Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Procurement Regulations amendments and Senate Procurement Regulations, as amended, be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as Republican leader, I always enjoyed calling our colleagues' attention to longtime Senate staff as they notched milestones of service in our institution, but today, I would like to reflect for a few moments on a longtime advisor who is an institution in his own right. There have been any number of occasions over the past several decades when it would have been right and fitting to praise the talents and service of Paul Grove. There has certainly been no shortage of situations where, except for the efforts of this one man, the Senate might have missed opportunities to advance America's influence on the world stage. The longtime Republican clerk at the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations is quite literally that good, but Paul, like so many of the brightest unelected members of the Senate family, is also good at dodging credit for his extraordinary service to the Senate and to our country. Well, not this time. Tomorrow will mark a cumulative 30 years of Senate service for Paul--25 of them consecutively. He has more Senate experience than 96 of our elected colleagues, and as his first Senate boss, I am invoking my right to say a few words about it. Long before Paul Grove was the Senate's resident expert on the levers of American soft power and our trusted emissary to the furthest corners of Southeast Asia and even beyond, he was a junior legislative aide to a freshman Senator. And if memory serves, I initially paid him to advise me on, believe it or not, healthcare policy. In that sense, Paul's career resembles many Capitol Hill success stories: Show up with intelligence, a good work ethic, and let the rest of it sort itself out. But with due respect to the many thousands of smart and hard-working staff who walked these halls, Paul Grove's engine runs on even rarer fuel--a deep, sincere, and abiding belief that the task before him was good and worthy of his best. My fellow appropriators understand that when folks complain about ``how the sausage is made'' here in Washington, they are referring to us and the complex ways that we try to keep the lights on around here. But if you are ever tempted to think it is all a bunch of grizzled paper-pushers and number-crunchers, untethered to the real world, I would encourage you to spend some time with Paul Grove. My good friend Robin Cleveland, who preceded Paul at the subcommittee, described him as a ``true believer.'' That is dead right. He is a true believer in the dividends of American leadership, the power of our influence, and the prospects of democracy--even in places where it seems to be on the ropes. Perhaps that is why the only thing that ever pulled Paul away from the Senate and our important role in shaping American foreign policy was a chance to go even closer to the frontlines. By the time Paul returned from several years in Cambodia, where he supported fledgling democracy movements across Southeast Asia, he was the obvious choice to help me lead the subcommittee. And while no one could fill Robin's shoes, Paul brought his own, and they fit perfectly. His approach is certainly less profane but no less fortunate and formidable. Ask anyone in the State Department who has dealt with Paul whether it is worth trying to dodge his pointed inquiries. During my time as chairman, Paul and I crisscrossed the world together, and I learned the hard way that Paul's approach to trip planning could have made even our late friend the intrepid John McCain think twice. On my first codel to Iraq and Afghanistan with Paul, he had us wake up in Pakistan, attend briefings and lunch in Afghanistan, refuel in Oman, and have dinner in Turkiye. Paul may have been the only one still awake during that dinner, and I tried to institute a maximum ``two countries per day'' rule after that. In capitals and far-flung outposts alike, Paul's devotion to our mission made me smarter and more effective, and I am sure my successors as SFOPS chair, Judd Gregg and now-Chairman Lindsey Graham, know the feeling--no doubt, so did full committee leaders like Ted Stevens, Thad Cochran, Richard Shelby, and now Susan Collins. When I look back on this chapter of our work together, I am particularly grateful for Paul's focus on a cause that has come to mean a great deal to both of us: the pro-democracy movement in Burma. As the old saying goes, success has 1,000 fathers. Needless to say, Washington hasn't exactly jumped to claim credit for the modest progress of Burma's brave champions of democracy like our dear friend Aung San Suu Kyi, who sits today in house arrest under the thumb of a military junta. And yet, for friends of the people of Burma, Paul Grove has been a constant presence--scrutinizing every development, pressing successive administrations toward sensible United States policy that counters PRC influence and holds a military junta to account--and tending the embers of hope for a people who has faced far more than their fair share of hardship. Paul has been to the bottom of seemingly intractable challenges across the globe but has never lost sight of America's interest in resolving them. He became a master of using the power of the purse to compel transparency, extract justice for Americans, reward dedicated partners, and oil--or sometimes replace--the squeaky gears in the machine of soft power. Frankly, to the extent that America has had more responsible friends and capable allies in the fight against terrorism or communism or authoritarianism, it has been in no small part due to Paul's dogged efforts. I have been fortunate to get to hire and to have had the opportunity to hire a lot of very smart and dedicated young patriots during my time here in the Senate. Very rarely have I managed to draw on their talents for as long as I have been able to lean on Paul Grove. So, today, with 30 years under his belt, it is a good time to say thank you, Paul.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend of mine and a titan of Kentucky politics. He is the steady hand that has led the Kentucky State Senate as president for a record of more than 12 years--and counting--during which time his leadership has delivered exceptional wins for the Commonwealth. His name is Robert Stivers. Senator Stivers broke the record for longest serving Kentucky Senate leader last November, and as someone familiar with breaking a similar record, I am honored to recognize my friend, fellow leader, and a true Kentucky statesman of our time. I ask my colleagues to please join with me in applauding President Stivers on achieving this milestone and celebrating his impressive service over the years on behalf of his constituents and all Kentuckians. Robert's mother Joan graduated from Harvard and moved from Massachusetts to Clay County in eastern Kentucky where she met and married Bertram Stivers, a prominent lawyer who later served as a circuit judge. They were married 57 years and raised four children in eastern Kentucky, instilling in each of them a deep value of education and strong roots anchored in the mountains. When Robert ran for the 25th Senate District for the first time in 1996, the Beattyville Enterprise praised him stating, ``He's made of the same stuff as we are . . .''. There is no doubt that Robert leads every single day with the interests of his constituents at the forefront of his decisions. He is a proud graduate of the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville--like me--and his legislative work shows his understanding of how critically important these universities are to our Commonwealth's success. After being elected to the Kentucky State Senate, he quickly made a name for himself working on important legislation and building relationships within his conference and across the aisle. This diligence earned him the trust of his colleagues who elected him to the position of majority floor leader in 2008. Robert held this position until being elected senate president in 2013. His accomplishments are numerous, and Kentuckians across the Commonwealth have undoubtedly felt his impact. Senator Stivers has led the charge on combatting drug abuse and maintains an unwavering commitment to helping find solutions to this issue that plagues his constituents and so many other Kentucky residents. He has paved the way for increased cancer research funding and operations at the University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center. In the most recent State budget, President Stivers helped UK secure $20 million, and previously, he helped them acquire designation as a Comprehensive Cancer Center, which allowed increased access to Federal funding and attracted top talent in the medical research field. President Stivers' work in these spaces has improved thousands of lives and continues to set Kentucky up for future success in healthcare. Robert is a champion for Kentucky businesses, tirelessly pushing for significant incentives that attract investment to the Commonwealth. These include lowering the State income tax, providing tax credits to the entertainment industry, and a host of other policies, all of which have helped foster a business-friendly atmosphere in Kentucky. And it is worth noting that all of President Stivers' legislative wins have been accompanied by an impressive stewardship of taxpayer dollars, ensuring Kentuckians are being served by good government and not losing their hard-earned dollars to wasteful spending. Kentucky's bourbon industry has President Stivers as a close ally in the legislature. He helped change the State tax code to ease costs for the bourbon industry and change the flow of revenue so that our signature industry's success drives other sectors of Kentucky's economy, including education. Economic development in Kentucky is rapidly increasing, and when we search for those to thank, we should look no further than Robert Stivers. In his role, he has also worked to elevate Kentucky's profile in national legislative organizations. He has served as chair of the Southern Legislative Conference, chair of the Council of State Governments, and as chair of the Senate Presidents Forum. In 2015, he was recognized by Governing Magazine as Public Official of the Year. President Stivers leads with integrity every day, and while his portfolio proves an incredibly successful career, Robert's character is what distinguishes him the most. As a good listener and collaborator, he helps resolve disputes among his colleagues to make sure that minor disagreements refrain from blocking monumental progress. This is what it takes to make things happen, and Robert exemplifies this type of leadership all the time. As a prudent advocate for Kentucky, Robert has been an invaluable partner in my work in the U.S. Senate. I have always seen it as my duty to ensure Kentucky punches above its weight in securing Federal funding, and I have had the pleasure of working with Senator Stivers on these efforts for many years. I am grateful for Robert's friendship and his steadfast leadership in the Kentucky State Senate. He is a trusted adviser, and I am honored to work with him on behalf of our constituents. There is no doubt that Robert's work has made Kentucky a better place and has set our Commonwealth up for tremendous success. I know his family, and especially his four children, are incredibly proud of what he has been able to accomplish. So once again, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Robert Stivers for becoming the longest serving State senate leader in Kentucky history.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this week we learned that a seventh American had died in the war with Iran. SSG Benjamin Pennington, U.S. Army, was a native of Glendale, KY. That is right near Fort Knox. He was deployed with the 1st Space Battalion, 1st Space Brigade, at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. An Iranian strike mortally wounded him in the line of duty. I am confident, today, Glendale and the rest of Hardin County are surrounding Sergeant Pennington's parents Timothy and Carrie with support. Their son was, by all accounts, deeply admired by neighbors, pastors, and coaches who helped him become the man he became. At his alma mater Central Hardin High School, Benjamin Pennington was remembered as ``the quintessential all-American.'' Of course, there is no amount of praise for Sergeant Pennington's character, commitment, or bravery that can fill the hole left by his loss. The knowledge that he fell pursuing a noble cause is actually small comfort, but it cannot obscure the empty seat at the dinner table. And so my deepest sympathies are with the Pennington family today and in the difficult days that lie ahead.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will consider a resolution from my good friend and colleague Senator Kaine of Virginia. The purpose, as our colleague puts it, is to prevent the Nation from sending our young people to die in war without legitimate justification. I do not doubt the sincerity of our colleague's intentions. Like Kentucky, Virginia is a State with a large military footprint, and the magnitude of the risks undertaken by the brave people we represent is simply inescapable. But I would submit to each of our colleagues a few reminders as the debate unfolds. First, this weekend's events are not the beginning of a war but an attempt to end one that has spanned nearly half a century. The Islamic Republic of Iran was, quite literally, founded on the premise of existential war against America and against Israel. Over and over again, it has escalated this war, exported more terror, spilled more blood, and destabilized an entire region. So, make no mistake about it, this war belongs to the mullahs in Tehran. As I have explained so many times, over the years, the powers of the President for the use of military force--with or without prior congressional approval--are, actually, well established. Every single President during my time in the Senate has invoked these inherent authorities. From President Reagan's strikes on Libya to President Biden's strikes on the Houthis, to President Trump's use of force to end Iran's war of terror, it is squarely within his inherent authorities as Commander in Chief. Therefore, I will oppose the Kaine resolution and would recommend our colleagues do the same. Now, with that said, a President's clear authority to use military force does not absolutely absolve him from a responsibility to place his national security decisions on the broadest possible political foundation. In fact, precisely because Presidents hold such expansive constitutional authority, it is incumbent on them to ensure such use is judicious, rooted in core national interests, and broadly supported by the American people. Literally, for decades following World War II, Presidents of both parties tended to take this responsibility quite seriously. They understood that wild swings in foreign policy between administrations could confuse our allies and embolden our adversaries. So, throughout the Cold War, they spent considerable time and political capital explaining to the American people the stakes, objectives, and strategies they intended to pursue in service of our national security. When it came to Iran policy, President Obama did not take this responsibility to heart, and it is little surprise that his unilateral deal did not survive for long after his Presidency. Likewise, despite my urging, President Biden failed to speak clearly to the American people about our national interest in helping Ukraine resist aggression. President Trump has made a bold and tough decision--one that could transform the region for the better, literally, for generations to come. But there are risks involved, and I hope his administration will work to explain the connection between the Commander in Chief's worthy objectives and the military and diplomatic means to achieve them. Connecting ends and means is the essence of strategy, and it is important for the administration to explain to the American people how they intend to do so. In turn, our colleagues in the minority have a responsibility to actually listen and to not reflexively oppose foreign policy decisions of Presidents they don't like. After all, we don't have to look far into the past to find Senate Democrats voicing support for keeping the military option on the table in America's dealings with Iran or supporting President Biden's unilateral military force against Iran's proxies in the absence of explicit congressional authorization. More immediately, I hope our colleagues will consider the consequences of terminating ongoing operations before they have even succeeded. What would the Chinese or the Russians conclude if America abruptly lost its stomach for decisive action? What cold comfort would our allies take from an increasing erratic and partisan application of U.S. foreign policy commitments? The consequences of successfully ending Iran's decades-long war against us and our allies and partners could reach far beyond the Middle East. This is evident in the way Russian and Chinese officials quickly--very quickly--condemned U.S. and Israeli operations and in their unwillingness or inability to come to Tehran's aid in a meaningful way. Two observations at this point: First, one of the reasons U.S. operations have enjoyed such freedom of maneuver in the Western Hemisphere and the Middle East is that Russia is bogged down in its war in Ukraine--a war whose battlefield innovations are already shaping operations over in the Gulf. If Russia were more unencumbered, it could have provided more materiel assistance to its partners in Venezuela and Iran. The price of peace in Ukraine matters, and we should be careful not to compel an outcome that allows Russia to reassert itself in regions of critical importance to the United States. At the same time, there is tremendous value globally to destroying Iran's ability to produce the drones that rain down death in Europe and the Middle East alike. There is likewise value in disrupting its illicit oil trade with the PRC. And, finally, a word about munitions and military readiness and the defense industrial capacity. Regardless of disagreements on the pending question, every one of us should want the United States to have the best possible military. Every one of us should want our Armed Forces to be prepared for even more challenging threats. Today, the U.S. military is not prepared to confront aligned adversaries and deter or defeat aggression simultaneously on multiple fronts. The reasons are numerous, and there is plenty of blame to go around. Administrations have failed to submit budget requests that meet the basic requirements of the military. Congress has failed to pass timely, full-year appropriations. Industry has failed to anticipate inevitable demand. And, now, America faces Russia's war against Ukraine and China's determined military modernization with shallower magazines of critical munitions. But there is good news. With more funding, there is spare production capacity to be tapped for this year, fiscal year 2026. We can build more munitions, produce more spare parts for airplanes, repair ships, invest in dilapidated military infrastructure, and deepen our cooperation and coproduction with our allies. We shouldn't wait another year to seize these opportunities. The way to realize the well-resourced military our Nation requires for future conflicts is to build it today, right now. My colleagues have heard me invoke the wartime words of the late ADM Harold Stark, but his warning bears repeating: Dollars cannot buy yesterday. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, hard power is the cornerstone of U.S. national security. It is the credibility behind our commitments to defend our core interests, and investing accordingly is one of Congress' core responsibilities. I am proud that the Senate will uphold that responsibility today by passing a full-year Defense appropriation for the fiscal year 2026. Our action today is urgent, important, overdue, and yet insufficient. Allow me to briefly remind our colleagues what this vote represents. About a year ago, I offered the incoming administration a few recommendations on the nature of American power and what it would take to sustain it in the face of grave and growing threats. I urged them to push for sustained, year-on-year increases to the Defense top line to prioritize investments in the industrial base that equips both America and our allies and expand the use of multiyear procurement contracts to solve glaring shortages of critical munitions. Suffice it to say, the President's advisers didn't initially seem to heed this advice. In fact, senior budget and defense officials welcomed the first full-year continuing resolution for the military in history-- a move that effectively left the Pentagon operating on President Biden's budget and handicapped President Trump's efforts to ensure peace through strength. Then, they went about trying to internally cut 10 percent of the military services, setting arbitrary budget reduction quotas to shortchange growing military requirements. Even the administration's first official budget request left much to be desired. Indeed, Defense appropriations received a fiscal year 2026 defense budget request from OMB that would have amounted to a net cut after inflation, a continuation of the Biden approach to discretionary appropriations. As the President's foremost national defense priorities came into focus--from homeland missile defense to shipbuilding renaissance--the inadequacy of his administration's budget request became undeniably clear. And what about the budget reconciliation process that could have been optimized to make one-time investments in critical sectors of the defense enterprise? Administration budget officials treated it like a shell game. Much of the Defense Subcommittee's most arduous work in recent months has been helping the armed services address real, urgent operational shortfalls that were created when much of Washington decided to pretend--pretend--that the one-time infusions of cash could take the place of consistent annual appropriations. To be clear, this was not the intention of my friend Chairman Roger Wicker, who has been a farsighted advocate for sustained increases in annual defense spending. But OMB's effort to shift major, long-term funding priorities from the base budget to reconciliation didn't just suddenly obviate the need for steady full-year appropriations. In fact, it just created additional challenges. The full-year bill we are passing today reflects great efforts on the part of Senate appropriators to make up for growing shortfalls that are stifling the Department's ability to deliver the President's military priorities. These aren't small, little-bitty shortfalls. The administration has acknowledged fiscal year 2026 funding gaps of at least--now, listen to this--$40 billion. The President's Golden Dome and Golden Fleet will not be built on a bronze budget. That is precisely why Senate appropriators marked a bill that would have exceeded the President's budget request by $22 billion. The conferenced bill we are voting on today comes in at $14 billion below that top line. So the final bill is only $8.4 billion above the President's request. Clearly, that is not enough to cover an official request for $28 billion in munitions that came in while we were conferencing the bill. A request for $28 billion in munitions came in while we were conferencing the bill. Clearly, it is not enough to cover the $40 billion in shortfalls identified by the Department, but within our limited top line, this bill makes modest but important downpayments on key priorities for the military: critical munitions, shipbuilding, sixth-generation fighter aircraft, missile defense, and more. In any event, it was always clear that glaring challenges-- particularly to industrial capacity and defense innovation--would not be solved in a single budget cycle. This is the business of years upon years, and it will require, at the most basic level, a renewed recognition of the centrality--centrality of hard power. Twelve months into the President's term, I am hopeful that appropriators will have more allies in our work to deliver consistent and increasing full-year resources. The President, for his part, indicated an ambitious goal for the coming year: a 2027 defense budget of $1.5 trillion. Needless to say, building toward this target next year would be a lot easier if we had been able to make more headway this year. Going forward, every stakeholder is going to have to acknowledge that we can't nip and tuck our way to building the military we need to meet the growing threats. When administration officials tell the Department at the eleventh hour to finally make more room for investments in critical munitions, they ought to be ready to join us in advocating for our top line, not expect warfighters to take it out of hide. Regardless of whether we are willing to put our money where our mouth is on national defense, we face adversaries who are. And they will continue to pose growing threats to our security and to our interests. So, again, our work is far from over. But as we take this significant step in the right direction, I would be remiss in not acknowledging the dedicated, collaborative efforts of colleagues who recognize the importance of the task at hand, particularly Chair Susan Collins-- clearly, the most outstanding Appropriations chair in the time that I have been here--and my counterpart Chris Coons. Both have been fabulous supporters. I am also deeply grateful to the talented professional staff who have given so many nights and weekends to pull fiscal year 2026 appropriations finally across the finish line. On the majority side, Rachel DaPieve, Laura Forrest, Megan Handal, Cole Hodge, Alexa Lorick, Todd Phillips, Kathryn Plunkett, Kim Segura, Tom Shaffer, Elise Stebick, and, of course, the fearless leader to the left here, Robert Karem. We have been friends and collaborators for a long time, and there is nobody better on this subject. I know my team has appreciated close collaboration with their counterparts on the minority staff, including Gabriella Armonda, Dylan Byrd, Abigail Grace, Brigid Kolish, Ryan Pettit, led by Rob Leonard. My sincere thanks are with each of them for their devotion to such a worthy task. But as Henry Kissinger observed, ``Each success only buys an admission ticket to a more difficult problem.'' So after taking the weekend to catch their breath, I will look forward to welcoming the team back to the appropriations salt mines next week. The President's $1.5 trillion defense budget for next year is a worthy goal, and after Congress finishes its work on fiscal year 2026, we will stand ready to do our part to help him achieve it. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a true patriot, proud American, and good friend of mine, Sanford ``Dan'' Caudill. Sadly, Dan passed away on December 17 of last year after a private battle with cancer. His passing continues to weigh heavily on his family and friends. I was honored to have had the opportunity to personally express my condolences to the family and to celebrate his life during his visitation. Today, I would like to take a moment to recognize Dan. He never asked for any praise nor did he want it, but he constantly lived his life through his faith, always making outstanding efforts to improve the lives of others. Dan was an incredible businessman. He spent 45 years running his family business, Caudill Seed Company, and built it from a small agricultural supply company into North America's largest supplier of seeds and beans. Dan's work allowed him to connect with people across the country and around the globe, developing impactful relationships and working to make a difference in the agriculture industry. Between his business locations in Louisville and Winchester, he became known as a trusted partner in business in Kentucky and around the world. While he was a true believer in capitalism and a titan of his industry, he was most well known for his work helping those in need. Always willing to lend a hand and help others, Dan involved himself heavily in the philanthropic efforts of several organizations dedicated to giving people a second chance. He was a true believer in community and how it could shape the lives of those affected by substance abuse, homelessness, and criminal backgrounds who were just trying to get back up on their feet. Through it all, Dan made those around him feel loved and supported. Without hesitation, Caudill Seed readily focused its attention on providing job opportunities to those in need. Dan was a steadfast ally to people facing significant obstacles to finding gainful employment. In addition to his company, his philanthropic work with the Healing Place, the Ice House, and the Volunteers of America have helped countless people continue in their recovery journey and find affordable housing. This spring, the Volunteers of America plan to open an affordable housing project in Louisville called Monarch Station. Dan was the one who donated the land for this project. Where did the idea come from? It started when Dan invited a few homeless guys to have coffee with him to learn their stories. Inspiration took root. All it took was Dan's compassion to open a door and get to know a few guys over some coffee. This is the kind of person Dan was, a real change maker who always looked to hope instead of despair and who always looked for the next tangible way to make someone's life a little bit better. No one knew this more than his family. He was a loving husband to his wife Andrea and a devoted father to his three children: Cassandra, Corey, and Connor. Dan was a wonderful grandfather to his granddaughters Adalie and Aliya and beloved by his entire family. Jennifer Hancock is the CEO of the Volunteers of America Mid-States, and she gave a beautiful speech at Dan's funeral. I ask unanimous consent that her remarks below be printed in the Record. Much like Jennifer, I treasure the friendship Dan and I built, and I am forever grateful for his life of faith and servitude. I ask my colleagues to please join me in honoring Dan and thinking of his family during this time.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for years, the most pressing concern about the future of NATO was whether and when European allies would take the obligations of collective defense more seriously. But today, the biggest questions about the most successful military alliance in the history of the world would have to do with us, the United States: whether America still recognizes our country as an anchor of transatlantic security, an arsenal of democracy, and a global leader, not just a regional power. I need to make a number of points here, and it would be useful to talk a little bit about its history. The Second World War claimed tens of millions of lives, displaced tens of millions more, and left the old world crippled by food shortages and hyperinflation. After defeating Hitler's genocidal bid for world domination, American leaders understood that our interests and those of our European allies were linked, whether we liked it or not. As George Marshall put it, back in 1947, ``the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace.'' American security and stability depended on European security and stability, not least because conflict with Nazi Germany was succeeded immediately by the threat of conflict with the Soviet Union. Millions in Eastern Europe had gone from living under Nazi tyranny to living under Soviet tyranny. The American people understood the stakes. Back in 1947, more than three-quarters of Americans rejected the idea that the Soviet Union was merely building its defenses against future attack. Instead, they thought that Russia was bent on conquest. In 1948, two-thirds of Americans said America and Western European friends should join together for a mutual defense pact. By 1949, with the North Atlantic Treaty in the works, the question actually got more specific: Would the American people support ``a promise of mutual aid from all the members of the alliance if any single member nation is attacked''--``if any single member is attacked''? That was a higher bar--the commitment that would become article 5-- and yet an even bigger majority of recipients again said yes. Of course, there was some controversy and opposition. There were still isolationists ignoring lessons of the decade. But after years of neglect for the national defense, after the folly of appeasement and the failure of deterrence, after pouring the equivalent of 37 percent of America's GDP into the ``Arsenal of Democracy'' and burying 400,000 Americans, the American people still knew the costs of war, and they knew they would rather preserve the peace. Of course, they didn't intend to do it alone. Americans told pollsters that their early skepticism toward post-war alliance commitments stemmed from a fear that allies would rely too heavily on American leadership. This would be a recurring theme. But, importantly, for much of NATO's history, the U.S. leaders most concerned about burden-sharing were also fierce defenders of the alliance. They criticized allies because they wanted NATO to work, not because they wanted to score political points here at home. Let's just take, for example, our former colleague Sam Nunn. On multiple occasions, including the 1974 and 1985 NDAAs, he pushed to force allies to carry more of the costs of U.S. forward deployment. And yet, when a majority leader of his own party tried to force a phaseout of U.S. troops from Europe, our former colleague from Georgia fought back because he understood the value of American leadership and the importance of European security to our own. The strength of the transatlantic alliance is contingent on its leaders taking collective defense seriously--taking collective defense seriously. That is why I have always called out laggards and urged European allies to share more of the burden. But I have also given credit where it is due, and the simple truth is that our allies have undertaken a profound--profound--transformation. This year, Poland will spend 4.8 percent of its GDP on defense. Estonia and Lithuania will spend 5 percent, and Latvia will hit that goal in 2027. Alongside Nordic neighbors like Norway and Denmark, which have deployed to harm's way alongside their American comrades, NATO's newest members, Sweden and Finland, are each on track to meet the alliance's new spending target years ahead of schedule. Germany has dramatically increased defense spending, and the Germans have even amended their Constitution--amended their Constitution--to allow for deficit spending on defense. Whether Europe's largest economy is serious about its defense transformation is really no longer up for debate. That debate is over. Not every ally is making such impressive progress, but no one can claim ignorance of what is at stake. As Poland's Prime Minister put it bluntly, the choice facing Europe is this: ``money today or blood tomorrow''--``money today or blood tomorrow.'' Perhaps that is why, in addition to investing heavily in their own defenses, European allies are continuing to dwarf America's assistance to Ukraine by a factor of 10 to 1. Let me repeat that. European allies are continuing to dwarf--dwarf--America's assistance to Ukraine by a factor of 10 to 1. Our allies' long holiday from history is over. That is good news, and it must continue. Well, what about us--the Americans? European allies continue to grow their defense budgets, but ours have stayed flat across successive administrations. We are the ones leaving capacity unused and political will untapped. We are talking, but we are not doing--talking but not doing. The President was right to call for a major increase in defense spending, but the annual defense budget request from OMB this year doesn't even keep up with inflation. The fiscal year 2026 top line won't come close--close--to covering growing costs and requirements, like the multiyear munitions contracts the Department of Defense rightly wants to actually sign. We should keep the cost and value of America's own commitment to the transatlantic alliance actually in perspective. Take the year 1982-- right in the thick of the Reagan buildup that won the Cold War. In fiscal 1982, sustaining U.S. military operations in Europe accounted for less than 6.5 percent of defense outlays. Now, remember: Winning World War II meant surging defense spending to 37 percent of our GDP. But at the climax of the Cold War, when we were spending only 6 percent, sustaining a deterrent military presence in Russia's backyard took up less than 6.5 percent of our annual defense budget. Now, that sounds a lot less like an entangling alliance than a smart investment in preventing catastrophic war. Well, what did the American people say? How did they feel about that? In 1989, with the Soviets on the ropes, 75 percent said that NATO ought to be maintained beyond victory--maintained beyond victory. Thirty years later, in 2019, an even greater majority gave the very same response, even before Putin's escalation in Ukraine. What about now? With Russia waging a war of conquest and with China, Iran, and North Korea pitching in to help them, has NATO outlived its useful life? Is the notion of U.S. interests in Europe just a relic from the Cold War? Or, to paraphrase some of Moscow's most useful idiots, has NATO's existence and growth provoked Putin's aggression? Let's get a few things straight. For decades, America and our allies bent over backward to welcome Russian participation at NATO, including through the Partnership for Peace program, and to integrate Russia into the global economy. America sent billions of dollars in economic assistance and encouraged massive investment of private capital in the hopes that Russia would choose to live in peace with the nations it formerly enslaved and with the West. In other words, the invitation was open to join us and be a part in what we were doing. Putin has repeatedly rejected such peaceful coexistence. Instead, what he has done is he has chosen bloody, neo- Soviet empire-building instead. To the extent that NATO has grown, it has been in response to Russian aggression. If Putin is looking for someone to blame for Sweden's and Finland's accessions to the alliance, he can simply look in the mirror. His own brutality has validated the decisions of sovereign nations to join NATO and align with the West. As for the utility of the alliance for our interests, America's adversaries are choosing to work together. Responding by going it alone would be strategic malpractice. We are courting Russia and its GDP of $2.5 trillion at the expense of longstanding bonds with Europe and its GDP of--listen to this--$27 trillion? Europe collectively has a GDP of $27 trillion. Russia's is only $2.5 trillion. That doesn't even align with U.S. economic interests, let alone our values. Last year, Europe invested $3.5 trillion directly in the United States--here. In recent years, two-thirds of our European allies' growing investments in foreign military technologies have been in American-made systems. Together, we make up nearly half of the global economy. Europe plus America make up about half of the global economy. If we are serious about global competition with China, these are relationships worth tending. These are allies we ought to be working with, not against, which brings me to the matter of Greenland. The President is right that Arctic security is a central concern in our strategic competition with major adversaries, and he will find similar interest in Arctic security among allies like Denmark, which is investing billions of dollars in its own capabilities in the region. America's recognition of Denmark's political and economic interests in Greenland dates all the way back to World War I. The Danes have been close partners in the Arctic since World War II, and brave Danish soldiers fought and died in America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no ambiguity here--no ambiguity. Close ties with our northernmost allies are what make America's extensive reach in the Arctic actually possible. And I have yet to hear from this administration a single thing we need from Greenland that this sovereign people is not already willing to grant us. Unless and until the President can demonstrate otherwise, then the proposition at hand today is very straightforward: incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies in exchange for no meaningful change in U.S. access to the Arctic. That is the definition of ``allies''--plural--because this is about more than Greenland. It is about more than America's relationship with its highly capable Nordic allies. It is about whether the United States intends to face a constellation of strategic adversaries with capable friends or to commit an unprecedented act of strategic self-harm if we choose to go it alone. So let's make no mistake. All of the good progress the President has made in pushing allies to spend more on defense, the increased burden- sharing, the demand for American-made capabilities--all of it would be for nothing if his administration's ill-advised threats about Greenland were to shatter the trust of our allies. Following through on this provocation would be more disastrous for the President's legacy than withdrawing from Afghanistan was for his predecessor. The American people know this. Just 17 percent think trying to take control of Greenland is a good idea. Seventeen percent think our taking Greenland is a good idea. Instead, they understand intuitively that strong alliances make America more secure--more secure. The Reagan National Defense Survey, conducted late last year, found that 68 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of the transatlantic alliance--68 percent--and 76 percent support article 5 and a U.S. military response in the event of an attack on a NATO ally. In just 6 months, that measure grew by 5 percent. Here is the most interesting finding. Among Americans who initially said they would support a U.S. withdrawal from NATO, nearly one in five changed their mind when they learned how our European allies are stepping up their commitments to collective defense. I am happy to provide these findings to anyone in Washington who still bets against the future of the transatlantic alliance, but the American people, who already understand the stakes, may not be so patient. They are telling anyone who will listen that when they say ``peace through strength''--when the American people say ``peace through strength,'' they mean what President Reagan meant: leading with moral clarity, distinguishing clearly between aggressors and victims, investing in the arsenal of democracy, equipping friends--friends--who fight for themselves, preparing to win wars, and upholding the alliances that deter them. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to make just a few brief observations ahead of the vote on Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Act is not the law I would have written, and there are reasonable questions about its constitutionality. But it has been the law now for over 50 years. And it is important to remember what it was designed to prevent--and, even more importantly, what it wasn't. Back in 1973, the goal was preventing another Vietnam. The idea was to impose guardrails against the large-scale, indefinite commitment of U.S. troops abroad. And in shutting that door, the law very intentionally reaffirmed our Founders' decision to leave another door open. The law grants presidents clear authority for the limited use of military force. And of the many occasions over the years when colleagues on both sides of the aisle have invoked the War Powers Act to condemn such limited use of military force--by Presidents of both parties--I can't recall a single one in which Congress managed to change the facts and artificially constrain the Commander in Chief's authority. This time is no different. The President was well within this authority in his decision to bring Nicolas Maduro to justice. How do we know? A number of ways: First, plain statute: Notification of Congress within 48? Check. Withdrawal within 60 days? Try 60 minutes. What is more, recent history provides clear precedent from Presidents of both parties. What authority did this operation exceed that President Obama or President Reagan did not exceed in operations in Libya? Or President Clinton in Kosovo? What makes this time different than President Biden's strikes in Syria or Yemen? Certainly, there is little daylight between the legality of this operation and the one President H.W. Bush undertook to apprehend Manuel Noriega in Panama. You don't have to agree with a President's approach to national security policy to acknowledge his compliance with the law and his constitutional authority for the use of force, which makes the invocation of the War Powers Act such a tired and blunt instrument. For my part, I have consistently opposed resolutions like these aimed at constraining Presidents' constitutional authority. And I have done it on behalf of Presidents of both parties. I am old enough to remember when, during President Obama's feckless dealings with Iran, no less than the future Democratic leader insisted that, ``We should never take the military option off the table''. But every one of our colleagues remembers last summer when the frequent fliers of the War Powers Resolution reached yet again for their favorite tool after the President's decision to degrade Iran's nuclear program without putting a single American boot on the ground. Of course, there are serious questions at hand to which the Senate and the American people should expect serious answers from the Commander in Chief. The President's authorities to conduct military operations may be wide and well-established, but they incur a responsibility to situate decisive actions in broader, longer-term strategy. Maduro is an authoritarian thug. He reduced a once-prosperous neighbor of America to an impoverished vassal of Cuba, Russia, Iran, and China. He profited from the flow of lethal drugs to America. He spat in the face of Venezuelan voters. And, until very recently, he slept in peace while they starved. A Western Hemisphere without him or his ilk in power serves America's interests. But clearly, Venezuela and the hemisphere have a ways to go. To the extent that our colleagues are concerned about the mechanisms and timeline of a transition to democratically elected Venezuelan leaders, I share their curiosity. If they want to know more about the President's longer-term strategy to stabilize Venezuela and the Western Hemisphere, so do I. Suffice it to say that whatever the objective, whatever the strategy, America is well-served when its Presidents secure enduring bipartisan support for their foreign policies. President Obama ignored Congress in pursuing a reckless and bad nuclear deal with Iran. Unsurprisingly, that deal did not endure. Successfully returning Venezuela to its role of stable, prosperous, democratic neighbor is a noble goal, but an ambitious one. It doesn't come without risk. And it is worth making the clear case to the country. I appreciate the administration's willingness to brief Senators on the sensitive details of a tactical victory. But they owe it to the American people--and, frankly, the long-suffering people of Venezuela-- to lay out the path to strategic success in much greater detail. If the aim is to reestablish American primacy in its near abroad, great. If the idea is to evict enemies who hate America from a valuable foothold in our region, onward. A stable Venezuela, led by duly elected Venezuelans, will leave Americans safer and more secure. The administration should explain how that end goal will be achieved. In the meantime, I will oppose the Kaine resolution and would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record the list of members entitled to admission to the Daily Press Gallery for the 119th Congress.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record the list of members entitled to admission to the Periodical Press Gallery for the 119th Congress.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record the list of members entitled to admission to the Radio and Television Correspondents Gallery for the 119th Congress.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record the list of members entitled to admission to the Press Photographers' Gallery for the 119th Congress.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record updated ``Member Protection Regulations.''

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the language I helped secure in the Agriculture appropriations bill addresses a serious concern regarding the manufacturing and selling of unregulated, intoxicating THC products nationwide. I led the effort to legalize industrial hemp through the 2014 pilot program and the 2018 farm bill. Unfortunately, companies have exploited a loophole in the 2018 legislation by taking legal amounts of THC from hemp and turning it into intoxicating substances and then marketing it to children in candylike packaging and selling it in easily accessible places like gas stations and convenience stores all across our country. So the children end up being the unknowing consumers of these poisonous products and being sent to the hospital at an alarming rate. My efforts to close this loophole and stop this from happening are included in this appropriations package. It will keep these dangerous products out of the hands of children while preserving the hemp industry for farmers. Industrial hemp and CBD will remain legal for industrial applications--such as seed, stock, fiber, grain oil--or will be used in drug trials. This language merely clarifies the original intent of the 2018 farm bill, rooting out the bad actors and protecting the growing hemp industry. While some may masquerade as advocates for hemp farmers, even sometimes threatening to hold up government funding over this issue, I will continue to work on behalf of Kentucky's farmers while protecting our children not only in my State but in yours as well. I would urge my colleagues to do the same. Vote on Motion to Table Therefore, I move to table Senate amendment No. 3941, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to my good, longtime friend, U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District of Kentucky Charles R. Simpson III, in special celebration of the upcoming ceremony at the Gene Snyder U.S. Courthouse for the unveiling of his official portrait. Chuck and I have been friends for a while. In fact, our friendship goes all the way back to our internship with Henry Clay. Jokes aside, I am proud to have known Chuck for so long. We both attended the University of Louisville, but we didn't get to know each other until I came back to Kentucky to begin my law career. We practiced law together for a brief period. I was terrible and hated it. I wouldn't go to myself for a simple will. Chuck was great and loved it. And thankfully for me, Chuck also loved politics, so I got his help in running for Jefferson County judge-executive. We worked hard together on that first campaign. And amazingly, we won by 11,000 votes--a sizeable victory for a Republican in a blue city--and I was lucky to keep Chuck on my team as legal counsel. Chuck was also there when I first ran for Senate. I headed back to DC, and Chuck stayed in Louisville to build on his law career, but we remained in touch. Only a couple years into my first term, I had the opportunity to recommend a candidate for appointment to the Federal bench. Knowing Chuck's character and legal chops, I didn't have to look any further. President Reagan made the wise choice of nominating Chuck in 1986 to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. He served as chief judge for several years, beginning in 1994. Under his supervision as chief judge, the court underwent impressive transformations to improve its handling of administrative matters. I don't mean to brag in observing that Chuck's appointment turned out to be a great move. He has been an excellent judge who is respected throughout the legal community. He understands complex legal issues very quickly and always hears out both sides in court before making decisions. Judge Simpson's fairness and hard work earned him renown throughout Kentucky. He won the Louisville Bar's Judge of the Year in 2000 and the Kentucky Bar's Outstanding Judge of the Year in 2005. Chuck's work is inspired not only by his hometown of Louisville, but also by his academic and professional journeys abroad. He brings with him a special set of skills, knowing how to connect with others internationally. He created a special sister court relationship between his court and one in Croatia, and Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court William Rehnquist even appointed him to an international judicial council. Of course, I would be remiss not to mention the time Judge Simpson made international news on a visit to Russia when he accidentally locked himself in the courtroom cage usually reserved for the defendant. Apparently, it was quite difficult to find the key--in Russia, go figure. Everyone handled the situation with great humor, and luckily, his travels to other countries such as Cyprus, Slovenia, and many other places, did not include a similar experience--as far as I know. Devoted to the court and always finding enthusiasm for his work, Judge Simpson kept a sizeable caseload even after achieving senior status in 2013. He has a great sense of humor and his firm dedication to the law and commitment to improving the lives of others drives him every day. Judge Simpson's involvement in the community extends well outside of work too. He is a loyal member of local, State, and Federal bar associations, and his peers have entrusted him with leadership roles over the years because they know he represents them well and gets the job done. He holds status as an outstanding alumnus of UofL law school and received the Lawrence Grauman Award--the law school's most prestigious award--in 2006, honoring a lifetime record of leadership and service to the legal profession and community. Chuck's success is hard to encapsulate in just a few short pages. You never find him touting his own accolades since he is quick to credit others for his accomplishments, both on the bench and in his personal life. What he values and celebrates most is his family. Chuck is a devoted husband to his wife Clare, a proud father of their three children Charlie, Pam, and Lauren, and a loving grandfather to all his grandchildren. I have the pleasure of tailgating with Chuck and Clare several times a year to root on the Louisville Cardinals through thick and thin. It was also a joy to have their daughter Pam serve in my Washington office for several years. She was an integral member of the team. I know the entire Simpson family is beaming with pride today in celebration of this incredible man who devoted his career to serving the public and making a difference. I ask my colleagues to please join me in congratulating U.S. District Court Judge Charles Simpson on the special occasion, and recognizing his profound impact on Kentucky, the judiciary, and our country.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to an accomplished and compassionate Kentucky business leader Dr. Laurence ``Larry'' Benz, the founder of Confluent Health. I have had the opportunity to work alongside Larry, and we have developed a strong friendship. Through military service, professional sports, and now a thriving business career, he has accumulated a wide range of experiences to help grow Kentucky's economy. He will soon be inducted into the Kentucky Entrepreneur Hall of Fame for his transformational leadership abilities and impact on Kentuckians' lives. Prior to his start in the entrepreneurial space, Dr. Benz served in the U.S. Army as a captain in the Army Medical Specialist Corps. For his devoted service in the military, he received the Meritorious Service Medal. I am thankful for his bravery and unwavering commitment to our country. While still serving, Dr. Benz founded the Kentucky Orthopedic Rehab Team, a private practice outpatient physical therapy company. Through this work, he effectively pursued his passion for providing Kentuckians with excellent physical therapy access and care. The company went on to become the largest private practice in Kentucky and southern Indiana, eventually expanding into North Carolina and Florida. After selling that business, Dr. Benz went on to cofound with his wife Dr. Patricia Benz, a well-respected physical therapist Confluent Health. The company helps support businesses that offer rehabilitation services like physical therapy, occupational therapy, chronic pain management, and sports medicine. Confluent Health assists in all the ``behind-the-scenes'' work that goes into keeping these rehabilitation spaces open. Additionally, they help practitioners get access to specialty board certifications and post-professional programs so that they can focus on providing care instead of worrying about the business side of their practices. In 2022, I was glad to join Dr. Benz for the opening of Confluent Health's new headquarters in Louisville, marking a historic investment in our city while delivering first-rate care to Kentuckians.Dr. Benz then took everything he learned in his time as CEO of Confluent Health and stepped into a new role helping grow the Dental Care Alliance. They serve approximately 400 dental private practices across 24 States. Dr. Benz's excellence in business is paired with a drive to help others and give back to communities. Outside of his professional work, he has shown a commitment to education in Kentucky. In 2011, Dr. Benz was appointed to serve on the board of trustees my alma mater, the University of Louisville, and went on to be elected board chairman last year. Currently, he serves as a member of the UofL Athletic Association and the president's council. He is a proven leader whose expertise is invaluable in both the healthcare and academic spaces. He has been invited to present at over 250 physical therapy programs, national conferences, and MBA programs throughout the country. His vision for future generations of physical therapy providers is founded in the values of empathy and compassion. There is no doubt that Larry has made his mark on the industry and continues to leave a lasting impact each and every day. Larry's career is one focused on kindness and support. He has emphasized patients' well-being and mental health, along with their physical health. On the provider's side, he has lifted small private practices well beyond what they would have been able to do on their own, in a variety of fields of medicine. He has reached nearly every region of Kentucky over the course of his career, and I admire his and Patty's continued commitment to the Louisville area. I also admire their commitment to their family, with children Aaron, Lauren, Jonathan, and their grandchildren Levi, Johnny, Elliot, and Valora. Again, I ask my colleagues to please join me in congratulating Dr. Larry Benz on his induction into the Kentucky Entrepreneur Hall of Fame and recognizing his profound impact on Kentucky.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I know that many of our colleagues and the American people have seen the tragic news out of my hometown just yesterday. And I am grateful for their thoughts and their prayers this morning directed toward the people of Louisville. Folks around our county, Jefferson County, need those prayers right now and in the days and weeks to come. The death toll from last evening's UPS crash has continued to rise throughout the day. For the families of these victims and for the injured survivors being treated at area hospitals, life will never be the same. There is a lot of grief welling up right now in Kentucky. This would be true even in the case of a single life lost. But as local first responders, State officials, and Federal investigators continue their work today, I would like to help our colleagues understand what makes this tragedy such a gut punch in a place like Louisville. During the day, Louisville International hums with thousands of passengers from all across the country. But around the clock, Louisville is also a hub for global shipping and logistics, business supplies, consumer goods, and Christmas gifts. If it is going somewhere in short order, it is a very good chance it is passing through UPS Worldport in my hometown of Louisville. None of this is possible without teams of devoted professionals. Louisville is home to logistics experts, warehouse workers, aircraft crews, and maintainers. They take pride in their work, and their community takes pride in them. That is why this crash cuts so deep. It is about all of us. Today, Jefferson County schools and many local businesses are completely closed. Neighbors are mourning neighbors. So today will be a tough day in the Commonwealth. But the people of Louisville are grateful for the swift, lifesaving efforts of our first responders, from local police, fire, and EMS. They trust in the prayers of their fellow Americans. I want them to know that their representatives here in Washington are making sure that every Federal resource they need is on the ground and headed their way soon. I spoke with Mayor Greenberg this morning. My team and I will continue to stay in close contact with local, State, and Federal officials, including at the FAA and the NTSB, in the coming days. But first and foremost, I am keeping my fellow Kentuckians in my prayers and asking our colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a driven and civic-minded Kentucky business leader William P. Butler. Bill will soon be inducted into the Kentucky Entrepreneur Hall of Fame for transforming Corporex, a company he founded in 1965, into an multi- billion-dollar business. I ask my colleagues to please join me in applauding Bill on his induction and recognizing his company's immense positive impact on northern Kentucky. Bill took a risk in 1965, starting his career as a young man in real estate. In the beginning, it was hard to do business in the Louisville community due to his youth and inexperience. Bill had to innovate, so he hired staff who knew the landscape well, and in 5 years, his construction company had built 35 buildings across Louisville. He brought proof of these accomplishments back to Covington, which accelerated the growth of his company. In the 1980s, Bill began dreaming about the potential of Covington and northern Kentucky and decided to invest in new opportunities. He first focused on making the south shore of the Ohio River just as vibrant as its northern counterpart. This project eventually became the RiverCenter, a business complex home to numerous hotels, businesses, and other drivers of economic development. Bill also worked hard turning an area near the CVG International Airport into Circleport, one of Kentucky's foremost business parks spanning over 650 acres. Bill is a one-of-a-kind developer and has certainly made his mark. While Bill is an accomplished businessman, he is also heavily involved in improving the lives of others in the community. In 2005, he founded the Life Learning Center, which works to deliver education and care to at-risk individuals, helping them find gainful employment and get back on track. In 2024, 100 percent of graduates of the Life Learning Center were either employed or enrolled in secondary education. Graduates also gain access to ongoing support when they finish the program which bolsters support groups, a dining hall, and a computer lab. Many students even go on to volunteer at the center after they graduate. Bill is not only giving back to his community but also helping the cycle of growth continue by facilitating others in their giving back. Bill graduated from the University of Cincinnati with a degree in engineering and was granted an honorary doctor of education degree from Northern Kentucky University. He has also shown a commitment to education in Kentucky. His philanthropic work through the Butler Foundation gives scholars tuition assistance at universities in northern Kentucky. This academic year alone, 76 Butler Scholars have been awarded over $400,000 in tuition assistance. These scholarships are part of his larger goal of boosting northern Kentucky's economy and getting bright young minds to stay here in the Commonwealth. He knows how important it is for well-educated young people to join the workforce in the area. Additionally, he served on the President's Advisory Council at NKU from 2003 to 2012. Bill is a proven leader in all he does: business, community, family, and otherwise. His impact on northern Kentuckians cannot be understated, and I admire his commitment to his hometown. I know his wife Sue, of 55 years, is looking down with utmost pride as Bill joins the ranks of so many distinguished Kentuckians. Again, I ask my colleagues to please join me in congratulating my very good friend Bill Butler on his induction into the Kentucky Entrepreneur Hall of Fame and recognizing his profound impact on Kentucky.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, government shutdowns have real consequences. I have said that countless times during my time here. Incredibly, it seems to have taken Democrats a month to remember that the proverbial stove is, in fact, already hot. And yet, they aren't ready to turn it off, just turn it down a notch; just low enough that they can take the political heat. My friend from Delaware is right: Our military deserves a lot better than a government shutdown that jeopardizes their paychecks and the services military families count on. During Democrats' shutdown, the President has had to scrape together unobligated balances within the Defense budget in order to uphold the Nation's promise to servicemembers through another pay period. I certainly hope he won't have to divert resources from urgent modernization again to make payroll in another 2 weeks, but that ball, of course, is in the Democrats' court. I hope they realize the surest way--the surest way--to help servicemembers and civilian DOD employees is to simply turn government funding back on and pass full-year appropriations. I know my counterpart on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, of all people, understands this. He knows what would really help our Armed Forces because he and I worked closely together on a full-year bill for Defense that would pay servicemembers and invest more in the capabilities they need to keep America safe. I am grateful for Senator Coons' collaboration on the bipartisan bill that earned overwhelming support in committee and would add $22 billion above the President's defense request. This, by the way, is the bill that almost every Democrat voted against considering 2 weeks ago. I know the ranking member cares about the promises we made to the all-volunteer force and the challenges we expect them to make. I know he is concerned about the erosion of Congress's authority to set and fund national security priorities. So am I. And if we cannot appropriate, we will render ourselves completely irrelevant. The way to provide real certainty and to deliver serious full-year appropriations is to just open the government back up and pass our bill. It is really that simple. Therefore, I object.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Sheriff Berl Perdue, the president of the Kentucky Fraternal Order of Police--FOP-- who will be stepping down from leading this incredible organization after more than 13 years. Sheriff Perdue is a brave public servant who has devoted his whole career to serving and protecting Kentuckians through his roles as a police officer and sheriff of Clark County. I ask my colleagues to please join me in congratulating my friend Berl on a job well done. After graduating from Eastern Kentucky University in 1981 with a bachelor of science degree in police administration, Berl went on to attend the Kentucky Law Enforcement Council--KLEC--Basic Police Academy. His determination to lead and make a difference in the community was evident early on. Berl graduated as president of Class No. 141 and started his career with the Winchester Police Department in May of 1982. He joined the Kentucky Fraternal Order of Police that very same month, demonstrating his high regard for the organization from the very beginning. Not only has Berl served his fellow Kentuckians, but he has also served his fellow officers. Starting in 1991 and continuing for the next two decades, Berl served as president of the Winchester/Clark County FOP Lodge No. 34, making a name for himself by strengthening his relationships in the law enforcement community. During this time, he was also elected to serve as vice president of the Kentucky FOP, an office he faithfully carried out for 13 years. Berl retired from the Winchester Police Department in 2006 after 24 years on the force, and rising to the rank of detective sergeant. Berl continued his service to our great Commonwealth after being elected to the office of Clark County Sheriff, taking office in January of 2007. After only 1 year in office, the Kentucky Sheriffs' Association named him 2008 Sheriff of the Year. In June of 2012, Berl's peers elevated him to the role of State president of Kentucky FOP. I have had the pleasure of becoming friends with Berl over the years, relying on him for wise counsel and frank advice for anything related to law enforcement. In addition to leading Kentucky FOP, he also served as the 2021-2022 president of the Kentucky Sheriffs' Association, becoming the first person to simultaneously hold both positions. Berl's work ethic and commitment to getting things done allowed him to excel in both roles. His selfless spirit can also be seen in his service on the KLEC and his appointment to serve on the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board. As Sheriff Perdue's time in this role comes to an end, I want to acknowledge and honor his work representing over 9,800 sworn law enforcement professionals across Kentucky. Berl has shown immense dedication to others, always putting the Kentucky Fraternal Order of Police first. His commitment to our great State and Nation is unwavering, and I wish him the best in this next chapter of his life. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking him once more and in celebrating Sheriff Berl Perdue's career of public service.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my position on government shutdowns is pretty well-known. There is absolutely nothing to gain in taking basic government functions hostage for eleventh-hour partisan demands. I hope our Democratic colleagues will relearn that lesson in short order because the American people have plenty to lose from freezing important functions of the Federal Government. Here in the Senate, the Democrat shutdown is taking time we ought to be spending on important outstanding business, beginning with our obligation to provide for the common defense. In particular, our work to deliver full-year Defense appropriations is not finished. So I would like to talk briefly about what must come next after interim government funding is extended and what is at stake for our national security. The U.S. military is not immune from the disruptive short-term consequences of a government shutdown. But the long-term consequences of going without robust full-year Defense appropriations are far, far graver. I offered this warning in the spring when, for the first time, Washington told America's men and women in uniform to conduct today's operations and prepare for tomorrow's threats using yesterday's dollars. We put the national defense on a full-year continuing resolution and forced the military services to function for another year--another year--on the anemic defense budget signed into law by President Biden. A full-year CR is the enemy of readiness, modernization, and efficiency. The armed services want to make their budgets simpler, more efficient, and more flexible by consolidating budget lines. But they can't do that under a full-year CR. Punting new appropriations directly contradicts--directly contradicts--the Pentagon's stated goal of building a resilient, surge- ready munitions enterprise. The prohibitions on new program starts under a CR effectively put high-priority service modernization efforts literally on ice. The administration says it wants ``flexible and efficient'' investments. Well, there is nothing flexible, efficient, resilient, or lethal about running the national defense enterprise on a full-year CR, nor will a CR send the consistent signal industry and investors need to pour private capital into the long-overdue expansion of our defense industrial base. If you want to increase our Nation's capacity to produce munitions more quickly and in larger volumes, full-year CRs just might be the worst way to go about it. I don't mean to sound overly alarmed. God willing, the House-passed, short-term funding extension will give Congress enough time to deliver full-year appropriations and release our military from the constraints of the Biden fiscal year 2024 budget. But I want our colleagues to understand what is at stake this fall. The President has set some ambitious, important, and overdue priorities for America's national security, and none of them--none of them--come cheap: the Golden Dome for America, an American shipbuilding renaissance, sixth-generation stealth fighter aircraft, the long- overdue modernization of our nuclear force. Reconciliation isn't enough to support these major efforts, and neither is a perpetual freeze at the Biden fiscal year 2024 level. Reviving the warrior ethos, rebuilding the military, reestablishing deterrence--these are priorities we hear about all the time from the President's advisers. I certainly have no problem with rowing in that direction. I am all for high standards of physical fitness, but pushups alone--pushups alone--aren't going to stop Chinese hypersonic missiles. The next major conflict will likely be a test of lethality at very long distances. That is why I have spent years urging successive administrations to rebuild--rebuild--our global power projection and long-range fires. It is why I criticized the Biden administration for talking about China as the ``pacing threat'' but turning in defense budget requests that didn't even keep pace with inflation. The administration cannot afford to make this same mistake. So, this week, I was encouraged to hear Secretary Hegseth proclaim a ``Trump buildup'' in the mold of the Reagan buildup that helped end the Cold War. For the record, my fellow defense appropriators and I have been ready to deliver such a buildup since day one, and our bipartisan bill speaks for itself in putting money where our mouth is. Ah, but here is the rub: We can only make it happen if the administration moves from words to action, and an important step in that process is the national defense strategy. Historically, the national defense strategy is what administrations use to define threats, identify objectives, and propose coherent plans for aligning resources to actually meet them. But this time around, the stakes are a lot higher. A shortsighted NDS that doesn't align with the President's vision of American greatness and peace through strength could wind up as the pretext to extend Biden-era constraints on our military indefinitely. Unfortunately, early reports suggest that this risk may be real and that the NDS may turn out eerily similar to the rhetoric of Obama-era officials' who viewed their remit as managing America's decline amid a transition to a multipolar world. If the NDS ignores the importance of maintaining American primacy, fails to account for the global nature of competition with China, or discounts the value of supporting and integrating allies and partners, it would risk further sabotaging the President's efforts to restore peace through strength. So I will be interested to read how the Department is applying the lessons and dividends of security cooperation with allies and partners to looming challenges, how it plans to address critical munitions shortages even as its fiscal year 2026 request and reconciliation investment fails to maximize existing production capacity, and how it accounts for the increased likelihood of simultaneous conflict in multiple theaters. If the administration means what it says about restoring deterrence, it would recognize how plans to reduce security cooperation with frontline NATO allies invite more brazen Russian incursions into the alliance's territory and airspace; it would recognize how China is watching closely for signs of weakening American commitments to European allies, to Ukraine, or to AUKUS partners. Of course, responsible senior officials who understood the dividends of security cooperation would not have tried an end run around the President to freeze assistance to Ukraine. They certainly would have appreciated that cutting off intelligence sharing to the world's foremost experts in drone warfare might make it harder for the U.S. military to achieve drone dominance. On that count, I was encouraged earlier this week that the President himself green-lit an expansion of the intelligence cooperation that members of his administration had actually wanted to end. As our colleagues will recall, the President observed last month that Ukraine can win--the President said Ukraine can win--and unlike some of his advisers, the American people are indicating in clear majorities that they think we ought to help. By one recent poll, more than 6 in 10 Americans support--support-- sending more arms and military supplies to help Ukraine win. That includes--listen to this: A clear majority of Republicans support helping Ukraine. And the recent voting history of the House of Representatives indicates that poll isn't a fluke. Last month, House Republicans voted overwhelmingly--House Republicans voted overwhelmingly--to reject an amendment to the NDAA that would have barred further assistance to Ukraine. Listen to this: 72 percent of House Republicans--72 percent of House Republicans--including House leadership, said that continuing to arm Ukraine's defense was a good idea. So the public is behind it. Republicans in Congress are behind it. We know it is the right thing to do. Ultimately, the President knows that money talks. He understands that valuable things are expensive. What is true in property development is also true in military procurement. There is no way around it. Take the Golden Dome for example. Building anything close to a continental missile defense shield will, by reasonable estimates, cost several times more than was allocated this year in one-off reconciliation spending, every year, for decades to come. If the Pentagon isn't even planning to max out its budget request for procuring critical munitions in the short term, why on Earth should our adversaries take any talk of long-term missile defense seriously? Likewise, why should they take American airpower seriously if we are only willing to develop sixth-generation stealth fighters for the Air Force but not for the Navy? What good are multibillion-dollar aircraft carriers if we are not prepared to equip them with aircraft that can survive modern warfare? At home and abroad, I am concerned that too many of the President's advisers are unwilling to acknowledge the gap between his stated priorities and what they are prepared to invest to achieve them. If you ask me, the name on the front door at the Pentagon matters a great deal less than whether the services inside are equipped and prepared to deter and win wars, and we are facing real, glaring gaps in critical capabilities. The ink was barely dry on the One Big Beautiful Bill when senior Pentagon officials began to report to my colleagues and I on the Appropriations Committee that they still faced significant funding shortfalls. Given the high pace of operations in the Middle East and in the Western Hemisphere, it is safe to assume these costs are only going to continue to rise. So there is a lot going on around this building, but, soon, I hope our colleagues will have an opportunity to go on record in favor of investing in peace through strength. We will have a chance to put our money where our mouth is on reestablishing deterrence and rebuilding the force required to back it up. Our investments in the common defense are a signal of our national resolve. When the American people spoke last November, I don't think they meant for their leaders to mail in a third year of anemic--anemic-- Biden-era top lines. I don't think the President assembled his policy and budget advisers with a mind to punt in the face of looming threats. When he hired civilian Pentagon leaders to restore deterrence, I think he meant more than just threatening adversaries with a catchy line on camera; I think he meant building the force that threatens them with its very existence. So if the administration wants a Trump buildup, then let's build one, and once the Democrats' shutdown is over, let's start with serious, increased, full-year investments in our national defense.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record the adopted U.S. Senate Professional Liability Insurance Regulations.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the original intent of the 2018 farm bill's Federal hemp legislation and the need to restore it. Earlier this year, a report from the University of Kentucky found that cannabis-related poisonings among Kentuckians under 18 rose by 43 percent between 2023 and 2024. As you can see here, emergency room visits are rising steadily as well: ``Cannabis-Related Emergency Department Visits Climb in Kentucky, Especially Among [Young People].'' Calls to poison control centers in Kentucky regarding cannabis have doubled in the last 5 years, and more than 40 percent--listen to this-- have been about children under 12. Children all over the Commonwealth, from Laurel County to Jefferson County, are facing serious health and safety concerns due to THC poisoning from hemp-derived products, and so are children all across the country. It is not just a Kentucky problem. How did we get here? Let's go back to the beginning. Back in 2014, I lead the effort to secure pilot programs for industrial hemp, and I led the effort to legalize the crop in 2018. This industry has seen tremendous growth, especially in Kentucky. Hemp is used in food, clothing, paper, plastic, and many of our consumer products. Its versatility gave farmers hope for a new and profitable cash crop. Unfortunately, some companies looking to make a quick buck have been exploiting a loophole in the 2018 farm bill by taking legal amounts of THC from hemp and turning it into intoxicating substances. They take these synthetic chemicals and use them as ingredients in appealing snack and candylike products and distribute them in familiar packaging. Here, it gives you an example of how these hemp-related, THC-related factors are packaged in candy that looks very much like candy being consumed by kids all over the country. This is, by definition, a real problem. Children love candy. They can recognize well-known brands of candy before they can even read. As you can see from the chart that we were just talking about, the packaging on these snacks is nearly identical to Oreos, Doritos, or Skittles. Little do kids know that these products are laced with intoxicating synthetic chemicals. Young children are consuming these snacks thinking they are candy, not poison. On top of that, these products are easily accessible and can be purchased at convenience stores. Some of them are even more intoxicating than actually smoking marijuana. Let me repeat that. Products more potent than marijuana can be bought off the shelf of a gas station. Look, for years, I have called on the FDA to regulate these products. They have not taken the initiative to do so, which has certainly been an ongoing disappointment. That is why we are here today. The language I recently attempted to secure in the Agriculture appropriations bill would have kept these products out of the hands of children while preserving the hemp industry for farmers. For the sake of those misguided by my opponents on this issue, let me clarify a few things: You will hear from some that this language would have meant the total destruction of the hemp industry. Well, obviously, that is wrong. Under my language, industrial hemp, and CBD would have remained legal, period. Period. Some predicted there would be widespread economic downturn to farmers should this language become law. Wrong again. Hemp makes up less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of all farmed acres in the United States. I want the number to grow and to grow a lot. That is why I secured the legalization of hemp production back in the first place. As long as I have been a Senator from Kentucky, I have supported our farmers. I am proud to have served on the Agriculture Committee my entire career in the Senate because of its importance to Kentucky. From the tobacco buyout program to tax relief for the sale of farmland, I have made sure our farmers have the tools they need to be successful in volatile markets. My language would not have changed that. This language would have remained in the appropriations package had one Senator not derailed the process. You know, it is one thing to call yourself an advocate for hemp farmers, but if you didn't support the 2014 pilot program and you didn't support the 2018 farm bill that legalized hemp production and you would have blocked a major step forward on this appropriations package if it had included my language to close the bad-actor loophole, then what does being an advocate actually mean? This package funds a significant portion of the Federal revenue, from Agencies that provide critical resources to our farmers to law enforcement, military, and our veterans, just to name a few. We need the appropriations process to function. Congress needs to do its job and fund the government. And I, for one, do not intend to be an obstacle. So in order to move the package forward, I allowed my language to be stripped from the bill. But my effort to rule out bad actors, protect our children, support farmers, and reaffirm our original legislative intent will continue. I yield the floor.