Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last election cycle, Americans elected a 50-50 Senate, a closely divided House, and a President who promised unity and moderation. What have Washington Democrats done in response? They have set out trying to tax and spend our country into oblivion. They have handed the keys to domestic policymaking to Chairman Sanders and some socialist House Members. In the spring, they passed a massive, inflationary, liberal spending bill that Democrats bragged was the most liberal bill in American history. Now, this week, just a few months later, they want to start ramming through trillions more that will make that disaster look like child's play. They call it $3\1/2\ trillion in spending. Nonpartisan experts say those plans would more likely cost Americans about $5\1/2\ trillion-- trillions more borrowing and trillions more spending, when inflation is already sticking American families with higher costs; new permanent welfare, with no work requirements, when small businesses are already struggling to find workers; sweeping amnesty, when the southern border is already in crisis; Green New Deal regulations, when Americans' gas prices have already shot up; and crushing tax hikes for family businesses and farms, as they fight to recover from the recession. So, apparently, tragedy and comedy really are two sides of the same coin. The tragedy is that Democrats want to inflict all this pain on middle-class families. Here is the comedy: They won't let Republicans have any say in this monstrosity, but they want our help raising their credit card to make it happen. Democrats want Republicans to help them raise the debt limit so they can keep spending historic sums of money with zero Republican input and zero Republican votes. So imagine a friend tells you he is flying off to Las Vegas to blow all of his money. He doesn't care that you think it is irresponsible. You aren't invited to come along, but he wants you to cosign a loan for him before he leaves. Now, I understand the administration sent out the Treasury Secretary to argue that, historically, both parties have addressed the debt ceiling together. Of course, it is our Senate Democrat colleagues who have no interest in what is historically normal. Their borrowing and spending are historically abnormal. Democrats keep boasting about how wild and revolutionary their partisan vision is. So our friends across the aisle should not expect traditional bipartisan borrowing to finance their nontraditional reckless taxing- and-spending spree. That is not how it is going to work. Democrats have all the existing tools they need to raise the debt limit on a partisan basis. If they want 50 lockstep Democratic votes to spend trillions and trillions more, they can find 50 Democratic votes to finance it. If they don't want Republicans' input, they don't need our help. It couldn't really be simpler, and it really couldn't be more fair. Besides, I thought my colleagues were literally thrilled to present another reckless taxing-and-spending spree to the American people. I thought middle-class families were supposed to be delighted with their socialist shopping list. So shouldn't Democrats be proud to own all the debt it requires? Our colleagues seem confident that Chairman Sanders' vision is worth sticking our kids and grandkids with a massive bill. They deserve to have total ownership of that decision Afghanistan Now, Mr. President, on a totally different matter, when the Biden administration announced its reckless retreat from Afghanistan in April, I made my opposition perfectly clear. But I wasn't alone. One of the most prominent liberal editorial boards in the country responded to the President's move with this headline: ``Biden takes the easy way out of Afghanistan. The likely result is disaster.'' The administration's own top intelligence experts made a similar prediction: The Taliban is likely to make gains on the battlefield, and the Afghan Government will struggle to hold the Taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws its support. The Director of the CIA told Senators that withdrawal would make his Agency's job harder. And needless to say, the last time a Democratic administration tried a hasty retreat from the region offered a cautionary tale. Reality was clear to everyone but the very top of the Biden administration. From their bizarre choice of a symbolic September 11 deadline, to the absence of any concrete plan, the administration's decision appears to have rested on wishful thinking and not much else. The notion that Afghan Forces might be able to stop the Taliban's advance with only ``over-the-horizon'' support? That has proven to be wishful thinking. That the Taliban might respond to the diplomatic plying of the international community? Wishful thinking as well. As the administration's withdrawal proceeds at full speed, expert warnings have become deadly realities. The Afghan people and their democratic institutions are literally being ripped apart by murderous theocrats. Nearly 1,000 Afghans have reportedly been killed already by Taliban death squads in the Province of Kandahar alone. In the last 2 months, the militants have taken more territory--more territory in the last 2 months--than they have held since 2001. And in just the last 4 days, the Taliban have raised their flag over six-- six--provincial capitals, including northern cities far, far from the group's historic base of power. Militants are engaged in a campaign to assassinate crucial members of the remaining resistance, from military pilots to top government ministers. All across the country, women and children are already suffering, in particular. One recent report claimed Taliban militans beat a child to death because his father--listen to this: Beat a child to death because his father served in the Afghan Armed Forces. What is more, the prospect of an emboldened al-Qaida--capable of threatening not only the region, but the American homeland--is now a near certainty, no matter what the Biden administration tells itself about the state of that threat today. And yet the State Department still mouths unbelievably naive platitudes, like ``expectation'' is that the Taliban will work toward ``political settlement,'' even as the Taliban spokesman asserted that the most recent attacks are just ``the beginning of retaliatory operations.'' So does this sound like a group committed to peaceful means? Goodness' sake, get a grip. This willful denial isn't just costing Afghanistan; it is already costing the American people and our interests. It has forced loyal coalition partners to second-guess whether we can be trusted to finish what we start. It has led brave Afghans, who earned promises of assistance, to fear they would be abandoned amid our incompetent-- completely incompetent--retreat. It has even left overwhelmed Embassy personnel to urge remaining Americans in Afghanistan to leave immediately by any means available. This morning, I attended a classified briefing from administration officials about current conditions on the ground. Look, needless to say, the briefers faced some tough questions about an entirely avoidable--entirely avoidable--situation that is deteriorating faster every single day; and they will certainly face more as global terrorists feed from the rise of an extremist government in Afghanistan. I, for one, have warned repeatedly that those who seek to harm us, our friends, and our interests simply do not abide by our political time tables. They do not care if our leaders get tired of the task at hand. And this is not what victory looks like.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today, the Senate will decide whether to move the bipartisan infrastructure bill closer toward a final vote. Like I said before, I am quite confident that, out of 100 U.S. Senators, there are 100 of us who believe the bill is imperfect. This isn't exactly the bill I would have written on my own in my office, and 99 of my colleagues would say the very same thing. This is a compromise product crafted by colleagues with big, principled differences in a Senate with the narrowest possible split. But in my view, what our early statesmen called ``internal improvement'' is a core government responsibility. The American people need roads, bridges, ports, and airports to build their businesses, build their families, and build their lives. Republicans and Democrats have radically different visions these days, but both those visions include physical infrastructure that works for all of our citizens. As the Kentucky Farm Bureau wrote to me recently, the investments this bill will make are not just necessary; in many cases they are overdue. Our country has real needs in this area. There are many outstanding amendments that are important, that would improve this legislation, and that deserve votes before the Senate is asked to vote on the final passage of this bill. The full Senate deserves its full chance to shape this important legislation. I hope Senators can work together in a bipartisan way to get more amendments up and continue improving this important bill. Our colleagues on both sides deserve to be heard.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. The Democratic leader is indicating, in a few days, he will thrust the Senate into an ultrapartisan showdown over the staggeringly reckless taxing-and-spending spree that Democrats want to ram through later this year. The size and the scope of Chairman Sanders' socialist shopping list will make every disagreement we had in landing the infrastructure compromise look like a rounding error--new permanent welfare with no work requirements, reams of Green New Deal mandates, massive tax hikes that shrink wages and kill jobs, government meddling in childcare that would privilege certain families' choices over others, amnesty for illegal immigrants in the middle of a border crisis. At a time Democrats' spending already--already--has inflation hammering American families, Republicans could not be more eager to debate our colleagues on all of these subjects. We can't wait to get Democrats on record over many more trillions--trillions--of dollars and reckless borrowing to fund socialist spending on radical policies that families are not asking for. Our philosophy is the polar opposite. Republican policies would create good jobs, strong wage growth, and stable prices for middle- class families, just like our country had just a year and a half ago-- the most pro-worker economy in a generation, just a year and a half ago. Republicans want to give working families the tools and the opportunity to build the lives that they want. Democrats want to force them to live the lives the Democrats want. The stakes in this debate could not be higher, and very soon the country will see it aired out here right on the Senate floor. The Democratic leader will be putting the full radicalism of the far left right here on this floor. He is making every one of his Members vote on nothing less--nothing less--than Chairman Sanders' dream shopping list. Every American family will know exactly where their Senator stands

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. On one final matter, I have already discussed how the Biden administration has nominated a proud and proven opponent of American's constitutional rights to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. I don't think there could be any more evidence that David Chipman is the wrong choice to serve as the top Federal administrator of firearms policy. He has a long record of hostility to lawful gun owners, a variety of complaints from those who worked with him in the past. How could it get worse? Mr. Chipman has suggested radical and sweeping steps, like banning private sales that are lawful, overriding State laws, and imposing sweeping restrictions on a class of weapons he has yet to clearly define. Among some current and former ATF agents, he has earned a concerning reputation as a ``bully'' and ``activist'' whose extreme views threaten to undermine the trust the Agency needs to conduct oversight. And sources within the ATF have also come forward describing alleged racially discriminatory comments the nominee made in the workplace regarding personnel decisions. So even a few days ago, it was not difficult to realize this is an instance in which the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, should take a pass. But somehow, in just the last few days, it has actually gotten worse. Earlier this week, news reports indicated that Mr. Chipman had failed to disclose to our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee a TV appearance he made several years ago. This wasn't just any TV appearance; Mr. Chipman had granted an interview to a propaganda network overseen by the Chinese Government. A new letter to the Senate, signed by seven former career ATF agents, summed it up this way: Mr. Chipman's views and record would ``create serious and long-lasting problems for the Bureau and the effective execution of its law enforcement mission.'' The Senate has spent quite enough time flirting with this profoundly misguided nomination. The American people deserve a trustworthy steward leading the ATF, with a record of respecting their rights and respecting his or her colleagues. It is long past time the Biden administration revisit this decision and send us somebody who fits that description.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate proudly and unanimously passed a resolution awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to the U.S. Capitol Police along with other law enforcement personnel who helped defend this institution on January 6. Today, President Biden will sign this resolution into law, and the brave men and women who served that day will receive the highest honor that Congress can bestow. With the home of our representative democracy literally under attack, the officers of the Capitol Police, their colleagues from the DC Metropolitan Police, and others made huge, huge sacrifices to keep all of us safe. On January 6, Congress got a firsthand reminder of a reality that many American citizens face every day; that the brave men and women of law enforcement really are the thin blue line standing between peace and chaos. I am so proud we are adding our own colleagues in blue to the list of extraordinary Americans that Congress has honored with its gold medal. So thank you and congratulations.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Mr. President, on a completely different matter, we are more than a year from the technical end of the COVID-19 recession. There are more than 9 million job openings in the country, the most in American history by far. Three safe and effective vaccines are easily available all across our country, free of charge, for any adult who wants one. Medical contraindications are rare, and CDC data tell us that, once somebody is fully vaccinated, their risk of dying from COVID-19 absolutely plummets right down to the normal range of risk that we implicitly face on a daily basis. Vaccines may not magically eliminate the virus overnight, but the evidence tells us that vaccines can eliminate the degree to which the virus represents a unique crisis. We may not be entirely out of the woods--the Delta uptick makes that clear--but it is time to stop governing as if we were trapped in a permanent economic meltdown. It factually is simply not the case, but the Democratic Party's far-left flank is resisting this simple fact. They were counting on this terrible but temporary pandemic to be their Trojan horse for permanent socialism. So they don't want to admit that the vaccines are transitioning COVID from a crisis into a challenge-- case in point, the surreal episode that has unfolded this past week over evictions. For a year and a half now, the government has basically told landlords they have little or no recourse if tenants stop paying the rent. This isn't just about massive corporations that some think could eat losses forever; family businesses who own one or two units have had to keep paying their bills, their taxes, and their mortgages the whole time. Congress already sent billions of dollars to States for rental assistance. The problem is with State governments that have been pathetically slow to get the money out, but when some Socialist House Members fail to convince their own fellow Democrats to extend this nationwide socialism through legislation, they somehow prevailed on President Biden through PR stunts--PR stunts. One day before the President's announcement, his senior adviser said the President had ``double-, triple-, quadruple-checked'' whether he had the legal authority to do this, and he concluded he did not. The President himself admitted that legal scholars find his position untenable, but he still caved and did it. The far left wants to turn this terrible but temporary pandemic into a Trojan horse for permanent socialism, and the administration is letting them call the shots

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in just a few days our colleagues will start ramming through yet another--another--reckless taxing-and- spending spree: trillions more in inflationary spending when families just want good jobs and stable prices. But there is something funny happening. Even as Democrats crow about how all this spending is so good and so needed, they are petrified to vote for the credit limit increase that would make it possible. The Democrats are about to tell Republicans to go take a hike and start teeing up trillions more dollars in borrowing and spending, of course, without a single Republican vote. Ah, but at the same time, they are extolling the virtues of their latest socialist shopping list, they are afraid to up the limit on their credit card. They want Republicans to give them political cover for the partisan debt bomb that they will go right on to detonate with zero input from us. My colleagues are so mixed up on this, it is almost comical. The sums that we borrowed and spent through 2020--through last year, through the last administration, through the actual economic emergency--were largely covered by the previous debt suspension that just expired, but Democrats want a new debt limit increase for the new borrowing and the new spending that they willfully piled up since they took power: about $2 trillion back in March, trillions more sometime soon. So they want to unleash another reckless taxing-and-spending spree with zero Republican input--oh, oh--but when the bill comes, they say it is time to split the check. When the bill comes, it is time to split the check. Initiating another budget reconciliation process in a 50-50 Senate is as willfully partisan, as ``go it alone'' as it gets, especially in a Senate that keeps proving we can do bipartisan work. So, look, if our colleagues want to ram through yet another reckless taxing-and-spending spree without our input, if they want all this spending and debt to be their signature legacy, they should leap at the chance to own every bit of it. So let me make something perfectly clear: If they don't need or want our input, they won't get our help. They won't get our help with the debt limit increase that these reckless plans will require. I could not be more clear. They have the ability. They control the White House; they control the House; they control the Senate. They can raise the debt ceiling, and if it is raised, they will do it

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now, on another matter, this week, Senate Republicans are saying goodbye to some all-star staffers. Nick Rossi, the chief of staff to our whip, Senator Thune, has spent 15 years mastering the ins and outs of the Senate. This former FBI agent has used his Harvard Law horsepower to steer offices, committees, and our entire conference in the right direction. Our whip has had a whip-smart right-hand man. I won't be able to top his boss's wonderful tribute remarks from yesterday, so I won't even try, but I did just want to add my own brief thanks and congratulations. I have gotten to see Nick's great work up close. Senator Thune and I have a standing Monday meeting to plan the week. It is a very small meeting with very few staff. Nick has been in that room, and, every time, I have been glad he was. It is a rare thing in Washington to meet someone who is probably almost one of the smartest people in the room but who also never lets you know it, but Nick combines brilliance and humility in just that way. So my staff and I join Senator Thune and the whole Senate in bidding Nick a fond, if reluctant, farewell. Thank you, sincerely, for your fine, fine service.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Mr. President, on one final matter, when you have served in the Senate as long as I have, you get to hire and work with a lot of talented people, and when you find rock stars, you try to hang onto them. As a result, when a key staff member moves on, it often means reflecting on an extended Senate career of many years, including shared memories of old war stories going back ages. Andrew Ferguson is a different case. It was only 2 years ago that I hired Andrew to be my chief counsel. He has only been in the Senate about 3 years. By the standards of this place, he is a spring chicken. But it has only taken Andrew this short time to leave a stunningly outsized imprint on my work, on our conference, on the judiciary, and on everyone who has gotten to work alongside of him as well. So, a few days before Andrew concludes his Senate service, I am both happy for the opportunity to share how this happened and really, really sorry that I have to do it. The chief counsel in my leadership office handles a portfolio that is almost comically large: judicial confirmations, law enforcement and crime, immigration and border security, some constitutional questions that intersect with the separation of powers, others that intersect with national security, sometimes arcane Senate history. It takes a lawyer's lawyer with expertise in our laws and Constitution and someone who can feel out the politics, the personalities, and the shades of gray that drive a political body. One look at Andrew's resume told me that qualification No. 1 was, clearly, no problem--UVA Law; clerked on the DC Circuit; clerked for Justice Thomas; experience in the private sector--a lawyer anybody would be glad to hire. Oh, but what about the second qualification? Like I said, Andrew wasn't a long-serving Senate hand. He arrived at Judiciary in time to help Chairman Grassley notch a win for the country and the sanity of the Senate with the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh. He had only just been promoted to Chairman Graham's top nominations counsel when I poached him. Well, Andrew stepped into this complex role, and, boy, did he flourish. He became a go-to leader for committees and offices across the Republican side, a key Senate liaison to both the executive and judicial branches. He added to his lawyerly chops and grew into a strategic adviser of the first-rate. Our Republican conference is a big tent with a range of visions, but Senators from across the conference have come not just to trust Andrew's judgment, but they seek it out. Andrew's impact has been truly dramatic. I do not believe any other Senate staffer played a more crucial role in the last two Supreme Court confirmations combined. He was our side's field general in confirming Justice Barrett. Our majority spent 4 years rebuilding the kind of Federal judiciary that our constitutional order requires. Andrew played an indispensable part. The last couple of years have brought all sorts of unusual national challenges. The 2 years that Andrew has spent with us feel more like 10. We faced scenarios that would have sounded like wild law school hypotheticals. Who would have guessed we would be fighting to protect Americans' religious freedom while the government battled an airborne virus? But our chief counsel invariably brought us up to speed on whatever the day would bring with a good head, a big heart, and great humor. And if the topic was new to him, a big stack of library books were on his desk. It might sound like Andrew was just very dedicated to his job. That is not totally unusual. But that doesn't fully capture it. See, I have come to believe he is simply this intense about absolutely everything. Andrew takes work very seriously, but he also takes his faith seriously, and he takes family seriously. He treasures the upbringing that his parents, Roy and Susan, provided for him and his two brothers. He takes his interests seriously, his hobbies. There is an intense, infectious enthusiasm for all of it, a kind of good-natured aggression. Now, as his colleagues will attest, all this intensity can yield, actually, entertaining results. If, for example, you took a stroll by Andrew's desk, you would often hear him shouting--shouting--excitedly at a colleague, but you would generally genuinely have no clue whether he is strongly disagreeing with the person or just agreeing with them with great gusto. He could be discussing the law, but it might also be Roman history or the Protestant Reformation or the merits of some TV comedy or his weekend plans involving the lawful exercise of his Second Amendment rights. Whatever the subject, you would get maximum enthusiasm, maximum force of nature, and everybody in earshot usually learns some new fact and shares a big laugh. Different people enjoy this line of work for different reasons, but for Andrew, I think politics and policy matter so much because ideas and principles matter so much. That is why one of the most darkly funny and cynical people on our team has also been one of the most earnest and idealistic. Everything is worth thinking through. Everything is worth taking seriously because principles matter, the rule of law matters, and our country matters. That is why we come to work every day. A lot of people first come to Washington with a warrior mentality, but the rhythms of this city sometimes lull folks into a somewhat calmer mixture. But, believe me, as I suspect the entire Senate can attest by now, we need not worry that Andrew Ferguson will be lulled into a calmer anything. So, my friend, you may be leaving the trenches for now, but we both know there is no chance you will be able to stay away forever. You are going to miss the good fight, and I can say with personal certainty that the fight is going to miss you as well. Thank you for the law lectures. Thank you for the laughs. Thank you for an outstanding job for our country. Job well done.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this morning, the Appropriations Committee considered a first partial batch of government funding bills for next year. I want the Senate to secure bipartisan appropriations through the regular process. I want us to fund the government in an orderly fashion just like the successful Appropriations Committee work we saw throughout Republicans' recent years in the majority. We accomplished that because we built a truly bipartisan process. Importantly, it began at the beginning. Early in the calendar year, we convened bipartisan talks to produce top-line numbers so the appropriators would have actual targets. That let good-faith bipartisan conversations happen at the subcommittee and committee levels throughout the spring and summer, and we got results on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, this year, our Democratic colleagues haven't done anything like that. Either our colleagues don't have any big-picture plan or they are privately working off the President's partisan budget request. There has been no big-picture, bipartisan conversation. The Democrats didn't even let the committee vote on top-line allocations, which normally happens at the start of a markup. Our colleagues' fixation on far-left shiny objects is distracting them from basic governance. They are more focused on ramming through another reckless, inflationary taxing-and-spending spree than ensuring we avoid a stalemate over government funding. Now, look, I understand and I appreciate that Senators on both sides have worked hard to develop appropriations titles with a lot of good content. The problem is bigger picture. When it comes to floor consideration, we cannot and will not start planting individual trees before we have bipartisan consensus on the shape of the forest. Here is what it will take to get a Senate appropriations process back on track, two--two--simple things. No. 1, Democrats will need to honor the longstanding bipartisan truce that provides parity for defense and nondefense spending growth--parity for defense and nondefense spending growth--and at a responsible overall number that we can all accept. Our men and women in uniform and the Nation they defend deserve better than a budget that cuts our national defense after inflation and allows adversaries to get an edge. No. 2, we must have agreement that we are going to keep longstanding bipartisan policy riders in and new poison pill riders out. We need to keep foundational mainstays, like the Hyde amendment, right where they are, and neither side should throw new wrenches into the process. Parity for national and border security and a bipartisan deal on policy riders--this is not rocket science; it is a roadmap. We all know it very, very well. That is what it will take to move bipartisan appropriations bills across this floor, but the majority is behind on the homework. Afghanistan Now, Mr. President, on a totally different matter, in April, when President Biden announced his intention to pull U.S. forces out of Afghanistan, he said it was ``time to end the forever wars''--``time to end the forever wars,'' said President Biden, but at every stage of the rushed and rudderless retreat that has followed, the Biden administration's wishful thinking hasn't come within a country mile of reality. By any account, the situation in Afghanistan has become worse as we have headed to the exits, and we will live with the security, humanitarian, and moral consequences for years to come. This whole debacle was not only foreseeable; it was, in fact, foreseen. Remember what top national security experts were saying around the time the President announced his decisions: The Taliban is likely to make gains on the battlefield, and the Afghan Government will struggle to hold the Taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws support. Administration officials shrugged it off. They downplayed the chances that Afghanistan's pro-American government would fall to the pro- terrorist Taliban, but now that outcome appears all but inevitable. The administration literally glossed over the risk of an al-Qaida resurgence, but now Secretary Austin is acknowledging al-Qaida could reestablish a safe haven and threaten the homeland in less than 2 years--that is the Secretary of Defense--and even that could be optimistic. They insisted that over-the-horizon operations would be enough to keep terrorists in check, but now, just as the CIA Director warned from the start, intelligence gathering is already suffering. The administration claimed that resources tied up in the fight against terrorists were more urgently needed to counter Chinese aggression, but now the manpower demands of this over-the-horizon approach have required redeployment of forces to the Middle East and pulled an entire carrier group away--away--from China's backyard so it can conduct costlier, less-efficient, long-range missions over Afghanistan from the Gulf. Much of the rhetoric from the President's team has sounded almost laughingly--laughingly--naive. The Secretary of State publically suggested he thinks he can bribe the Taliban into being a responsible, peaceful regime with diplomatic carrots. So that is where we are. In 6 months, this administration has taken us from helping local partners fight the Taliban to abandoning our partners and pretending that a future Taliban government will care about foreign assistance and being accepted by the so-called international community. The Taliban have already begun paving their way to Kabul with innocent blood. Al-Qaida is already rebuilding capabilities to strike at our homeland. So what on Earth are we doing here? What are we doing? Surely, the administration would not consider the fall of Kabul a success. Surely, it will not look at the fate awaiting Afghan women and girls and say: Mission accomplished. Surely, a terrorist resurgence or the assassination of our Afghan partners cannot look to President Biden's team like a ``deliberate'' or ``responsible'' exit from Afghanistan. But these are the predictable results of these terrible decisions: the consequences of making enormous changes with no real plan to mitigate the risk; the failure to learn from similar mistakes, like the disastrous withdrawal from Iraq back in 2011. Here in the Senate, it is curious to see that some of our colleagues who are the most exercised--the most exercised--about trying to undo authorizations for the use of military force are somehow also among the quietest--the quietest--when it comes to the unfolding disaster in Afghanistan and oversight of ongoing conflicts. Make no mistake, whether America is on the ground or over the horizon, the war in Afghanistan will continue, and Americans will not be safer with the Taliban ruling from Kabul. We will not be safer when al-Qaida regains a safe haven and inspires a new generation of global jihadists. And we won't be safer when coalition partners doubt they can trust our word. A strategic disaster is what we are witnessing from top to bottom, and a growing risk that this war will end in a victory--a victory--for the Taliban and al-Qaida and become a greater threat to the United States. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been a little more than 6 months since the Biden administration and our Democratic-led Congress were sworn in. So let's zoom out from the daily political drama and ask the simplest possible question: How is it going? How is the leadership working out for middle-class families? Or put more directly: What big aspects of our national life could Democrats even claim are headed in the right direction on their watch? In January, our Democratic friends inherited the most favorable trend lines that any incoming administration could possibly ask for. Three safe and effective vaccines had been discovered, developed, and were already spreading across our country. Our economy was packed with dry powder and ready for a historic comeback. It was already morning in America when this Democratic government showed up. Mostly what they had to do was not get in the way. So where are we 6 months in? The U.S. economy has broken some recent records, mostly the wrong ones. Inflation just clocked its steepest 12- month increase in more than a decade. The month before, a separate measure of core inflation rose at its fastest rate since 1992--higher gas prices, higher grocery prices, soaring costs for everything from household purchases, to automobiles, to housing itself. Inflation is painful enough, but it isn't the only problem. Employment growth has not been fast enough. Last quarter, GDP grew much more slowly than anticipated. Six months and trillions of dollars of government spending into the Democrats' efforts at a recovery, and Gallup says America's economic confidence is still only neutral. We are not--we are not--where we need to be. What about the rule of law? There is still a historic surge in people trying to come across our southern border, but administration officials have spent far more energy denying responsibility for the problem than trying to fix it. Catch and release is still the name of the game. According to news reports, out of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who have simply been released into the interior of our country without a court date--now listen to this--just 13 percent--13 percent have shown up at their mandatory meeting with ICE afterward. So the border is functionally open--especially absurd at a time when many leaders are asking American citizens to step up various COVID precautions. Not much testing, social distancing, or mask wearing is happening in the Rio Grande Valley. Meanwhile, a surge in violent crime, including recordbreaking murders in many places, has too many citizens afraid of their own city streets. Perhaps our Democratic friends think foreign policy is going well. I sure wish it were. The President's rushed pullback from Afghanistan has left our friends and partners in the lurch and rolled out a red carpet for a Taliban takeover that is already underway. Its approach to Iran appears to be promising big concessions to our adversary for no reason even as their terrorist proxies continue to attack U.S., Israeli, and Arab interests all across the region. While I appreciate the administration's tough talk on Russia and China, those words ring hollow when they fail to impose real consequences on cyber attacks and propose to cut our defense spending after inflation. So what about COVID-19 itself? Certainly, the pandemic is not the fault of any administration or any political party, but this administration boasted with great confidence they had a playbook that was guaranteed to crush the virus. They have continued to roll out the vaccines the prior administration developed, and for that, they certainly deserve some credit. But, especially recently, Americans have received far too many mixed messages and muddied communications about masks, vaccines, and what risks remain and for whom. Meanwhile, the Democrats' allies in the teachers unions continue to speculate publicly that perhaps schools may not remain open this fall after all. They are flirting with another lost year for our kids even when there are safe and effective vaccines that can reduce adults' risk of grave illness to almost nil and when we know that, mercifully, this virus has mostly spared children from serious illness the whole time. So, look, everyone is rooting for America; everyone is rooting for the recovery that middle-class families deserve; but that is not what the Democrats' decisions and policies are delivering. No wonder America's optimism has been in free fall the last few months. One survey found that a majority--55 percent--are pessimistic about where the country is headed in the coming year. That pessimism has increased almost 20 percentage points since just this spring. The soul of America has not been restored. It is anxious, it is uneasy, and in too many cases, the more the Democrats' policies have taken effect, the more problems American families have faced. Now, certainly, the 6-month mark still provides plenty of time for my Democratic colleagues to recalibrate. We have already notched some bipartisan wins here in the Senate. Our colleagues could put away the partisan approach that has already supercharged inflation, slowed rehiring, and is setting back our national security. But, alas, our Democratic colleagues are signaling they are still addicted to going it alone. My friends on the other side are signaling that a few days from now, just a few days from now, they will begin the process of ramming through a reckless, multitrillion-dollar taxing-and-spending spree that will stick middle-class families with higher costs, more inflation, fewer jobs, and lower wages. It is not the strategy that will turn around Democrats' lackluster report card; it will do just the opposite. It almost seems designed to make every problem that families are facing considerably worse. It would meet significant inflation with another massive avalanche of printing and borrowing. It would hammer a tenuous economic recovery with historic tax hikes and job-killing Green New Deal regulations. It would, for some reason, respond to a live border crisis with a big amnesty to lure even more people here illegally. No working American in Kentucky or anywhere else would look at a plan like this and get on board, and neither will a single Republican. If Washington Democrats really want to take the remarkable head start they inherited at the dawn of this recovery year and squander it through bad policy, they will need to do it all alone.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, a number of our colleagues in both parties worked through the weekend to finalize their draft agreement on a major bill for our Nation's infrastructure. I want to thank the Senators who worked hard and long to get this effort this far already. I am confident that out of the 100 of us who serve in this body, 100 will be able to find parts of the legislation that we wish were different. But I believe our colleagues' draft text provides a good and important jumping-off point for what needs to be a robust and bipartisan process out here on the floor. Infrastructure is exactly the kind of subject that Congress should be able to address across the aisle. Roads, bridges, waterways, airports-- these things are not luxuries for the greatest Nation in world history. They are necessities. Necessarily, legislation like this will be big and complex. It will necessarily affect all 50 States. That is why, while I salute the hard work of our colleagues who produced the base text that is now before us, their conversations can't be the Senate's last word. Senators on both sides expect and deserve opportunities to have a say and to put their own State's imprints on this major bill. Just as infrastructure itself is not a luxury but a necessity, the same goes for the Senate having a robust and bipartisan amendment process on legislation of this magnitude. Our full consideration of this bill must not be choked off by any artificial timetable that our Democratic colleagues may have penciled out for political purposes. Our bipartisan negotiators have already been taking this task very seriously. The American people need the Senate to continue taking it seriously, as well. On another matter, this bipartisan work on infrastructure just reinforces the recklessness of the purely partisan taxing-and-spending spree the Democrats want to ram through next. Even before we get to this week, there is ample evidence the Senate is fully capable of passing policies that are actually smart, that actually make things better for American families, and to do so with bipartisan majorities. A year and a half ago, the Senate turned a blank sheet of paper into the CARES Act that saved our healthcare system, saved our economy, and poured money into Operation Warp Speed to help unlock vaccines in record time--overwhelming bipartisan support. A year ago, we passed the Great American Outdoors Act, a historic investment in our Nation's national parks and national treasures-- another very large bipartisan vote. Last December, there was yet another bipartisan COVID rescue package, and just a few months ago, Senators once again compromised and passed a big bipartisan bill addressing American competitiveness versus China. There is nothing stopping policies from earning bipartisan support here in the Senate, when they deserve it. Bills that deserve to pass the Chamber are not having a hard time passing. So the fact that our Democratic colleagues will immediately pivot to a staggering, reckless, tax-and-spend spree that will not earn a single Republican vote, well, that tells Americans everything they need to know. This 50-50 Senate, a very narrowly divided House, and a President who promised unity and togetherness have decided they want to respond to an environment of uncertainty and inflation with a sprawling $3.5 trillion socialist shopping list and a huge set of painful tax hikes. That is their plan. Our friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Vermont, may not have won the Democratic Presidential nomination, but his ideology sure has won the war. So, in the next few days, the Democratic leader says they will start the process of ramming through this awful, awful package. They want to respond to a border crisis with amnesty. They want to respond to runaway inflation and soaring costs for families with even more reckless spending, printing, and borrowing. They want to respond to a growing worker shortage by turning a tax credit for working parents into permanent welfare with no work requirement. They want to respond to an uneasy economic recovery with massive tax hikes and a whole catalog of Green New Deal mandates and regulations so Washington bureaucrats can run the country. So, if what Senate Democrats are planning to do next were a good idea, it would read like one; and it would smell like one; and it wouldn't require a hyperpartisan high-wire act from Senate Democrats to pull it off.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am sorry to begin my remarks today with a third Senate eulogy for this week alone. Last evening, we received word that our former colleague from Michigan, Senator Carl Levin, passed away at the age of 87. Carl's fellow Michiganders elected and reelected him six times. He was the longest serving Senator from Michigan ever. His home State liked what they had in this passionate activist turned attorney, turned public servant. His dutiful, diligent, and detail-oriented approach led Senator Levin to build expertise and win respect across a huge range of issues. The pinnacle of our colleague's career was his years atop the Senate Armed Services Committee. I certainly did not always reach the same conclusions that Carl did, but his independence, his genuine humble curiosity, and his affection for the men and women who wear the uniform were impossible to dispute. He was earnest. He was solid, forthright, and devoted to the defense of our Nation in ways that he thought best. I especially admired Carl's courageous, consistent defense of the Senate filibuster and the unique structures that define this institution. He never let short-term political facts cloud his long- term judgment in that crucial area. I know all of our condolences go out to Barbara and the entire Levin family today and to all Senators, staff, and friends who will miss our colleague.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, yesterday, I joined a number of my Republican and Democratic colleagues and voted to begin floor consideration of bipartisan compromise legislation for our Nation's infrastructure. Our country would benefit a whole lot from some targeted investment in the kinds of real, tangible projects that fit a commonsense definition of actual infrastructure--roads, bridges, ports, waterways, airports, broadband. A bipartisan compromise to responsibly finance these kinds of investments is guaranteed to be big and complex. It is guaranteed to be the kind of legislation that no Member on either side of the aisle will think is perfect. But it is an important basic duty of government. I am glad to see these discussions making progress. I was happy to vote to begin moving the Senate toward what ought to be a robust, bipartisan floor process for legislation of this magnitude. This kind of focused compromise that our colleagues have been hashing out could not contrast more sharply with the multitrillion-dollar reckless taxing-and-spending spree the Democrats hope to ram through on a party-line vote later this year. As I have said before, the Democrats' spree is reckless on multiple levels. We are all familiar with the staggering $3.5 trillion bottom line. We all know it would only amp up the painful inflation that is already hammering middle-class families, in large part because of the last partisan deluge of spending Democrats rammed through just a few months ago. But just as alarming is the parade of leftwing ideas that comprise this mess: turning temporary pandemic welfare payments with no work requirements into a permanent dole, shoving through big chunks of the Green New Deal, government price-fixing that would leave us with fewer new medicines and new cures. And then there is an effort to further inflame the Biden administration's border crisis with a far-left amnesty. We have now seen the highest unaccompanied child arrivals on record, the biggest month for immigrant encounters in 21 years. This month, total CBP apprehensions for the calendar year are expected to top a million--a million--for the first time in 15 years, and we still have 5 months to go. So one might think my friends across the aisle would try to avoid repeating the missteps that created the crisis; that they would be careful to avoid doubling down on the perverse incentives generating so much suffering down at the southern border. But, apparently, Washington Democrats intend to do the opposite. Their reckless taxing-and-spending spree would include an even bigger green light for this crisis at the worst possible time. Under the Biden administration's unenforceable catch-and-release policy, just 13 percent of the 50,000 individuals who have been released into the United States since March have actually reported to assigned ICE checkups. So in a sense, either intentionally or through incompetence, the administration is already practicing a policy that amounts to functional amnesty in many cases. What Democrats want now is to make that explicit and, believe it or not, permanent. They would effectively like our southern border to be even more open than it is now, even during an ongoing public health emergency that has Federal, State, and local officials contemplating new batches of rules for American citizens. The message to Americans appears to be: Put your guard back up, even if you are vaccinated. But to a jaw-dropping degree, the message to people arriving at the southern border seems to be: Come on in. Even if you are COVID positive, come on in. CBP data are reportedly showing a huge uptick in positive COVID tests in the Rio Grande Valley sector. That is just one sector, and that is just among whatever fraction of the individuals are actually being tested. And among individuals in ICE custody, apparently one in three-- one in three--are declining to receive a vaccine. Yet it seems the Biden administration doesn't consider a COVID diagnosis any reason to make an exception to its catch-and-release policy. Alarming reports of COVID-positive detainees being turned out into Texas communities even have border-State Democrats sounding the alarm. I hope President Biden is listening. Maybe Members of his own party will have better luck conveying what the American people have known for months: The situation at our southern border is a crisis. It deserves real attention and real solutions, not a reckless taxing-and-spending spree with amnesty policies that would make things considerably worse

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on a completely different matter, for the second time this week the U.S. Senate family must bid a sad farewell to a member of its alumni society. Only six different individuals have served as Senate Parliamentarian since the position was formally established back in 1935. It is a unique and remarkable position that seems to require unique and remarkable people. Bob Dove served two stints as Parliamentarian from the early 1980s to the early 2000s. He passed away yesterday at the age of 82 after a long illness. I was just a rank-and-file Senator during Bob's stints on the dais, but everyone in the entire Senate knew all about Bob's brilliance and his incredible spirit. Bob Dove knew this body's history and its rules to the tenth decibel place. He was also a constantly jovial person, as approachable as he was smart. His love for the Senate was tangible. It was palpable, and it was not only a love for the institution, itself, as an abstraction, it was also a love for the human beings who comprised it. I understand that back in the day, Bob had a go-to one-liner to help himself and his fellow professionals here on the floor through the tougher days. Here is what he said: ``You may love the Senate,'' he would dryly declare, ``but the Senate may not love you back.'' But a little gruff sarcasm couldn't conceal Bob's true affection. In fact, his enthusiasm for this place was so contagious that it swept up multiple generations of his family. About a year and a half ago, we said goodbye to Bob's daughter, Laura Dove, herself a long-serving, well-loved and widely respected Senate staff leader as she left the post of Secretary for the Majority. Even now, two of Bob's grandchildren are spending their summers right here in the Senate, helping out in different positions. Either Bob Dove's brood just cannot quit this multigenerational addiction to public service or perhaps it is the Senate that cannot quit them. So our condolences and our prayers go out to Bob's wife Linda, to Laura and her brother and sister, and to Bob's grandchildren and extended family.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday, our colleagues Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Shelby announced a bipartisan agreement on emergency funding for several pressing security matters. The Appropriations Committee set out to address three key priorities: First, reimbursing the costs incurred by the Capitol Police, the National Guard, and other law enforcement for their assistance during and after the January 6 attack on the Capitol; and providing for necessary repairs and security updates to the Capitol Complex. Second, addressing a shortfall from the efforts to keep Congress a safe and functional workplace during the pandemic this past year and a half. This is everything from PPE to overtime pay for staff. And, third, some urgent support for our Afghan partners who have assisted in the fight against terrorism and now seek to flee the deteriorating situation brought about by the administration's literally disastrous decision to abandon that country. We owe a real debt to the men and women of the Capitol Police, DC Metro Police, National Guard, and other agencies who helped secure and protect our workplace. We are grateful to support staff, from the Architect of the Capitol's team to the Attending Physician's office, to the Sergeant at Arms, who have worked day and night keeping us functioning safely throughout the pandemic. And we intend to keep our Nation's promises to brave Afghans who have taken great risks to help Americans and our partners fight the terrorists. So I applaud the bipartisan work of our colleagues. I am sure neither side finds the compromise perfect, but I believe that both sides should and will agree it is absolutely necessary.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on a different matter, the massive, massive taxing-and-spending spree that Democrats want to ram through this summer has problems that go even beyond inflation, rising costs, and massive tax hikes. The problem is not just Democrats' jaw-dropping $3.5 trillion pricetag. It is also the long list of bad liberal policies that this reckless taxing-and-spending spree is supposed to purchase. I spoke yesterday about just a few of those bad ideas. They are talking about amnesty for illegal immigrants, socialist price-fixing that would leave us with fewer new prescription drugs, fewer new treatments, and fewer new cures. They want to permanently change the child tax credit into welfare with no--no--work requirements; smuggle in big chunks of the Green New Deal. And in case all of this were not enough, some Senate Democrats want to use this taxing-and-spending spree to grab control over all 50 States' election laws. I thought we just had that debate a couple of weeks ago. Remember, for several years now, our Democratic friends have claimed that every successive election proved they needed to grab partisan control over our democracy. In 2016, 2018, and 2020, win or lose--win or lose--when foreign interference occurred and when it did not occur, every possible result has been claimed as proof that Washington Democrats should rip up our democracy's rule book and write a new one that benefits them. The latest phony justification has been the false notion that a few States' mainstream voting laws equal some kind of assault on democracy as we know it. Of course, that is absolutely utter nonsense. Americans want it to be easy to vote and hard to cheat. Voter ID protections are hugely popular. Basic voter roll maintenance is common sense. The new law in Georgia, for example, provides for more flexible early voting and absentee voting than many blue States, including New York. But the facts weren't about to stop the Democrats' big lie. The absurd comparison to Jim Crow segregation and all kinds of other horrors have continued apace. To provide a little more context about this fake hysteria, we can also look internationally. As one columnist recently observed in the Washington Post, the balance struck by the State of Georgia amounts to ``one of the most expansive voting access laws in the world. Most other countries do not allow no-excuse absentee voting, and dropboxes are also virtually unknown elsewhere,'' other democracies around the world. ``If Georgia's elections are undemocratic, then almost all of our democratic allies are also undemocratic.'' If liberal activists and woke corporations believed their own rhetoric, they wouldn't stop at boycotting and threatening the State of Georgia. They couldn't possibly. They would be busy trying to divest from most of our NATO allies and essentially the rest of the entire developed world. Some European countries allow mail-in voting, but most do not. We constantly hear from our socialist friends how we should be emulating Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. Well, none of them allow in- country postal voting--not a one. Bring on the boycotts, I guess. And you don't even want to hear about early voting. Goodness gracious. But France, Spain, Germany, Italy, the UK, Ireland--not a day of in-person early voting in any of those countries, none of them. That is according to an international NGO that studies democracy. So, remember, the Texas and Georgia laws codify a whole lot of early voting, mail-in voting, and lots of election-day voting. And this is supposed to be the death of democracy? Some outrage on a global and historic scale? Give me a break. What nonsense. Even going by Texas's new proposals, there will be voting by mail in Paris, TX, but not in Paris, France. There would be almost 2 weeks of in-person early voting in New Berlin, TX, but zero days in Berlin, Germany. I am sure Democrats will be yelling at the Fortune 500 to boycott Europe any day now--any day now. Of course, the reality is that these moving goalposts are absolutely fake. The frantic outrage is phony. It is all meant to justify a political power grab that Democrats have had written and waiting since years before any of these new State laws, which are supposedly prompting it--yet another awful plank that my colleagues across the aisle want to hide in the reckless taxing-and-spending spree they hope to ram through Congress.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on one final matter, last week, some of our colleagues expressed disapproval of U.S. strikes against al-Shabaab terrorists in Somalia. I find their views difficult to understand. Al-Shabaab poses a significant threat to U.S. interests. But you don't have to take my word for it. Late in 2019, the leader of al- Shabaab, an al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist group based in Somalia, said: Our biggest target today is the Americans . . . The only reason we have exerted all this effort and undertaken all this preparation today is to attack the American troops. In the assessment of the commander of U.S. Africa Command, U.S. General Stephen Townsend, that is coming from ``the largest, wealthiest, and most violent Al Qaeda-associated group in the world'' and ``the primary African violent extremist organization threat to American interests.'' This is not a new threat. Al-Shabaab was designated a foreign terrorist organization back in 2008. Its leaders declared allegiance to al-Qaida in 2012, a year before their attack on the Westgate Mall in Kenya that killed 67 people. The Obama administration designated the group as an al-Qaida-associated force in 2016. That made it subject to the 2001 AUMF. At the time, it was a difficult but telling acknowledgement that the al-Qaida terrorist threat was growing. The raid that killed Bin Laden had clearly not ended the threat his terrorists posed to our country. As a result of its declared and demonstrated allegiance to al-Qaida, al-Shabaab is clearly subject to the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, no question. President Obama knew it. General Townsend knows it. Al-Shabaab themselves tell us they want Americans dead. What more, what more do the skeptics need? If our colleagues do not want the U.S. military to conduct strikes against the al-Qaida terrorists responsible for killing Americans and threatening our interests, I would be interested to hear how they propose we defend against these threats. So, by the way, with the administration's rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan, there are well-founded concerns that al-Qaida may be roaring back in that country. So which al-Qaida affiliate should we stop pressuring--al-Shabaab, AQAP, ISIS? Should we stop hunting for al-Zawahiri, the leader of al- Qaida? Administrations of both parties have identified and supported local partners who share an interest in combating terrorists. By and large, this approach has succeeded in keeping pressure on the terrorists while keeping more Americans out of harm's way. But despite the best efforts of local partners to keep the terrorists at bay and the best efforts of U.S. diplomats to broker peace, some terrorists do require direct action by the U.S. military to be stopped. These hard-core extremists pose a serious threat to American national security. They seek to attack our interests all around the world, including our homeland, if we let them. The threat they pose will not recede if we lose focus. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. So I hope the Commander in Chief will exercise the authorities the Congress has provided him and the tools Congress has funded to keep America safe against the terrorists who continue to target our homeland and our interests abroad. I suggest the absence of a quorum.