer to that question is obvious. Threats still originate in and emanate from Iraq, whether terrorist groups like ISIS or Iran's proxies. We should not lightly throw away additional authorities to target them. Furthermore, we shouldn't give Joe Biden any more reason to avoid taking necessary action to protect America. President Biden is already in full flight from the Middle East. It was President Biden who ended the war in Afghanistan, just like President Obama ended the Iraq war. Now the Taliban rules in Kabul, harboring terrorists who threaten our country. Iran killed an American last week because Joe Biden never acts until Iran kills an American. Since he became President, Iran has attacked American positions at least 83 times. Yet President Biden has only retaliated four times. Little wonder the ayatollahs think they can get away with it, as they have with that latest strike, because after we finally hit back last week, Iran struck our positions again, injuring yet another American. Yet Joe Biden, as of this moment, has not retaliated. A couple months ago the administration also cited an obscure legalistic grounds for why President Biden didn't shoot down a Chinese spy balloon over the Aleutian Islands. The last thing this President needs is more encouragement from Congress to turn the other cheek. Besides the message to the President, we should also consider the signal we send to our friends and enemies in the Middle East. President Biden has made matters worse through his shabby treatment of America's best friends. He has attacked the Netanyahu government over its domestic policies and funded its political opponents. He has attacked Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman and promised to turn the Kingdom into a ``pariah'' state. If we send the message that we are abandoning our friends, we shouldn't be surprised if they begin to hedge their bets. Already, our allies are doing just that, turning to China as a new power broker. Just this month, Beijing brokered a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It has encouraged the Saudis to trade oil in Chinese currency instead of dollars. China has also undertaken to build a secret port in the United Arab Emirates. The trend is unmistakable. China looks like a rising power in the region, while America appears to be on the decline and on the way out. We can reinforce that impression today or not. Democrats can say that is not the message they intend, but what matters more is what our friends and foes hear. We will vote on it soon. And it is not just China that is exploiting our weaknesses. Iran sees our retreat as a green light to dominate Iraq. Already it is manipulating in Iraq's politics and arming Shia militias. Iran just signed a border deal with Iraq to send more arms and cash to its proxies. Tehran's influence will only grow if ours recedes. We will vote on that soon too. In short, repealing these resolutions will embolden terrorists, embolden Iran, and embolden China, while demoralizing our allies and making it harder to punish attacks on Americans. Do Senators really want to sign up for these consequences? When another ISIS rears its head or Iran's proxies use Iraq's territory for safe haven, do Senators really want to be responsible for stripping our troops of these additional legal authorities? I don't, and I won't. But if they do, let them say so plainly. Let them say that this academic exercise, which even they admit won't legally constrain any President, is worth these deadly real-world consequences. Our men and women deserve that honest debate. After all, it is their lives depending on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, Washington, DC, is in the middle of a carjacking crime wave. There have been more than 100 carjackings in our Nation's Capital so far this year. It is only March 8. I think that is more than one a day. Two-thirds of DC carjackers use guns to force their terrified victims out of their vehicles. What do the Washington Democrats do in response to this carjacking crime wave? Do they support ``fund the police,'' install more cameras, put more cops on the streets? No. They passed a law to reduce criminal penalties for carjacking--reduce criminal penalties for carjackings and other serious crimes. I wish I were joking; but, sadly, I am not. Washington's answer to higher crime is less prison time for violent criminals. The only reason this is not going to happen is because Congress retains its constitutional authority over our Federal city because Washington is not a State, nor should it ever be a State. But in this case, some Democrats--even President Biden--got skittish about the political price they would pay for being this weak on crime, so they broke ranks and headed for the hills. When House Republicans voted to disapprove Washington's soft-on-crime bill, 31 Democrats voted with them. I suspect something similar will play out later here today. President Biden says he will sign the resolution of disapproval once it passes because--and these are his words: I don't support some of the changes the DC Council put forward over the Mayor's objections, such as lowering penalties for carjackings. Those are the President's words. I welcome the Democrats' rebuke of the Washington, DC, City Council. I hope it is more than a passing moment of sanity, but I do have my doubts. So let's put their new tough-on-crime attitude to the test. It is really not enough to stop carjackings just here in Washington, DC, because carjacking is not a Washington, DC, problem alone. Many cities are suffering from carjacking crime waves as well, just as they are suffering from increases in the murder rate and other terrible crimes. According to a recent report, carjackings rose an astonishing 29 percent in seven major cities between 2020 and 2022. Why the increase? Well, one reason is the FIRST STEP Act, soft-on-crime bill that Congress passed in the final days of 2018. That bill let criminals out of jail early for even serious violent offenses like mild molestation, bank robbery, assaulting a police officer, and, yes, carjacking. The FIRST STEP Act wasn't the only effort to coddle violent criminals, but it is an egregious law that made clear too many of our elected officials no longer take serious crime seriously. The FIRST STEP Act increased, by about 15 percent, the amount of time that Federal criminals, even carjackers, can get off their sentences for so- called good behavior. This is in addition to the extensive sentencing reductions and early release programs for other crimes in the bill. The result was that if a carjacker, say, got 6 years in prison, he could be back out on the street to offend again in as few as 5 years. It is time to rectify this mistake and to keep carjackers behind bars. That is why I am offering my bill, the No Early Release for Carjackers Act. The bill is as simple as its title. If you go to jail for violently hijacking someone's car, you should serve your entire sentence, not get time off for supposed good behavior. So if President Biden and congressional Democrats are really committed to getting tough on carjackers--not just here in Washington, DC, where they drive around a lot--then they should support this effort. I know that some of the defenders of the First Step Act will say, yes, carjackers should get out of jail early for good behavior. These criminals will, after all, get out of jail one day--or so the argument goes--so shouldn't we rehabilitate them by rewarding them, encouraging their good behavior? To which I answer: Sure, we can reward good behavior for carjackers in prison. We can encourage good behavior, but we shouldn't reward it in a way that endangers the public. Letting dangerous criminals out of jail early endangers the public. If the Members of the Senate are truly concerned with rewarding good behavior, we can offer well-behaved inmates other incentives, say, greater access to prison telephones, transfers to lower security facilities. And carjackers will remain eligible for other incentive programs that are so beloved by the soft-on-crime set like gardening classes or whatever else it is liberals think will turn supposedly hardened criminals into model citizens. But there is simply no good reason to release dangerous criminals from prison early, especially not in the middle of a violent carjacking crime wave. Crime is a policy choice and the choice is simple: If we put criminals behind bars, crime goes down; if we let criminals run amuck, crimes goes up. We have seen the consequences of letting carjackers run amuck. Now we have a choice to fix that terrible mistake. Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 713, which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered, and read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. COTTON. Well, Madam President, I am disappointed that our bipartisan bonhomie this week about carjacking only lasted as long as overturning Washington, DC's law. We should address how we can stop more carjackings. I don't think we should blame cars for carjacking the way some would blame guns for gun violence. The simplest way to stop carjacking is to lock carjackers away in prison for a long time and not to let them out early. And the Senator from Illinois, I will say, is right. I was the most implacable foe of the FIRST STEP Act, and I remain so. Guilty as charged. I will walk free, like most violent criminals in Washington, DC, who plead guilty as well, but continue my advocacy against that law which has led to hundreds and hundreds of its beneficiaries committing violent crimes. It was a mistake in 2018 when we passed it. Eighty- seven Senators committed the mistake, including most Republicans. President Trump made a mistake in supporting the FIRST STEP Act. That law is dangerous to public safety. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, there is one foreign leader for whom the Democratic Party seems to reserve special scorn. Leading Democrats have called him a reactionary, a racist, an ethnonationalist. They have accused him of committing war crimes and of leading an apartheid state. President Biden has called him extreme and has said they don't agree on a damn thing. Strong words. Who is this monster, you may ask. Were the Democrats talking about Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping or, perhaps, Ayatollah Khamenei? No. They were referring to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's longest serving Prime Minister and one of America's best friends. Once again, these Democrats have proven their party's tendency to coddle our enemies and condemn our friends. But the Democrats don't stop at mere words. They are working right now to undermine Bibi and his government. Yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon reported that the State Department is funneling your tax dollars to Netanyahu's domestic opponents. Since 2020, the State has sent more than $38,000 to something known as the Movement for Quality Government, for so-called democracy education. So what is the Movement for Quality Government, and how good is this democracy education? This movement is an activist group that is fomenting unrest against the Israeli Government and demanding Netanyahu's resignation. In recent days, leftwing demonstrators associated with this group have protested the government's proposed judicial reforms. Last week, hundreds of protesters harassed Netanyahu's wife, forcing police to intervene and escort her to safety. Far from staying neutral in Israel's domestic affairs, Secretary of State Tony Blinken lectured Netanyahu about the judicial reforms to his face, tacitly siding with the demonstrators. Some Democratic Senators have also condemned the reform proposals, which is awfully rich coming from Democrats who have voted to shred this Senate's ancient rules to pack our Supreme Court and to rewrite our founding documents. I guess, when American liberals want to change the courts, it is the only way to save democracy; but when Israeli conservatives want to, it is a threat to democracy. Go figure. The State Department doesn't even deny it is funneling money to these leftwing activities, by the way, which is troubling because it is a clear violation of the usual State Department policy against funding foreign partisan organizations. Not only is this U.S.-funded organization subverting a foreign government, it is subverting the government of one of our closest allies. Secretary Blinken should immediately apologize to the Prime Minister of Israel, demand your money back, and open an investigation into how this happened. But then again, I suspect we already know how this happened. After all, the Democratic Party has been meddling in Israeli democracy to undermine Benjamin Netanyahu for more than a quarter century. By his own admission, President Bill Clinton intervened in the 1996 Israeli election to support Netanyahu's opponent, Shimon Peres. Clinton met with Peres; dispatched his own campaign advisers; dangled policy shifts to Israel--all to get Peres across the finish line. Netanyahu prevailed nevertheless. Team Clinton intervened, yet again, in 1999. The Clinton White House reportedly urged Democratic donors to give money to Netanyahu's next opponent, Ehud Barak. And it didn't stop there. Clinton's political advisers again campaigned against Bibi while the Clinton State Department allegedly spread falsehoods about the Israeli Government and Netanyahu himself. Netanyahu lost this time around; though, he was more of a victim of his own success against Palestinian terrorism than Barak and Clinton's campaign against him. But Bibi returned to the Knesset just 3 years later and became Prime Minister again in 2009. The Obama State Department was, if anything, worse than Clinton's in its funneling of hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars to a group called the OneVoice Movement. Not coincidentally, OneVoice partnered with an organization running anti-Netanyahu ads that was advised by-- you guessed it--a top Obama campaign operative. Of course, the Democrats will insist they are innocent of these charges and aren't meddling in Israel's democracy, but Israelis know the truth. Obama's meddling was so pervasive that an astounding 62 percent of Israelis thought he was interfering. Indeed, one Foreign Policy magazine headline read ``Obama is Pursuing Regime Change in Israel''--not in Iran--our mortal enemy--but in Israel, mind you. Now Joe Biden is simply following in Obama's footsteps by trying to sabotage Netanyahu. In 2021, the Biden administration reportedly pressured the United Arab Emirates to cancel an Abraham Accords Summit--all to deprive Netanyahu of a diplomatic victory ahead of that year's election. Then, after Netanyahu won the 2022 election, the Biden administration immediately sought to undermine his coalition government by trying to veto key Cabinet appointments. This most recent scandal is not an aberration, therefore. It has been the de facto policy of the Democratic Party for a quarter century to beat Netanyahu, though he keeps beating the Democrats. Though, it does provide more evidence, yet again, for the old saw that while it is dangerous to be America's enemy, it can be fatal to be America's friend--at least when the Democrats are in charge. Instead of trying to topple the democratically elected Government of Israel, I would suggest we should support it. Israelis are more than capable of managing their domestic affairs without Democratic meddling, but they need our help to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb; they need our help to achieve peace with their neighbors; and they need our help to defeat the terrorists who are threatening both of our nations. They don't get that from the Biden administration either. Iran is racing toward a nuclear breakout while the President dithers. His administration can barely utter the words ``Abraham Accords,'' and President Biden is breaking U.S. law to subsidize the Palestinian Authority's support for terrorism. A few years back, Congress passed the Taylor Force Act, which prohibits nonhumanitarian aid to the Palestinian Authority until it ends its so-called martyr payments--a euphemism for bounties given to Palestinian terrorists or their families for maiming and killing Jews. So the administration has, instead, funneled tens of millions of your tax dollars to nongovernmental organizations to build roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and other infrastructure projects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. As a result, since money is fungible, the Palestinian Authority can ignore these basic responsibilities of government and, instead, keep pouring more money into its pay-for-slay program. The contrast couldn't be starker. If the Palestinian Authority wants to bankroll terrorists and their families, the Biden administration will contort the law beyond recognition to fund the Palestinians; but if a center-right government gets elected once again in Israel, the Biden administration will work overtime to undermine it. This is exactly backward. We should demand the Palestinian Authority stop subsidizing terrorism before it gets another penny of your tax dollars. While we are at it, we should pass the Taylor Force Martyr Payment Prevention Act, which I am reintroducing this week, to sanction foreign banks that process these so-called martyr payments for the Palestinian Authority. Meanwhile, President Biden and his administration should quit treating Prime Minister Netanyahu like he is a rival or even an adversary and start treating him as he is--a war hero, a courageous patriot, a towering figure of modern Israel, and most importantly for us, a great friend of America.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, there is one foreign leader for whom the Democratic Party seems to reserve special scorn. Leading Democrats have called him a reactionary, a racist, an ethnonationalist. They have accused him of committing war crimes and of leading an apartheid state. President Biden has called him extreme and has said they don't agree on a damn thing. Strong words. Who is this monster, you may ask. Were the Democrats talking about Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping or, perhaps, Ayatollah Khamenei? No. They were referring to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's longest serving Prime Minister and one of America's best friends. Once again, these Democrats have proven their party's tendency to coddle our enemies and condemn our friends. But the Democrats don't stop at mere words. They are working right now to undermine Bibi and his government. Yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon reported that the State Department is funneling your tax dollars to Netanyahu's domestic opponents. Since 2020, the State has sent more than $38,000 to something known as the Movement for Quality Government, for so-called democracy education. So what is the Movement for Quality Government, and how good is this democracy education? This movement is an activist group that is fomenting unrest against the Israeli Government and demanding Netanyahu's resignation. In recent days, leftwing demonstrators associated with this group have protested the government's proposed judicial reforms. Last week, hundreds of protesters harassed Netanyahu's wife, forcing police to intervene and escort her to safety. Far from staying neutral in Israel's domestic affairs, Secretary of State Tony Blinken lectured Netanyahu about the judicial reforms to his face, tacitly siding with the demonstrators. Some Democratic Senators have also condemned the reform proposals, which is awfully rich coming from Democrats who have voted to shred this Senate's ancient rules to pack our Supreme Court and to rewrite our founding documents. I guess, when American liberals want to change the courts, it is the only way to save democracy; but when Israeli conservatives want to, it is a threat to democracy. Go figure. The State Department doesn't even deny it is funneling money to these leftwing activities, by the way, which is troubling because it is a clear violation of the usual State Department policy against funding foreign partisan organizations. Not only is this U.S.-funded organization subverting a foreign government, it is subverting the government of one of our closest allies. Secretary Blinken should immediately apologize to the Prime Minister of Israel, demand your money back, and open an investigation into how this happened. But then again, I suspect we already know how this happened. After all, the Democratic Party has been meddling in Israeli democracy to undermine Benjamin Netanyahu for more than a quarter century. By his own admission, President Bill Clinton intervened in the 1996 Israeli election to support Netanyahu's opponent, Shimon Peres. Clinton met with Peres; dispatched his own campaign advisers; dangled policy shifts to Israel--all to get Peres across the finish line. Netanyahu prevailed nevertheless. Team Clinton intervened, yet again, in 1999. The Clinton White House reportedly urged Democratic donors to give money to Netanyahu's next opponent, Ehud Barak. And it didn't stop there. Clinton's political advisers again campaigned against Bibi while the Clinton State Department allegedly spread falsehoods about the Israeli Government and Netanyahu himself. Netanyahu lost this time around; though, he was more of a victim of his own success against Palestinian terrorism than Barak and Clinton's campaign against him. But Bibi returned to the Knesset just 3 years later and became Prime Minister again in 2009. The Obama State Department was, if anything, worse than Clinton's in its funneling of hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars to a group called the OneVoice Movement. Not coincidentally, OneVoice partnered with an organization running anti-Netanyahu ads that was advised by-- you guessed it--a top Obama campaign operative. Of course, the Democrats will insist they are innocent of these charges and aren't meddling in Israel's democracy, but Israelis know the truth. Obama's meddling was so pervasive that an astounding 62 percent of Israelis thought he was interfering. Indeed, one Foreign Policy magazine headline read ``Obama is Pursuing Regime Change in Israel''--not in Iran--our mortal enemy--but in Israel, mind you. Now Joe Biden is simply following in Obama's footsteps by trying to sabotage Netanyahu. In 2021, the Biden administration reportedly pressured the United Arab Emirates to cancel an Abraham Accords Summit--all to deprive Netanyahu of a diplomatic victory ahead of that year's election. Then, after Netanyahu won the 2022 election, the Biden administration immediately sought to undermine his coalition government by trying to veto key Cabinet appointments. This most recent scandal is not an aberration, therefore. It has been the de facto policy of the Democratic Party for a quarter century to beat Netanyahu, though he keeps beating the Democrats. Though, it does provide more evidence, yet again, for the old saw that while it is dangerous to be America's enemy, it can be fatal to be America's friend--at least when the Democrats are in charge. Instead of trying to topple the democratically elected Government of Israel, I would suggest we should support it. Israelis are more than capable of managing their domestic affairs without Democratic meddling, but they need our help to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb; they need our help to achieve peace with their neighbors; and they need our help to defeat the terrorists who are threatening both of our nations. They don't get that from the Biden administration either. Iran is racing toward a nuclear breakout while the President dithers. His administration can barely utter the words ``Abraham Accords,'' and President Biden is breaking U.S. law to subsidize the Palestinian Authority's support for terrorism. A few years back, Congress passed the Taylor Force Act, which prohibits nonhumanitarian aid to the Palestinian Authority until it ends its so-called martyr payments--a euphemism for bounties given to Palestinian terrorists or their families for maiming and killing Jews. So the administration has, instead, funneled tens of millions of your tax dollars to nongovernmental organizations to build roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and other infrastructure projects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. As a result, since money is fungible, the Palestinian Authority can ignore these basic responsibilities of government and, instead, keep pouring more money into its pay-for-slay program. The contrast couldn't be starker. If the Palestinian Authority wants to bankroll terrorists and their families, the Biden administration will contort the law beyond recognition to fund the Palestinians; but if a center-right government gets elected once again in Israel, the Biden administration will work overtime to undermine it. This is exactly backward. We should demand the Palestinian Authority stop subsidizing terrorism before it gets another penny of your tax dollars. While we are at it, we should pass the Taylor Force Martyr Payment Prevention Act, which I am reintroducing this week, to sanction foreign banks that process these so-called martyr payments for the Palestinian Authority. Meanwhile, President Biden and his administration should quit treating Prime Minister Netanyahu like he is a rival or even an adversary and start treating him as he is--a war hero, a courageous patriot, a towering figure of modern Israel, and most importantly for us, a great friend of America.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, as the new year began, an exceptional life tragically ended. The State of Arkansas lost a powerful voice and community leader when Qubilah Jones passed away, age 45, after a 14-year battle against lymphedema. Qubilah was born in Corpus Christi, TX, but her legacy and her heart are in Jonesboro, AR. Qubilah was a daily companion to countless Arkansans as the host of KLEK's ``Community Conversations,'' a morning show where she interviewed hundreds of leaders about faith, government, and community involvement. Qubilah had a God-given gift for words, and she was a relentless advocate for northeast Arkansas. She was a pillar of her church, New Mount Zion Baptist Church, where she produced the church newspaper. She was a curious soul who returned to education later in life, put in the work, and ultimately earned undergraduate and graduate degrees from Arkansas State University and Grand Canyon University. She was the driving force behind community celebrations such as KLEK's award- winning Juneteenth in Jonesboro Celebration. She was a proud and active alumna of her sorority, Delta Sigma Theta. And perhaps above all, she was a loving mother to her son, Quante Jeffrey. For these accomplishments, and for the more than 2,000 hours of community service that Qubilah performed, the city of Jonesboro named her Volunteer of the Year in 2017. More incredible still, Qubilah accomplished these things while battling lymphedema, an incurable disease that slowly sapped her mobility and strength. She spoke often on her radio show and podcast about living with a serious illness, providing advice and consolation to those who had their own cross to bear. But even as the disease took its toll on her body, it could not wipe away her warm smile or infectious laughter. Qubilah's sister, Gwen Henderson, put it well: ``as she declined in mobility, she never declined in spirit.'' Qubilah's battle against disease set her up for one last act of service--one of her greatest. After witnessing the suffering that lymphedema can cause, she became a restless and passionate advocate for the Lymphedema Treatment Act, a bill to ensure that compression treatment items essential to managing the disease are covered by Medicare. I was proud to cosponsor that bill, along with 73 of my Senate colleagues. And on December 23, just 1 week before Qubilah passed from this life, that bill became law. Countless Americans suffering from lymphedema will get needed relief as a result. It is yet another part of Qubilah's extraordinary legacy of service. The city of Jonesboro, the State of Arkansas, the U.S. Senate, and all those touched by Qubilah's words and deeds mourn the loss of the ``Voice of Jonesboro.'' May she rest in peace.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, in the past half century, Arkansans have played millions of basketball games, most of which have disappeared into a blur of fond memories and forgotten scores. For many of the residents of Jefferson County, however, one game still stands out from the rest: the 1973 State overall championship final between the Vaster High School Pirates and the Little Rock Central High School Tigers. In that game, the Pirates represented a small rural community of only a few hundred, against the Tigers of Little Rock, a city of a quarter million. The Tigers were taller, better ranked, and were defending champs. Vaster, on the other hand, had overcome great odds just to get to the championship final, and few thought they had a chance. The Pirates could have made a halfhearted effort that March day and met expectations. But that is not what makes a great game and not what the Pirates had in mind. When they took the court, Vaster's coaches and players were intent on shattering expectations, and that is exactly what they did. Far from being blown out, the Pirates went toe-to-toe with the Tigers. Central would take the lead, only for Vaster to wrest it away. The Pirates made the Tigers fight for every pass, point, and inch of progress. And you better believe they made Central sweat. This climactic battle between two great teams ended in a one-point Tiger victory, after Vaster missed a free throw in the last 12 seconds of the game. Fifty years later, that game still fills many Arkansans with pride. It remains proof that extraordinary effort, commitment, and drive, even by teenagers on a basketball court, can inspire and make a difference years later. That is why I would like to honor the great coaches, players, and staff of the 1972-73 Vaster High School Pirates: head coach Herbert Pryor, assistant coach Andrew Carr, Cleveland Allen, Eric Biley, Samuel Biley, Jr., Reddic Borkins, Jimmy Dade, Carl Evans, James Evans, Tommy Evans, Roy Franklin, Jimmy Gladney, Homer Jackson, Melvin Jackson, Charles Petty, Rodney Ryce, Thomas Tarty, Ronnie Grice, Rodney Crawford, and Jacob Jones. The State of Arkansas and the U.S. Senate salute you on this 50th anniversary of your great game.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, our amendment achieves a simple goal desired by all of us: equal treatment for all the 9/11 families, the Beirut Marine barracks bombing families, and all victims of terrorism. To those families, we know that nothing we do here can assuage your grief or replace your loss, but we pray that this action by your Congress, on behalf of your fellow citizens, will serve as a reminder that we hold you close in our hearts and we pray for your comfort. As a show of our support and love for these families, I suggest the Senate accept the amendment by voice vote.