Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. The Senate just swore an oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws of our country. We swore to discharge a duty that is quite different from our normal work. As a Court of Impeachment, we are called not to speak, not to debate, but to listen both to the case against the accused and to his defense. At this point in any trial in the country, the prosecution presents the evidence of the case, counsel for the defense does the same, and the jury remains silent as it listens. This is what our rules require of us as well. But the Senate has not had the opportunity to perform this duty. The Senate will not hear the House managers present the details of their case against Secretary Mayorkas; that he willingly neglected the duties of his office and that he lied to Congress about the extent of that failure. Likewise, we will not hear the Secretary's representatives present the vigorous defense to which he is entitled. Our colleagues know that we are obligated to take these proceedings seriously. This is what our oath prescribes; it is what the history and precedent require; and I would urge each of our colleagues to consider that this is what the Framers actually envisioned. The power of impeachment is one of the most delicate balances our constitutional system strikes with a portion of the American people's sovereign electoral authority. It purchases a safeguard against malpractice, and it gives the Senate the power and the duty to decide. This process must not be abused. It must not be short-circuited. History will not judge this moment well. Vote on Motion Therefore, I move to table the point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, we set a very unfortunate precedent here. This means the Senate can ignore, in effect, the House's impeachment. It doesn't make any difference whether our friends on the other side thought he should have been impeached or not. He was. And by doing what we just did, we have, in effect, ignored the directions of the House, which were to have a trial. We had no evidence, no procedure. This is a day that is not a proud day in the history of the Senate. (Applause.)

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, this afternoon, the Senate will be called, for just the 19th time in our history, to rule on the impeachment of a senior official of our government. It is a responsibility to be taken seriously. As I said the last time the Senate convened as a Court of Impeachment, it is a power that Congress must not exercise frivolously. Today, the Senate will hear House managers charge Secretary Mayorkas with serious dereliction of duty--with a systematic refusal to enforce our Nation's immigration laws and with lying to Congress about the extent of the border crisis that unfolded on the Biden administration's watch. The facts of the crisis are well-known. Since January of 2021, CBP has recorded more than 7.5 illegal crossings at our southern border, while observers estimate over 1.5 million known ``got-aways.'' And last December saw the highest daily and monthly numbers ever recorded. In the 2 months since the House impeached Secretary Mayorkas, the border crisis has only continued, with excruciating consequences for innocent Americans. On February 22, an illegal alien was arrested in Virginia for sexually assaulting a minor. The very next day, another illegal alien from Venezuela was arrested for the murder of Laken Riley, a young college student in Georgia. And the same month, yet another was charged with first- and second-degree murder for the shooting of a 2-year-old in Maryland. For the Americans living right near the border, things are not improving. In February, one man working in Arizona recounted watching cartel guides lead over 170 people from around the world through one such opening in a matter of hours. The House managers will make the case for Secretary Mayorkas's role in neglecting and exacerbating that crisis. As befits such a solemn and rare responsibility as convening a Court of Impeachment, I intend to give these charges my full and undivided attention. Of course, that would require that Senators actually get the opportunity to hold a trial. This is exactly what history and precedent dictate. Never before has the Senate agreed to a motion to table Articles of Impeachment--not for an officer of either party, not once. Instead, every single time that we have been called upon to render judgment, we have done so. We have convened a trial in accordance with rule XI of the Impeachment Rules agreed to in 1935. We have appointed a trial committee to dig into the facts and make a recommendation. It would be beneath the Senate's dignity to shrug off our clear responsibility and fail to give the charges we will hear today the thorough consideration they deserve. I will strenuously oppose any effort to table the Articles of Impeachment and avoid looking the Biden administration's border crisis squarely in the face.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, today, a joint session of Congress welcomed Japanese Prime Minister Kishida to the Capitol. The importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance is front-and-center at a critical moment. As I said earlier this week, Japan is an essential partner in the security of the Indo-Pacific. But its leaders also understand the global nature of the threats facing sovereign states, free societies, and free markets today. As the Prime Minister's office put it ahead of this week's visit, today's security environment is, ``as severe and complex as it has ever been'' and that ``from the Japanese viewpoint, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not a faraway European question.'' In other words, Japan understands that the challenges we face can't be dealt with one at a time. Last year, Japan approved the largest ever budget for its own self-defense forces. And it is in the process of acquiring nearly 150 fifth-generation F-35 fighters and investing in long-range counterstrike capabilities to enhance deterrence. Meanwhile, Japan also provides significant economic assistance to countries across Asia who may otherwise be vulnerable to the PRC's coercion or aggression. And at the same time, Japan was the third largest financial contributor to Ukraine last year. Our ally is facing linked threats simultaneously. But Japan is not an anomaly. Across the region, America's closest regional allies like Australia and South Korea understand the PRC poses the greatest long- term strategic threat to a free and open Indo-Pacific. But they also understand that what happens in Europe or the Middle East in the near- term matters an awful lot to Asia. To meet these growing security challenges, our Indo-Pacific allies are making substantial commitments to grow their defense budgets. Similarly, as our European allies grow increasingly concerned about the PRC, their combined spending rose by 9.5 percent. This is encouraging progress. But our allies still look to America to lead. And our own defense spending is not keeping pace. Four times, President Biden has submitted defense budget requests that would have amounted to net cuts after inflation. And even if Congress prevails in passing an emergency national security supplemental, a 1 percent growth cap on next year's spending will still constrain our ability to meet growing threats. We have to be honest about the urgent requirements of replenishing stockpiles, expanding defense industrial capacity, and modernizing our forces. Deterring linked threats isn't a task America has to face alone. But as we encourage our allies to continue their own modernization efforts, we have to lead. That means deepening technology cooperation and trade with our most advanced allies--similar to what we have promised to do with AUKUS, an agreement that we must implement with urgency and sincerity. It also means reforming our sluggish, bureaucratic foreign military sales process to help more allies upgrade their capabilities by buying modern American equipment. But most of all, maintaining our influence and advancing our global interests means taking our own national defense responsibilities seriously. Our fundamental constitutional obligation is to provide for the common defense. And it will fall to Congress in the months ahead--as we consider the NDAA and FY25 defense appropriations--to make the investments that sustained American leadership requires. Now, on another matter, yesterday's inflation report did little to help working Americans make sense of Bidenomics. The 3.5 percent year- on-year jump recorded last month puts cumulative inflation since President Biden took office at 19.4 percent. Grocery prices are up 21.2 percent, gasoline prices are up 47.8 percent, and rent prices are up 20.4 percent. And it is getting particularly difficult to keep the lights on. The latest 5 percent jump in electricity prices is just the latest bad news for ratepayers facing overall energy inflation of 38.8 percent since January 2021. And it is no wonder why: Working families aren't just up against Democrats' reckless inflationary spending. They are also facing the effects of the mountain of devastating regulations rolled out under President Biden's activist climate agenda. He has ticked his way down a green activist wishlist from canceling job-creating pipeline infrastructure to freezing LNG export permits to micromanaging home appliances to imposing debilitating emissions standards on automakers and effectively requiring that two of every three vehicles manufactured for America in 2032 be electric. Honestly, it feels like the Biden administration itself cares less about a grand green future than about making the entire country follow the consumption habits of deep-blue California. And that is particularly bad news. As the administration races to conjure up a market for expensive electric vehicles, growing evidence suggests that its grand plans to leave the most affordable and reliable forms of American energy behind are pushing electric grids to a breaking point. And grid security experts are warning that ``overly rigid'' environmental policies are creating significant blackout risks across the country. Whether you call it Bidenomics or the Green New Deal, Washington Democrats are presenting working Americans with some tough choices. Here's how one California retiree described it: ``Food has been a worry, but now electricity is the worry. Unless you want to go to candles and firewood, we have no other choice but to bite the bullet and pay.'' Fortunately, the Senate will soon have another opportunity to pull an emergency brake on the administration's runaway regulations: legislation from Senator Crapo to overturn the President's disastrous de facto EV mandate. The tailpipe emissions rule would effectively force American auto dealers to sell two EVs for every gas-powered vehicle, even at the inevitable expense of further reliance on Chinese supply chains. And with electric vehicles already piling up at dealer lots across the country due to low demand, it would force American consumers to buy vehicles they don't want. What utter madness. I am grateful to the senior Senator for Idaho for bringing this legislation to the floor. And I will encourage our colleagues to join me in supporting this step to rein in some of this administration's worst ideas. Now, on one final matter, yesterday, with my colleagues the junior Senator for Arkansas and the senior Senator for North Carolina, I was proud to introduce the SHOP Act, a comprehensive, nonpartisan solution to venue shopping in Federal courts. As I have said before, the problem with venue shopping is not a judge in north Texas. It is a national problem driven by the ability of single judges everywhere to grant injunctions that are national in scope. The SHOP Act would stop that, restricting the relief that judges in Texas and in California can provide to the parties in front of them or the geographic reach of their jurisdictions. It also addresses the problem of venue selling in bankruptcy and patent cases. Venue abuse in those specialized areas of law comes less from litigants seeking advantage than from judges creating artificially attractive venues in order to enrich their friends in the local bar. The SHOP Act would impose uniform standards for where bankruptcy and patent cases should be heard to solve this problem. Lastly, the SHOP Act addresses the practice of actual illicit judge shopping. Recently, the Southern Poverty Law Center and Lambda Legal engaged in this practice in Alabama, going to great and unethical lengths both to get their case steered to a particular liberal judge and to strip it from a perceived conservative. Importantly, when these leftwing groups were caught red-handed, it was none other than President Obama's White House Counsel himself who appeared in court to defend them in their disciplinary case. I can't think of a better example of the liberal attitude of ``judge shopping for me but not for thee.'' Well, the SHOP Act stops all of it. It applies everywhere regardless of ideology and addresses the root causes of the issue. And I invite my Democratic colleagues to join our bill and further strengthen public confidence in our Federal judiciary.

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, last week, the strongest and most successful military alliance in the history of the world marked an impressive milestone. Seventy-five years ago, at the dawn of the Cold War, with decades of superpower competition on the horizon, the founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization convened here in Washington to formalize a commitment to collective security. In the years since, NATO has grown from 12 to 32 allies. The transatlantic alliance has always required management. Alliances always do. But, as Churchill observed, the only thing worse than fighting alongside allies is fighting without them. While we have experienced periods of pronounced tension within the alliance, today is not one of them. Nations on both sides of the Atlantic have increasingly concluded that common threats are best met with shared resolve. Most recently, of course, the alliance has been proud to welcome Sweden and Finland to our ranks. With highly capable militaries and advanced economies, our newest allies were already taking their own defense seriously. In the face of Putin's brutal escalation in Ukraine, they decided to share the burden of collective security. But Russian aggression hasn't just expanded the NATO alliance; it has also prompted longtime allies to take their treaty obligations more seriously. Just last week, the Norwegian Government confirmed that it would meet the NATO 2-percent defense spending target this year and that it would nearly double its defense budget over the next 12. For a wealthy country like Norway, with one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world, this is a big deal. Across the alliance, members are making historic new commitments to strengthen their militaries and expand their defense industrial capacity. European allies have contracted to buy 600 cutting-edge American F-35 aircraft to add to their arsenals. On the whole, they are already meeting the 2-percent target, and NATO leaders expect more individual members to reach it by the July summit here in Washington. There is still work to be done. Not every ally is taking its treaty obligations seriously enough. One of the most concerning laggards isn't even a European country, but it is our neighbor to the north. Like America, Canada is at once an Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic nation, and it is time for Ottawa to take its obligations to NATO, to NORAD, and to its own defense more seriously. That said, for our European allies, the holiday from history really is over. Their greater investments in collective defense also include growing contributions to Ukraine's defense. In fact, 18 countries are making larger relative contributions to helping Ukraine resist Russian aggression than the United States. Of course, this doesn't absolve America from playing a leading role. America is the glue that keeps the alliance together. We are a critical catalyst of allied contributions. Nations all over the world look to Washington for guidance. From before Russian forces even advanced in February of 2022, I have urged the Biden administration to quit its hand-wringing and hesitation over delivering Ukraine the lethal tools it needed to defend itself. The President's unfounded fear of escalation deprived our friends of the advanced, long-range capabilities they needed to make a more decisive stand against Putin sooner. Avoidable supply shortages continue to prevent Ukraine from taking the fight to Russia across the frontlines. The conflict is at a critical moment, and it is exactly the wrong time for folks on our side of the aisle to imitate and compound the timidity and shortsightedness of our Commander in Chief, which he displayed from the outset of the conflict. The vast majority of armed conflicts end in negotiated settlements, but whenever and however this particular conflict is resolved, it is in America's interests that Ukraine operate from a position of strength. Our own security, the security of our closest allies and most important trading partners, the credibility of America's commitments-- none of these interests are served by withholding assistance to Ukraine or withholding urgent investments in the sort of industrial capacity and capabilities that both our friends and our Armed Forces need. Starving Ukraine of needed capabilities wasn't the smart way for the Biden administration to avoid escalation, and neither is it a political masterstroke by some of the administration's Republican opponents. It is strategic and moral malpractice that risks dooming Ukraine and undermining our own national interests. From Europe, to the Middle East, to the Indo-Pacific, the world is watching to see whether the United States still has a will to lead the West and preserve the international order responsible for our own prosperity for the better part of a century. So I will continue to urge our House colleagues to take up and pass the national security supplemental without delay.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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, while the Senate was away from Washington, we received some sobering reminders about the challenges facing America and our friends in a dangerous world and about how to meet them. In Gaza, innocent people continue to suffer with the cowardice and hateful violence of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Just last week, as Israel continued the difficult, necessary, and existential work of eliminating the terrorist threat, the tragic consequences of this war were brought once again into focus. The misidentification that led to the deaths of seven aid workers in an IDF strike was a gut-wrenching reminder that even when a sovereign nation exercises the utmost restraint in the face of enemies to use violence as a first resort, even as our ally Israel takes great pains to minimize casualties among the innocent civilians who its enemies exploit at every turn, war is still hell. And for people in Gaza over the past 17 years since Hamas seized control, life has been its own sort of hell as well. For years, the supposed authorities in the enclave have spent their time burrowing under the homes and mosques of innocent families and the schools of innocent children. They have used concrete and building supplies intended for civilians to build military bunkers instead. They have brazenly stolen the humanitarian aid their civilian subjects depend on. They have thrown Palestinians loyal to the political rivals off of buildings, and they have continually traded innocent lives for one more day to wage a war on Israel. Iran's terrorist proxies in Gaza are responsible for the horrors of this war. Their hatred for Jews--and refusal to acknowledge the existence of the Jewish State of Israel--is the reason for this pain and suffering of the last 6 months. America cannot afford to lose moral clarity about the conflict. But I am afraid that too many of our leaders are. President Biden expressed outrage at last week's deadly accident--an event his own administration acknowledges was a tragic accident--which begs the question of whether he is also outraged at the way Israel's terrorist aggressors violate international law by turning hospitals and schools into fighting positions. Instead of welcoming Israel's swift investigation and efforts to hold personnel accountable for their mistakes--accountability that has been sorely lacking during President Biden's own administration--the President caved further to domestic political pressure. He indulged his radical base and called for an immediate cease-fire. He embraced an alternate reality in which cease-fire wasn't exactly the state of play that Hamas exploited on October 7. A fantasy world in which leaving Hamas intact doesn't lead to further terrorism against Israelis and Palestinians alike. Unfortunately, the Democratic party has become unmoored from a long tradition of bipartisan support for Israel. According to one headline this week: Democrats fear Netanyahu may have undermined Biden's image among voters. Apparently, the leftwing activists who can't seem to distinguish between terrorism and self-defense aren't just calling the shots at the White House but also on the President's reelection campaign. They don't seem to care that it isn't just a sovereign ally's leader they disagree with, but the overwhelming majority of Israeli public who believe Hamas must be defeated. Meanwhile, President Biden is reportedly taking a cue from the odious Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement and considering labeling goods from Israel's settlement communities in order to ramp up the pressure on the Israeli Government. Of course, this sounds like child's play alongside the claim of one of our own Senate colleagues made just yesterday, that on legal grounds, Israel's campaign against Hamas is genocide. What on earth should other friends of America think when they see the way we treat allies under attack? How should they square the Biden administration's pledge to support Ukraine's defense ``as long as it takes'' with support for Israel that is, apparently, as soft as the will of the most radical elements of the Democratic Party? This cannot be the message America sends to the world. Leadership means standing up for America's interests--from the Indo-Pacific to Europe to the Middle East--even when the most active members of one's political base aren't willing to. Right now, Congress has an opportunity to model this obligation for a President who clearly doesn't understand it. The House has an opportunity to pass the national security supplemental, and America has an opportunity to show our allies and partners that they can count on our support and show our adversaries that they can count on our relentless intention.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, America's adversaries are working overtime to undermine our interests and erode the alliances that protect them. And it is easy to concede that these challenges as playing out exclusively on the high seas of the Indo-Pacific or the borderlands of Europe or the Middle East. But in reality, the competition is not an ``away game.'' America's greatest strategic rival is threatening our security right here on U.S. soil in tens of millions of American homes. I am speaking, of course, of TikTok. Today, 170 million Americans are active users of the social media platform that the People's Republic of China treats as a tool of surveillance and propaganda. TikTok officials like to insist that U.S. users' personal information, browsing histories, keystrokes, and other sensitive data are kept out of the reach of the PRC's teams of censors and propagandists. They claim that what it shows young Americans is what they want to see, not what the PRC wants them to think. But the company's own words shatter this fantasy: Everything is seen in China. That is the truth TikTok officials were willing to admit in a leaked recording from behind closed doors. And it shouldn't be all that surprising anyway: Chinese law requires that TikTok's Beijing-based parent company coordinate closely with the PRC. All sorts of social media platforms can be fountains of disinformation and propaganda. Just look at last week's news about the PRC's efforts to manipulate Taiwan's elections with Twitter accounts driven by AI. But with TikTok, we are not talking about meddling or hijacking an American platform. In this case, PRC influence and control has been baked in from the very beginning. With Beijing's blessing, TikTok's algorithm pours gasoline on alarming trends from the glorification of Hamas terrorists to a particularly outrageous fad that emerged last year where young people ``discovered'' the wisdom of Osama bin Laden. I wish I was making this up. But let's be absolutely clear: This isn't a debate about restricting speech. After all, the PRC does enough of that itself. Chinese citizens are barred from accessing TikTok at all. No matter how loudly TikTok's apologists claim that reining in PRC influence violates the First Amendment, the question we will face is about conduct, not content. I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting Americans' First Amendment rights. I have firmly defended American's right to even the most noxious forms of free speech like flag burning. But there is a serious difference between the views that Americans might express on TikTok and the actions taken by a platform that is beholden to our foremost strategic competitor. Let me borrow an analogy from someone who has been relentless on this issue--FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr. Here is what he had to say: You can use a pen to write salacious anti-American propaganda, and the government can't censor that content. Nor can it stop Americans from seeking such messages out. But if you use the same pen to pick a lock to steal somebody else's property, the government could prosecute you for illegal conduct. The PRC has spent years trying to pick the lock of America's communications infrastructure, and the Federal Government has a long history of frustrating Beijing's efforts. Requiring the divestment of Beijing-influenced entities from TikTok would land squarely within established constitutional precedent, and it would begin to turn back the tide of an enormous threat to America's children and to our Nation's prospects in defining the competition of the 21st century. This is a matter that deserves Congress's urgent attention, and I will support commonsense, bipartisan steps to take one of Beijing's favorite tools of coercion and espionage off the table.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the task before Congress this week, completing annual appropriations, is important work every year. In fact, it is among our most basic, fundamental responsibilities. But not in decades have the stakes of providing for the common defense been as high as they are right now. For the first time since the Cold War, America faces an era defined by great power competition. Of course, this is not news. Two straight Presidential administrations have correctly recognized this fact, at least on paper, in their national security strategies. These documents have recognized that challenges from revisionist authoritarians in Russia and China pose the greatest threat to the endurance of American leadership that has defined world politics and economics for decades. Today, we face major adversaries who wish nothing more than to bleed American influence, sap our resolve, torch our credibility, and fill every void we leave behind with a new order built on fear and subjugation. And we face terrorists and rogue states committed to help them sow chaos. North Korea is sending thousands of train cars full of ammunition to fuel Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine; and Iran's Houthi proxies are signaling to Russian and Chinese ships that they will be permitted to traverse the Red Sea unharmed. But it is not enough to recognize these challenges or name-check them in policy papers. Both the administration and Congress have to act and invest and be willing to meet them. President Biden's actions undercut any of his administration's apparent recognition of the grave moment we are facing. For 4 straight years, the Commander in Chief has requested defense budgets that don't even keep pace with inflation. De facto cuts to U.S. military funding do not signal seriousness about outcompeting our biggest strategic adversaries--China's defense, for example, is growing by more than 7 percent year-over-year--and neither did the President's hand-wringing and delay over equipping Ukraine with the capabilities needed to better defend itself against Russian aggression. Frankly, President Biden seems to have a deep-seated discomfort in cultivating and exercising hard power--a necessary, foundational part of the statecraft that protects America and preserves our interests. Of course, Congress has a say and a responsibility. Our work on fiscal year 2024 defense appropriations represents a critical down payment. But important requirements will remain unmet even after the needed investments this Defense bill will make. Republicans recognized the constraints of the budget caps, and we worked hard to ensure that the national security supplemental we passed in the Senate will make further critical investments in our own military and defense industrial capability. Earlier this week, the Commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Aquilino, made the case for passing the supplemental to our House colleagues, saying ``any win for Russia . . . is a win for China,'' and so what we do ``supporting the Ukraine problem set also provides a deterrent value'' in the Indo-Pacific. Together with full-year appropriations, the supplemental is a serious, urgent, and necessary investment in American hard power. And I will continue to urge the House to take it up and pass it without further delay. But as the Senate prepares to finish our work on annual government funding, I want to once again thank our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for the diligent work required to get to this point. Senator Murray and Senator Collins made a commitment nearly a year ago to restore as much regular order to the process as possible and to work constructively across the aisle. I am especially grateful to my friend Susan Collins, whose leadership and skill have continued to improve this legislation on behalf of Senate Republicans at every step of the process. I am particularly proud of how the legislation before us will deliver on the priorities of my fellow Kentuckians. In significant ways, the work of rebuilding American hard power begins right here at home. It means good-paying manufacturing jobs for hard-working Americans across the country, including in Kentucky, in communities like Sterns and Somerset, where Kentuckians develop cutting-edge tools and technologies that give our servicemembers the upper hand on the battlefield or Brandenburg, where they produce new armor systems to enhance the next generation of combat equipment; or Louisville and Lexington, where they are spurring innovation in areas critical to our warfighting capabilities through partnerships with the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky. Of course, funding the government this week also puts more weight behind missions even closer to home, like our fight against the substance abuse epidemic which has had a staggering--staggering--impact in my home State. We are devoting more resources to the Kentucky National Guard to reinforce State and local law enforcement as they combat the flow of illegal drugs literally pouring over our border. And we are directing billions toward States like Kentucky so we can promote long-term recovery, find new ways to treat addiction, and spare more lives from this deadly crisis. Through prevention, treatment, and enforcement, we are taking direct aim at a health crisis that has hollowed out our communities and hit middle America especially hard. Our work is far from finished, but I am proud of what my Senate colleagues have accomplished to close out the annual appropriations process. It is now time to finish the job.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have spoken repeatedly about the nomination of Adeel Mangi to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding his anti-Semitic affiliations, it seems every week a new law enforcement organization announces its opposition to this nominee for his record of associating with the most radical type of anti-police activists--those who support cop killers. Apparently, some Democrats are finally listening to law enforcement and the Jewish groups sounding the alarm. Last week, a number of Democratic Senators reportedly told the White House that they didn't think Mr. Mangi has the votes. This, of course, produced a panic on the left. This week, a New York Times columnist accused Republicans of Islamophobia for criticizing Mangi and his dalliance with anti-Semitic activists. Democrats, on the other hand, were urged to get in line and vote for him. Who is giving this advice? Well, the author of the piece herself had previously speculated that Israel may be engaged in genocide in Gaza. She called the Israeli war of self-defense a ``charnel house of horrors.'' She defended the anti- Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and she even got mealymouthed about the October 7 attacks, saying: [T]wo can play the game of who started it and who is to blame, rolling back the clock to biblical times to try to fix ultimate responsibility for the catastrophe of Israel and Palestine. So, again, what has Mr. Mangi done to deserve friends like these or, indeed, to merit such a vehement, blinkered defense from the Biden administration? Just yesterday, the White House called opposition to Mr. Mangi's nomination a "smear campaign solely because he would make history as the first Muslim to serve as a federal appellate judge.'' How insulting. What self-respecting attorney wants to hear that a President cares more about the demographic tick boxes than their life's work? Besides, in the case of Mr. Mangi, Senate Republicans' opposition has absolutely nothing to do with his Muslim faith. Rather, it has everything to do with his longstanding sympathy for and association with some of the most radical elements in society. I happily voted for the first Muslim article III judge at the outset of the Biden administration, also of New Jersey--so did 31 of my Republican colleagues--in one of the largest bipartisan votes for a judge in the Biden Presidency. But we didn't support this nominee because he was Muslim; it was because he had an extraordinary personal and professional background. Mr. Mangi's associated center at Rutgers asks convicted terrorists if we overly ``exceptionalize'' 9/11. Judge Quraishi, on the other hand, thought 9/11 was exceptional and joined the Army soon after, rendering honorable service in Iraq. Mr. Mangi spent his career making millions in defending corporate clients like foreign energy companies, massive drugmakers, and even chocolate monopolies, all while volunteering his time to support anti- police activists. Judge Quraishi, on the other hand, supported law enforcement professionally, first at Immigration and Customs Enforcement and then as an assistant U.S. attorney. We are told that any questioning of Mr. Mangi's record is Islamophobia. On the other hand, the terrorist-adjacent Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded that Senators probe Judge Quraishi's experience in the Army and in law enforcement, saying their concerns ``must be addressed.'' According to Democrats' rhetoric, shouldn't this organization also be condemned for Islamophobia? Two Muslim Biden nominees with records as different as night and day--Republicans happily supported the nominee who served his country and backed the blue. We have and we will continue to oppose the nominee who has repeatedly chosen, instead, to mingle with supporters of terrorists and cop killers. I hope more Democrats will join us in opposing Mr. Mangi, and should they fall victim to spurious associations of bias, perhaps they should remind the White House of an alternative candidate, rested and ready, in the Federal courthouse in Trenton, NJ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, more than 5 months after the butchery of October 7, Israelis are overwhelmingly united behind their government's unity war Cabinet in support of ongoing military operations against Hamas. By contrast, some prominent American Democrats are increasingly vocal in their belief that Israel's unity government and Israeli voters are wrong. That is, after all, what we are talking about here. As much as some of our colleagues might like them to be, Democrats' egregious and hypocritical attempts to influence Israeli domestic politics aren't some simple or narrow critique of a particular Prime Minister; they are an affront to the very independence of the State of Israel--a sovereign nation, a robust democracy, and one of America's closest allies and friends; not a colony, not a vassal state, not some appendage of our own domestic politics. As I said last week, our Democratic colleagues don't have an anti- Bibi problem; they have an anti-Israel problem. What else are we supposed to make of the way Democrats have fallen in line behind the position the Democratic leader expressed here on the floor last week? It is absurd enough for American Senators to masquerade as duly-elected members of the Knesset, as if their views should have any bearing on how Israel conducts its domestic politics. But unfortunately it now seems important to remind our President that he is America's Commander in Chief, not some supreme allied commander with authority over Israel's war operations. I was worried to see the U.S. intelligence community opine publicly last week on the stability of the Israeli Government. It seems to me we should ask our intelligence professionals to keep their assessments of our closest partners a bit closer to their chest. Think about just how embarrassing our colleagues would find this behavior if it was directed toward any other democratic U.S. ally. Think about how we might be received if the DNI or the CIA Director publicly commented on political tensions within Germany's coalition government or on the decision-making processes of President Macron or on the declining public support for the Trudeau government in Canada. America is best served when our intelligence professionals refrain from public comments on politics--both our own and our allies. The war thrust upon Israel by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad has already brought a host of profoundly embarrassing revelations to light. It has exposed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency as irredeemably corrupt and appallingly complicit in both the violent kidnapping of Israelis and the indoctrination of Palestinians in a culture of hate, violence, and terror. It has exposed the rank anti-Semitism that America's most elite universities have allowed to fester on their campuses and some of these institutions' weakening grasp on moral resolve. Now it is exposing Democrats as unwilling or incapable of resisting the political pressures of their radical base. Just look how our colleagues have staked out bizarrely vocal support for policies for which even the Israeli left has said it has no time. So membership in the U.S. Senate does not come with voting rights in the Knesset or the Bundestag. It certainly doesn't entitle colleagues who spent years decrying foreign interference in American politics to decide one day to flip the script on our allies. Let's get one thing straight: This violence and this humanitarian crisis rest entirely on the shoulders of Hamas. This entire conflict would end if the cowardly terrorists who rule Gaza from beneath schools and hospitals released their innocent hostages. And the people they oppress every day--the people of Gaza--have a say in the matter. They can turn on Hamas, turn in terrorist leaders like Yahya Sinwar, and turn over the hostages whose seizure by Palestinian terrorists started this conflict in the first place. Until then, the Israeli government ought to do what the overwhelming majority of Israelis expect of it: bring the innocents home; bring the terrorists to justice; and bring peace and security to its citizens. And, I might add, pay the peanut gallery no mind.

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, this week, the Senate faces one more test to complete its annual appropriations process, and the stakes really couldn't be higher for Americans' security at home and abroad. The work we have outstanding amounts to nearly 70 percent--70 percent--of the discretionary budget. Once again, I am grateful to our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their commitment to regular order. I am especially grateful to Senator Collins for fighting to advance Republican priorities throughout the process, particularly in the Defense appropriations bill. Predictable annual allocations are essential to meeting national defense responsibilities. They allow for effective investments in modernizing our forces, developing new, cutting-edge capabilities, and expanding the industrial capacity that will drive long-term strategic competition. Needless to say, investments like these are especially critical right now as the gulf between the threats we face and the Biden administration's willingness to address them seems to be growing wider. President Biden has just turned in his fourth straight budget request that would cut defense funding after inflation. So the work before us is gravely necessary, and I am encouraged that we are beginning this week with an agreement in hand to actually complete the process. Congress has secured a path forward to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which will allow us to complete the fiscal year 2024 appropriations process in the coming days. As always, making headway depends on serious cooperation, and I am grateful to our appropriators and negotiators for their commitment to working in good faith. Providing for the common defense is among our most basic constitutional responsibilities, and we need to be honest with ourselves: Growing threats and increasing military requirements make fulfilling this responsibility even more critical. The legislation in front of us will not be Congress's last word, but it represents an important down payment, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to complete the annual appropriations process very, very soon.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter, I would like to speak briefly on a practice in our Nation's courts that has confounded administrations of both parties with increasing frequency over the past decade. It is the issuance of nationwide injunctions. Time after time, district judges will respond to a case challenging a Federal law by preventing its application not just to the parties before them or within their jurisdictions but nationwide. During the last administration, Attorneys General Sessions and Barr issued policy and litigation guidance on the issue to try and pare it back. Senator Cotton introduced a bill to eliminate the practice by statute; and Chairman Graham was eager to move the Cotton bill, but Senate Democrats were not. In fact, their star witness in support of nationwide injunctions is now a Federal judge in the District of Columbia. Rather than working with Republicans to eliminate a practice that gores the oxen of both parties, it turns out our colleagues prefer to preserve it just for themselves. Now that nationwide injunctions are being used against the Biden administration, liberal allies in the academy and in the media have started to ``target single judge divisions,'' where they think conservative plaintiffs are likely to get favorable ratings from sympathetic judges. The Democratic leader even wrote to the Judicial Conference demanding action against the scourge of judges who don't rule in favor of the Biden administration. In other words, he urged the Conference to keep the injunctions and just restrict the access to conservative judges. It seems the Judicial Conference took the bait. On Tuesday, they instructed district courts to assign all cases seeking to invalidate State or Federal law randomly across the district in which they were brought. This will have no practical effect in the venues favored by liberal activists, but Democrats are salivating at the possibility of shutting down access to justice in the venues favored by conservatives. What will this do in practice? It means the young woman challenging Texas abortion laws in Austin can now be forced, for no good reason, to have her case heard in El Paso. A veteran defending his Second Amendment rights in Youngstown can be sent to Toledo to have his day in court. In Kentucky, a coal miner challenging labor regulations in London could find his case handed to a judge in Covington--all to prevent so-called judge shopping. But didn't Chief Justice Roberts say, ``There are not Obama judges or Trump judges''? What exactly is the problem that demands such a drastic solution? Here is what this policy won't do: It won't solve the issues caused by nationwide injunctions. If Democrats are right about the practical effects of this policy, any remaining incentive they have to work with Republicans on this issue will vanish--``Nationwide injunctions for me, but not for thee.'' Needless to say, if Republicans see a Federal judiciary that is using its procedural independence to wade into political disputes, any incentive we may have to defend the procedural independence will vanish as well. This was an unforced error by the Judicial Conference. I hope they will reconsider, and I hope district courts throughout the country will instead weigh what is best for their jurisdictions, not half-baked ``guidance'' that just does Washington Democrats' bidding.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Jewish State of Israel deserves an ally that acts like one. The people of Israel, at home and in captivity, deserve America's support; and Israel's unity government and security cabinet deserve the deference befitting a sovereign democratic country. The primary obstacles to peace in Israel's region are genocidal terrorists, like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who slaughter innocent people and corrupt leaders of the Palestinian Authority, who have repeatedly--repeatedly--rejected peace deals from multiple Israeli Governments. And foreign observers who cannot keep these clear distinctions straight ought to refrain from weighing in. It is grotesque and hypocritical for Americans who hyperventilate about foreign interference in our own democracy to call for the removal of a democratically elected leader of Israel. This is unprecedented. We should not treat fellow democracies this way at all. Things that upset leftwing activists are not a Prime Minister's policies; they are Israel's policies. Make no mistake, the Democratic Party doesn't have an anti-Bibi problem; it has an anti-Israel problem. Israel is not a colony of America whose leaders serve at the pleasure of the party in power in Washington. Only Israel's citizens should have a say in who runs their government. This is the very definition of democracy and sovereignty. Either we respect their decisions or we disrespect their democracy.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, last week, in the State of the Union Address, President Biden bragged that he was taking ``the most significant action on climate ever in the history of the world.'' What he failed to mention is that his radical climate policy almost always comes at the expense of American workers and job creators. Just recently, the Biden administration rolled out yet another job- killing mandate that would impose more unilateral economic pain here at home. This one goes well beyond the regulatory standards of most of our European allies, let alone our top strategic competitor, China. The EPA wants to tighten limits on fine particulates in the air, known as PM2.5, despite its own data showing that concentrations have actually gone down by over 40 percent in the last two decades. The vast majority of these emissions come from sources like wildfires and dust from agriculture and roads that are not easily contained and, in some cases, impossible to control. We are talking about a climate boogeyman conjured out of smoke and dust. The EPA's new standard is so strict that when it takes effect, 30 percent of U.S. counties, including many in my home State, would immediately find themselves out of compliance, grounding manufacturing growth to a halt. Meanwhile, the job of actually implementing the EPA's new mandate will fall to the States that are forced to inherit all the costs of this bad policy--from offshore manufacturing jobs to greater reliance on China to higher prices when Americans can least afford it. In order to keep up with President Biden's new mandate, American manufacturers would be forced to import raw materials, like concrete and steel, for virtually any construction project--the kind of projects that grow our economy and support good-paying jobs. In other words, the Biden administration is saying, in no uncertain terms, that they are willing to make our economy more--more--dependent on foreign supply chains just to appease the green activists in this country. So it is no surprise that State leaders are pushing back on this ruling. Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman is leading a lawsuit with West Virginia to challenge the EPA's mandate; and so far, nearly half of our States have signed on. Unlike the Biden administration, local and State leaders understand just how damaging this new rule would be for workers and for job creators back home. So today, I am happy to announce that Senate Republicans stand ready to do our part. Today, I am introducing a resolution under the Congressional Review Act that would prevent the EPA from plowing ahead with this senseless regulatory overkill. I am thankful to more than 40 colleagues who have joined my resolution, so far, as cosponsors. Senate Republicans will continue to stand with American workers and job creators, especially when the Biden administration tries to make their work so much harder. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, last week, in the State of the Union Address, President Biden bragged that he was taking ``the most significant action on climate ever in the history of the world.'' What he failed to mention is that his radical climate policy almost always comes at the expense of American workers and job creators. Just recently, the Biden administration rolled out yet another job- killing mandate that would impose more unilateral economic pain here at home. This one goes well beyond the regulatory standards of most of our European allies, let alone our top strategic competitor, China. The EPA wants to tighten limits on fine particulates in the air, known as PM2.5, despite its own data showing that concentrations have actually gone down by over 40 percent in the last two decades. The vast majority of these emissions come from sources like wildfires and dust from agriculture and roads that are not easily contained and, in some cases, impossible to control. We are talking about a climate boogeyman conjured out of smoke and dust. The EPA's new standard is so strict that when it takes effect, 30 percent of U.S. counties, including many in my home State, would immediately find themselves out of compliance, grounding manufacturing growth to a halt. Meanwhile, the job of actually implementing the EPA's new mandate will fall to the States that are forced to inherit all the costs of this bad policy--from offshore manufacturing jobs to greater reliance on China to higher prices when Americans can least afford it. In order to keep up with President Biden's new mandate, American manufacturers would be forced to import raw materials, like concrete and steel, for virtually any construction project--the kind of projects that grow our economy and support good-paying jobs. In other words, the Biden administration is saying, in no uncertain terms, that they are willing to make our economy more--more--dependent on foreign supply chains just to appease the green activists in this country. So it is no surprise that State leaders are pushing back on this ruling. Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman is leading a lawsuit with West Virginia to challenge the EPA's mandate; and so far, nearly half of our States have signed on. Unlike the Biden administration, local and State leaders understand just how damaging this new rule would be for workers and for job creators back home. So today, I am happy to announce that Senate Republicans stand ready to do our part. Today, I am introducing a resolution under the Congressional Review Act that would prevent the EPA from plowing ahead with this senseless regulatory overkill. I am thankful to more than 40 colleagues who have joined my resolution, so far, as cosponsors. Senate Republicans will continue to stand with American workers and job creators, especially when the Biden administration tries to make their work so much harder. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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, yesterday, President Biden released his budget request for the next fiscal year. Here is the top line: He wants the American people to take on more than $16 trillion in cumulative deficits over the next decade. The President who told the Nation last week that he was cutting the deficit just put out a budget request that would do the exact opposite. Unfortunately, this is hardly the only pledge that President Biden's request would break. After repeatedly promising not to raise taxes on households making less than $400,000 a year, the President is now selling a plan that would heap $5 trillion in new and expanded taxes on American workers and job creators. Let's put this in perspective. The Biden administration's budget proposal would raise taxes as a share of the U.S. economy to levels our Nation hasn't seen since World War II. Let me say that again. President Biden wants to bring taxes as a share of GDP higher than they have been since the middle of the fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Now, I have been pretty frank in my assessment that the threats America is facing today are as dangerous as we have seen since the Cold War, if not the era of the Axis Powers. But here is the rub: The President apparently only wants to tax the American people at wartime levels. By contrast, he shows no interest in the sort of defense investments that were needed to squeeze the Soviets in the 1980s, let alone to liberate Europe and Asia in the 1940s. It is far more expensive to fight wars than to deter them. American defense spending during World War II spiked at 37 percent of GDP; during the Korean war, 14 percent of GDP; Vietnam, 9 percent of GDP. By contrast, the Reagan buildup that helped end the Cold War hit only 6 percent of GDP in 1986. But today, in a renewed era of major power competition, the Biden administration appears to lack the will even to sustain such credible deterrence. Here lies another broken promise: After engaging in political hostage-taking over the debt limit last year, the Biden administration apparently doesn't intend to honor their own agreement on spending limits. The latest budget request uses accounting gimmicks to blow clear through agreed-upon limits for domestic discretionary spending. Yet, at the same time, administration officials insist it should ``not have been a surprise'' that the President sees spending caps on national defense as sacrosanct. Of course, this reckless behavior follows a predictable pattern. Under this Commander in Chief, U.S. military faces the same historic inflation as everyone else in our country. As gas and groceries get more expensive, so do the capabilities our servicemembers need. Yet this is the fourth straight time the Biden administration has turned in a defense budget request that amounts to a net cut after inflation. Apparently, the President hadn't yet learned the lessons of Bidenomics; instead, for more than 3 years, a global superpower has responded to growing coordination amongst its major adversaries, a restored haven for terrorists in Afghanistan, the first major land war in Europe since 1945, the deadliest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust on October 7 in Israel, and breakneck military spending and modernizations from our top strategic rival but cutting our own military strength. In a budget request full of gross excess in all the wrong places, neglecting the national defense is the takeaway that history will remember as the most alarming.