Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on Friday, the Senate completed its work on annual appropriations for six major areas of the Federal Government: agriculture and rural development; commerce, justice, and science; energy and water development; interior and environment; military construction, veterans' affairs; and transportation, housing, and urban development. The Senate's vote was a major milestone in a process our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee began the better part of a year ago. Thanks to Senator Collins and Senator Murray's commitment to operating in good faith and adhering as much as possible to regular order, a significant portion of the Federal Government's discretionary budget is complete. As I mentioned last week, the agreement before the Senate includes a number of conservative accomplishments that Vice Chair Collins fought for upfront. I am especially pleased that it will advance priorities near and dear to the hearts of my fellow Kentuckians--from rural transportation to military readiness to stopping the flow of illegal drugs. I am proud to represent three military installations in Kentucky that are vital to America's national defense strategy. And the bill the Senate passed last week will fund critical construction projects at each of them. It green-lights the construction of top-of-the-line training and operational capabilities at Fort Knox and Fort Campbell, both home to a number of our Nation's most storied Army units. And it resurrects resources from a National Guard training range in Greenville, KY, a long-overdue project that has fallen by the wayside for nearly two decades. Hundreds of millions of dollars will also go toward helping rural Kentuckians and the rest of Middle America: urgent funding to overhaul aging roads, bridges, and river ports that hold back Main Street; investments for clean, reliable water infrastructure; funds to continue environmental cleanup efforts in Paducah; and resources to expand broadband access to every corner of the Commonwealth. It also empowers law enforcement with new resources to combat the opioid crisis that has devastated my home State and remains a top killer of young Kentuckians. So I was glad the Senate finished the job on a major portion of our government funding responsibilities, and I was especially proud to deliver on some of my fellow Kentuckians' top priorities.

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, well, tonight, President Biden will deliver the last State of the Union Address of his term. For the past 3 years, these speeches have served as mile markers but not of any meaningful progress toward a more perfect Union. Instead, each year, the American people tuned in to see just how far the President's own version of his record is from the reality of their lives. For 3 years, the President, who campaigned as a moderate, has governed like an activist from the furthest fringe of the Democratic Party. The Biden administration's agenda has meant pain at home and weakness abroad. It didn't have to be this way. President Biden took office amid strong tailwinds--from an economic recovery that was already restoring the record-setting prosperity we saw before the pandemic to a historic modernization of our military that was well underway. He inherited everything he needed to point our Nation toward further security and prosperity, but he chose weakness and invited danger instead. Today, nearly two-thirds of voters say our economy is worse than it was 4 years ago. Not even one in four thinks our country is on the right track. Barely a quarter of the country expects our economy to improve in the coming year. But that hasn't stopped President Biden from trying to convince working Americans to take his word for it and ignore their own shrinking paychecks. He has literally taken a victory tour to tout his disastrous economic record. His administration has declared Bidenomics ``the word of the year.'' Meanwhile, American consumers are shelling out a bigger portion of their income on groceries than at any point in the last 30 years. A food pantry in Northern Kentucky is reporting ``more and more demand for . . . enough food to make people's income stretch.'' Across the board, consumer prices are nearly 18 percent higher today than they were when President Biden took office. This is what ``Bidenomics in action'' really means? At kitchen tables tonight, working families will probably wonder whether the President has any regrets, whether he wishes he hadn't ignored his party's top economists and rammed through trillions of dollars in leftwing spending, which brought on the worst inflation in 40 years, or whether he wishes he hadn't declared total war on our most affordable sources of domestic energy, along with the jobs these American industries support. On President Biden's watch, overall energy prices are up nearly a third. Time after time, when given the choice to lead or to outsource his work to leftwing activists, President Biden has chosen the latter. He has handed his base a blank check for a wish list of social engineering and left the American people to foot the bill. Meanwhile, he has poured gasoline on the fire of leftwing, pro- criminal, anti-police rhetoric across the country. The Biden administration has packed its Justice Department full of leftwing activists working overtime to tear serious crimes right out of the Criminal Code. A couple years back, a district attorney in Massachusetts declared she wouldn't prosecute crimes like breaking and entering or drug possession with intent to distribute. President Biden rewarded this behavior by making Rachael Rollins one of his first U.S. attorneys. Across the country, on this President's watch, leftwing prosecutors have turned repeated offenders into the streets--repeatedly. In President Biden's America, violent criminals have learned that they won't face serious consequences, and, of course, they are acting accordingly. At the same time, leftwing activists bent on attacking the Federal judiciary have found an ally in the Biden White House. The President has tried to give life tenure to a judicial nominee who identified himself as a ``wild-eyed leftist,'' another with a history of supporting terrorist sympathizers, and even one who had worked to undermine a teenage girl's claim of sexual assault. President Biden hasn't just tried putting the wrong people in our Nation's institutions, he spent 3 years undermining the institutions themselves. His Attorney General slow-walked urgent security measures to protect the Supreme Court Justices and their families from angry mobs, and his administration even stood up a commission to explore Court packing--a terrible idea that hasn't gotten any less terrible since it was killed back in the 1930s. So the rule of law is less stable on President Biden's watch. The streets of our major cities are less safe. And, of course, our borders are less secure.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, next month will mark 45 years since a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in an increasingly critical region of the world became law. The formal title of the law is worth a read in today's context: An act to help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific and to promote the foreign policy of the United States by authorizing the continuation of commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan. In the 45 years since Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, our friends on the island have continued to write an incredible story of resilience. Taiwan has established a strong democracy, a robust civil society, and a modern, innovative, high-tech economy. And its people have planted themselves squarely--squarely--on the side of free societies and free markets. America is Taiwan's second largest trading partner. Its military is reforming and modernizing, increasingly arming itself with cutting-edge American capabilities. And the U.S.-Taiwan partnership has become an increasingly important indicator of bipartisan American resolve at a time when our allies and adversaries alike doubt--doubt--the credibility of our commitments. After abandoning allies in Afghanistan, squandering leverage over Iran, and slow-walking assistance to Ukraine, America's relationship with Taiwan holds unique value. And, like it or not, it will be increasingly seen as a test of whether America's commitments to allies and partners hold any water. Today, investing in our capabilities and defense industrial capacity would show our friends across the Indo-Pacific that we do--do-- recognize the significance of that region and of the strategic competition unfolding out there--a competition America cannot afford to neglect. After all, the PRC is certainly not neglecting it. Since 2015, Beijing's publicly reported spending on its military has doubled, and, just yesterday, Communist Party leaders announced that defense investments would grow a further 7.2 percent. Of course, that is just the figure Beijing acknowledges publicly. China's real military modernization efforts are actually more expansive and more worrisome, and they are intended to enable the PRC to dominate its neighbors and counter America's ability to project power in the region. By word and deed, the PRC is showing the world that it is prepared to redraw maps by force. Sound familiar? That is because the revisionists autocrats we face are operating from the very same playbook. And Taiwan appreciates the links between the threats we face as well as any of our allies and partners. Its leaders have been outspoken in connecting the dots between an aggressive Russia in Europe and an emboldened China in the Indo-Pacific. And the people of Taiwan increasingly recognize their interests in preparing to deter and defeat aggression. In fact, they are so clear-eyed about challenges posed by revisionist powers today, they are helping a fellow democracy halfway around the world in Ukraine. But the more pressing questions right now are whether America recognizes our own interests in maintaining a world in which our commitments are trusted, our threats are feared, and what we are prepared to do about it. Standing by our friends, standing up to adversaries, and investing in the military capacity to do both--as Congress considers annual Defense appropriations and finishes its work on the national security supplemental, these are the fundamental tasks at hand.

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, Congress avoided a harmful and unnecessary government shutdown, and, this week, we will take a major step forward on one of our most basic responsibilities of government. Our colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Murray, have been working hard on the fiscal year 2024 appropriations for the better part of a year. The Appropriations Committee advanced the bills we will consider this week back in June and July of last year, working in good faith through the regular order. And in all but one case, they received unanimous support. This first tranche of annual appropriations accounts for a serious portion of our overall discretionary funding responsibilities, and thanks to Senator Collins' leadership, the bills the Appropriations Committee cleared last summer secured important Republican priorities up front. By all reasonable measures, the conference with our House colleagues has made the legislation we will take up this week even stronger. The Senate has an opportunity to strengthen protections for America's farmland by tightening oversight over foreign agricultural transactions and expand support for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. We have a chance to strengthen protections for U.S. intellectual property and surge resources to State and local law enforcement agencies on the frontlines of the fight to curb violent crime and to bring the fentanyl crisis under control. We can increase support for VA rural health and opioid treatment, protect the Second Amendment rights of America's veterans, and improve housing and facilities for Active-Duty servicemembers and their families, including thousands of Kentuckians stationed in harm's way. We can fund urgent transportation and water infrastructure projects, support domestic enrichment of critical minerals, and invest in the long-term safety, security, and superiority of our nuclear arsenal. We can do it all this week. I am grateful to our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for pushing sensible annual funding legislation one step closer to the President's desk, and I would certainly urge all of our colleagues to support it.

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, as I said earlier this week, government shutdowns never produce positive outcomes. That is why Congress is going to avoid one this week. Leaders in both parties and both Houses have agreed to a plan that would keep the lights on while appropriators complete their work and put annual appropriations bills on a glide path to becoming law. I appreciate our colleagues' commitment to see this process through and make good on this essential governing responsibility, and I expect the Senate to act swiftly on a first step this week.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been a month since the Biden administration announced its de facto ban on new export permits for America's abundant stores of natural gas; 1 month since the President chose to bring growth in a critical sector of our economy, with massive, global consequences, to a screeching halt. At the risk of understating things, the condemnations of President Biden's decision were swift and full-throated, and it is not hard to understand why. With the stroke of a pen, the President threatened the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Americans, from Texas to Pennsylvania, who produce and transport natural gas. From the outset, the administration tried to cast the freeze as an effort to look out for American consumers, but the facts tell a different story. By the Energy Department's own analysis, the United States has more than enough natural gas to meet both domestic and export demand. In fact, if the Biden administration was really concerned about access to one of the Nation's most abundant, reliable, and affordable energy sources, they would release their stranglehold on domestic energy exploration and energy infrastructure. Millions of Americans live near massive natural gas reserves but can't reap the benefits because the President is afraid of upsetting climate activists by investing in safe and efficient energy infrastructure. Some of the most scathing criticism of the President's decision has come from his own former Democratic colleagues. As former Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana observed last month, the administration's so- called ``pause'' on LNG export permits was like ``throwing a match in a bale of hay.'' America's allies and partners already doubt our resolve to deter common adversaries, but now the world wonders why the Biden administration just handed them a gift. Just last week, a German state-owned energy company confirmed that it would actually keep an LNG supply contract with Putin. But it gets worse. The company had a contract in hand to begin purchasing American LNG instead until the administration announced its freeze last month. In other words, the President of the United States essentially told a NATO ally to keep on enriching the dictator responsible for the first major land war in Europe since 1945. To make matters worse, it is increasingly clear that President Biden's decision had another adversary's fingerprints all over it. Leftwing activists have been in the driver's seat of the President's energy policy since day one. That much is not news, but his top climate advisers taking private meetings with influencers on a Chinese-owned social media platform or the campaign to ban LNG permits being driven by a private foundation invested heavily in China's funds--that is news. LNG exports are one of the only areas of U.S.-China trade in which the PRC is reliant on the United States. Beijing would be all too happy for an excuse to buy less clean U.S. energy and more of what President Biden's Energy Secretary called ``the dirtiest form of natural gas on Earth''--Russian LNG. Well, it appears that President Biden has given our top strategic adversary precisely such an excuse. It is hard to understand the President's decision as anything other than a compulsive, shortsighted grab for more fleeting praise from his activist base. Clearly, it makes no strategic or economic sense. As one expert analyst and Deputy National Security Advisor under the previous administration put it, ``Our partners and allies are baffled and [our] adversaries are pleased. That's never a good formula.''

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as some of you may know, this has been a particularly difficult time for my family. We tragically lost Elaine's younger sister, Angela, just a few weeks ago. When you lose a loved one, particularly at a young age, there is a certain introspection that accompanies the grieving process. Perhaps it is God's way of reminding you of your own life's journey to reprioritize the impact on the world that we will all inevitably leave behind. I turned 82 last week. The end of my contributions is closer than I would prefer. My career in the U.S. Senate began amidst the Reagan revolution. The truth is, when I got here, I was just happy if anybody remembered my name. President Reagan called me Mitch O'Donnell. Close enough, I thought. My wife Elaine and I got married on President Reagan's birthday, February 6. It is probably not the most romantic thing to admit, but Reagan meant a lot to both of us. For 31 years, Elaine has been the love of my life, and I am eternally grateful to have her by my side. I think back to my first days in the Senate with deep appreciation for the time that helped shape my view of the world. I am unconflicted about the good within our country and the irreplaceable role we play as the leader of the free world. That is why I worked so hard to get the national security package passed earlier this month. Believe me, I know the politics within my party at this particular moment in time. I have many faults. Misunderstanding politics is not one of them. That said, I believe more strongly than ever that America's global leadership is essential to preserving the shining city on a hill that Ronald Reagan discussed. For as long as I am drawing breath on this Earth, I will defend American exceptionalism. So, as I have been thinking about when I would deliver some news to the Senate, I always imagined a moment when I had total clarity and peace about the sunset of my work, a moment when I am certain I have helped preserve the ideals I so strongly believe. That day arrived today. My goals when I was narrowly elected to the Senate in 1984 were fairly modest: Do a good job for the people of Kentucky and convince them that, by doing so, they might rehire me for a second term. That was it. That was the plan. If you would have told me, 40 years later, that I would stand before you as the longest serving Senate leader in American history, frankly, I would have thought you had lost your mind. I have the honor of representing Kentucky in the Senate longer than anyone else in our State's history. I just never could have imagined-- never could have imagined--that happening when I arrived here in 1984 at 42. I am filled with heartfelt gratitude and humility for the opportunity. But now it is 2024. I am now 82. As Ecclesiastes tells us, ``To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven.'' To serve Kentucky in the Senate has been the honor of my life. To lead my Republican colleagues has been the highest privilege. But one of life's most underappreciated talents is to know when it is time to move on to life's next chapter. So I stand before you today, Mr. President and my colleagues, to say this will be my last term as Republican leader of the Senate. I am not going anywhere any time soon. However, I will complete the job my colleagues have given me until we select a new leader in November and they take the helm next January. I will finish the job the people of Kentucky hired me to do, as well, albeit from a different seat. And I am actually looking forward to that. So it is time for me to think about another season. I love the Senate. It has been my life. There may be more distinguished Members of this body throughout our history, but I doubt there were any with more admiration for the Senate. After all this time, I still get a thrill walking into the Capitol and especially on this venerable floor, knowing that we--each of us--have the honor to represent our States and do the important work of our country. But Father Time remains undefeated. I am no longer the young man sitting in the back, hoping colleagues would remember my name. It is time for the next generation of leadership. As Henry Clay said in this very body in 1850, ``The Constitution of the United States was not made merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity--unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity.'' So time rolls on. There will be a new custodian of this great institution next year. It won't surprise you to know I intend to turn this job over to a Republican majority leader. I have full confidence in my conference to choose my replacement and lead our country forward. There will be other times to reminisce. I am immensely proud of the accomplishments I have played some role in obtaining for the American people. Today is not the day to discuss all of that because, as I said earlier, I am not going anywhere anytime soon. There are many challenges we must meet to deliver for the American people, and each will have my full effort and attention. I still have enough gas in my tank to thoroughly disappoint my critics, and I intend to do so with all the enthusiasm with which they have become accustomed. So to my colleagues, thank you for entrusting me with our success. It has been an honor to work with each of you. There will be plenty of time to express my gratitude in greater detail as I sprint toward the finish line, which is now in sight. I yield the floor. (Applause, Senators rising.)

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, nearly 20 years ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin described the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union as the ``greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century,'' and, for decades, he has worked incessantly to revive the repressive empire built by Stalin, including by redrawing European borders by force. Back in 2008, he sent the Russian military to bring Georgia, a sovereign democracy, to heel. His forces occupy parts of that country right up to today. Precisely 10 years ago today, Putin launched a military invasion into Ukraine to seize Crimea and the Donbas region. Of course, today isn't an anniversary of a settled event in the past; it is a mile marker in a campaign of subjugation, brutality, and conquest that remains very much alive. Over the past 10 years, Putin's invasion has grown from an initial incursion by ``little green men'' to a massive ground campaign to seize all of Ukraine. But as Russian aggression escalated, two things remained the same: first, the incredible resolve of the Ukrainian people to defend their sovereignty, and second, the tendency of Western partners capable of supporting Ukraine's defense to hesitate instead. Think about America's own behavior back in 2014. President Obama was 6 years removed from a promise to ``reset'' relations with Russia and a little more than a year removed from mocking his opponent on the Presidential debate stage for warning of the threat posed by Putin. As he put it smugly to our now colleague, Senator Romney, ``The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.'' That same year, then-Vice President Biden said our colleague from Utah was ``mired in a Cold War mindset.'' Well, of course, the Obama-Biden administration didn't just scoff at realism on Russia; they assiduously avoided it. When Ukraine's pro- Western democratic leaders faced an incursion by highly trained Russian troops, they begged for lethal weapons to defend their sovereign territory, but the Obama-Biden administration worried about escalation and sent nonlethal supplies like blankets and MREs instead. The next year, the West's collective failure to support Ukraine military or impose meaningful costs on Russia resulted in cease-fire agreements that at best would have frozen the conflict in place had Putin actually respected them. Even as the next administration moved to provide lethal assistance and training for Ukraine and began the process of rebuilding our own military strength, too few European allies were taking Russian aggression or their own pledges to increase defense spending after Putin's 2014 invasion seriously enough. Unfortunately, President Biden compounded the problems he had helped sow back when he was Vice President--from a disastrous, credibility- shredding withdrawal from Afghanistan to his constant refusal to steer European allies away from reliance on Russia, especially Russian energy. It is not a mystery why Putin was not deterred. The weakness and indecision that defined the Obama-Biden administration's response to Putin's 2014 invasion have actually echoed in the Biden-Harris administration's response to his 2022 escalation. For months, as Russian forces amassed on Ukraine's borders, and for months, as their brutal campaign got underway, the Biden White House mostly managed to deter itself from equipping Ukraine at the speed of relevance. This is not to say that Western allies and partners aren't making historic investments in deterring common threats. The free world is indeed finally waking up. In the last 2 years, NATO allies have spent more than $120 billion on cutting-edge U.S. weapons and capabilities, while also making historic investments in their own defense and industrial capacity. Just think of the lessons Russian aggression is teaching about the interconnected nature of the threats we face. Consider how unwaveringly our allies in the Indo-Pacific have supported Ukraine's fight, both in word and in deed. As Taiwan's Foreign Minister put it over the weekend, on the 2-year anniversary of the 2022 escalation--here is what he said: Ukraine's resistance was ``showing us what fighting spirit is, and passing it on to Taiwan.'' Take the encouraging news just yesterday that Sweden is now finally poised to become the newest member of the transatlantic alliance. I visited Stockholm and Helsinki in a show of solidarity last March when their Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of joining NATO. There is no question that Sweden and Finland joining the most successful military alliance in human history will further contribute advanced capabilities to our collective security and make the West and America safer. Across the world, Americans, allies, and partners have drawn sobering lessons from the latest chapter of Russian aggression in Ukraine, but we have yet to learn some of the same lessons ourselves. It is time to recognize how passivity, half-measures, and delay brought the West to this particular moment and where they will take us if we don't reject them and chart a new course. We should reflect on the mistakes of the Obama-Biden administration, its failure to respond forcefully to aggression, and we should resolve not to make the same mistakes ourselves. For 10 years, our adversary has shown us by his actions that Russia's appetite for conquest grows with the eating. We can no longer afford to pretend otherwise.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, as Congress returns to Washington this week, the deadline to avoid a partial lapse in government funding is fast approaching. Without action by Friday, the country would face needless disruptions to agriculture, transportation, military construction, and essential services at the VA. So I will say at the outset what I have said every time Congress has faced this threat: Shutting down the government is harmful to the country. And it never produces positive outcomes--on policy or politics. What is more, a shutdown this week is entirely avoidable. The Senate passed full-year appropriations for each of these important areas 4 months ago, and our House colleagues have produced full-year legislation of their own. We have the means and just enough time this week to avoid a shutdown and to make serious headway on annual appropriations. But as always, the task at hand will require that everyone rows in the same direction: toward clean appropriations and away from poison pills. Needless to say, millions of Americans will be watching carefully to see whether and how Congress fulfills its responsibilities this week. American farmers and ranchers, like the Kentuckians visiting Washington this week, expect us to take the challenges they face in feeding our Nation seriously. Veterans who swore to protect and defend expect us to keep our promises to care for them when they return home. In the coming days, we will need to do just that.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, from the earliest days of Vladimir Putin's escalation in Ukraine, America's closest allies and partners have been paying close attention. From halfway around the world in the Indo-Pacific, our friends have made it clear that in the Ukrainian people's fight, they see their own future. From Taiwan: Ukraine's survival is Taiwan's survival. From Japan: Security in Europe and security in the Indo-Pacific are inseparable. From Australia: It is absolutely in the interest of every free country that Putin's aggression fails. But why? Why would peaceful people dare to get involved in others' fights? Why would leaders in Asia contribute billions of dollars in weapons to help Ukraine defeat Russian aggression? Why would the Prime Minister of Japan and the President of South Korea bother with long journeys to wartime Kyiv to express solidarity with Ukraine? Why not just pull up the drawbridge and keep quiet? Because our allies and partners are not naive. Because they know that unchecked aggression begets more. Because they know that victory for Russia means a green light for China. Because they know that neglecting Ukraine's fight to restore its sovereignty raises the costs of defending their own. Our partners don't have the luxury of pretending that the world's most dangerous aggressors are someone else's problem, and neither do we. So, today, it is no exaggeration to say that the eyes of the world are on the U.S. Senate. Our allies and partners are hoping that the indispensable nation--the leader of the free world--has the resolve to continue, and our adversaries are hoping for something quite different. Friends and foes alike pay close attention to what we say here and to how we vote because American leadership matters, and it is in question. But let's be absolutely clear. The United States didn't give our ``greatest generation'' to the fight against Nazi Germany or commit half a century of focus and resources to defeating Soviet communism just out of a sense of altruism, and we aren't helping partners resist authoritarian aggression today out of some warm and fuzzy sense of charity. We haven't equipped the brave people of Ukraine, Israel, or Taiwan with lethal capabilities in order to win philanthropic accolades. We are not urgently strengthening defenses in the Indo- Pacific because it feels good. We don't wield American strength frivolously. We do it because it is in our own interest. We equip our friends to face our shared adversaries so we are less likely to have to spend American lives to defeat them. For years, I have warned about the growing threats to America's national security and the growing coordination among our adversaries. And, for years, I have worked to steer greater investments toward the hard power needed to deter them. The Russian despot trying to conquer Ukraine also wants to see America weakened. The Chinese autocrat hoping to subjugate Taiwan also wants to consign American leadership to history. The Iranian regime that equips the slaughter of Israel's Jews and a terrorist war on international commerce also wants to shatter our influence in the region and spill American blood in the process. They tell us by their actions. Pretending not to hear them is not an option. Delaying until the costs in American lives and treasure rise immeasurably is not an option. The time to stand up to these gathering threats is right now. Every night, millions of Americans sleep in peace because brave men and women continue to answer the call to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces. Every day, millions of Americans turn for their livelihood to an economic order built and underwritten by American leadership. And every time that peace and prosperity are threatened, we stand with allies and partners who trust in the righteousness of that leadership and the credibility of our commitments. Today, the future of the world I have just described is in question. The endurance of an order in which American support is craved and American strength is feared is in doubt. And we, the United States of America, have the most to lose. Ever since we came to the aid of our allies 80 years ago, America has been an inseparable partner in the security of Europe, not out of charity but because our own security and prosperity is tied to it. Ever since we were attacked in 1941, America has helped guarantee stability and free commerce in the Indo-Pacific, not as a moral gesture but because we have core interests of our own in this critical part of the world. Ever since the establishment of the modern Jewish State of Israel in 1948, America has stood by her, not out of generosity but because of the enduring values and interests we share: in security, in democracy, and in peace. I know it has become quite fashionable in some circles to disregard the global interests we have as a global power, to bemoan the responsibilities of global leadership, to lament the commitment that has underpinned the longest drought of great power conflict in human history. This is idle work for idle minds, and it has no place in the U.S. Senate. In this Chamber, we must face the world as it is. We must reject the dimmest and most shortsighted views of our obligations and grapple instead with actual problems, as they come, in the harsh light of day. And, today, the questions facing this body are quite simple. Will we give those who wish us harm more reason to question our resolve? Or will we recommit to exercising American strength? Will we give those who crave our leadership more reason to wonder if it is in decline? Or will we invest in the credibility that underpins our entire way of life? I cannot answer these questions for any one of my colleagues, but none of us can afford to get them wrong.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, when the Biden administration released its request for supplemental appropriations in October, I said the Senate would need to do its own work to meet the demonstrated needs of our national security. The President's decisions over the past 3 years have directly contributed to the web of serious security challenges demanding the Senate's attention--from an embarrassing retreat from Afghanistan that emboldened terrorists and shredded credibility with our allies, to a halting response to Russian escalation that kept lethal capabilities off the frontlines of Ukraine's defense, to an Iran policy that tried trading deterrence for detente. The Senate can and will continue to urge the Commander in Chief to do the right thing, but we also have a responsibility of our own to provide for the common defense and equip the next Commander in Chief with the tools to exercise American strength. That responsibility is in front of us right now, and addressing national security challenges with serious legislation starts with recognizing some pretty basic realities about how the world works: First, America has global interests and global responsibilities, and to the extent the President has neglected them, the Senate ignores them at the Nation's peril. Second, alliances and partnerships are essential to advancing our interests. They lower the costs of keeping the peace, reduce the direct risks to America, and facilitate the commerce that drives our economy. But these alliances and partnerships rely on American leadership and American credibility. Finally, there is a growing list of adversaries who wish us harm. There is growing evidence that they are working together, and there is no doubt that they are emboldened by American weakness. These are not opinions. They are plainly observable facts borne out by history. Denying them does a disservice to the American people, and it is impossible to engage productively on decisions about U.S. national security without acknowledging them. So a great number of our colleagues have worked diligently on legislation that confronts Russian aggression against the West, Iran- backed terror against Israel and U.S. forces, and the rise of an aggressive China head-on. The product before the Senate resolves the significant shortcomings of the President's request. For example, thanks to Senate Republicans, it requires the Commander in Chief to submit a strategy that identifies the specific objectives, requirements, and metrics from our assistance to Ukraine. It shifts $4 billion away from direct budget support to Kyiv into security investments instead. And it fully funds the special inspector general for Ukraine created by the NDAA last year, further expanding already unprecedented visibility into how U.S. assistance is actually being used. The legislation also designates $9 billion above the President's request for U.S. defense needs, including $2.4 billion for ongoing operations against Iran-backed terrorists in the Middle East. And, thanks to Republican efforts, it imposes strict new oversight measures on humanitarian assistance and ensures that not a single penny of U.S. taxpayer funds goes to the U.N. agency whose employees stoke hatred in Gaza and actually participated in the slaughter of Jews in Israel. Underneath these essential provisions sit historic and urgent investments in American hard power, which is critical to our national defense. Our allies and partners in Ukraine and Israel are fighting our shared adversaries, degrading their military capacity, and working to restore deterrence. Our friends in the Pacific are working to deter yet another one. Together, they are facing the raw end of authoritarian aggression and terrorist savagery. Our colleagues have heard me say this before: American assistance to these efforts is not charity. It is an investment in cold, hard U.S. interests. This is not a rhetorical device. It is not referring to some vague lines of efforts from which America expects to receive some trickle- down benefit. I mean quite literally spending tens of billions of dollars here in America, upgrading our capabilities, creating American manufacturing jobs, and expanding our defense industrial capacity to help us better compete with advanced adversaries. Of just the funds this supplemental designates to support Ukrainian's defense, $19.85 billion of it will be spent right here in America on replenishing our own arsenal. Another $3.5 billion will be spent-- again, here in America--to expand our industrial base's capacity to produce artillery and air-defense and long-range weapons. And $15.4 billion will be spent--one more time, here in America--on weapons for Ukraine to continue degrading the military strength of a major U.S. adversary. These investments create capacity that we, the United States, need for serious competition with our adversaries. Of course, this doesn't even account for the massive streams of funding our allies and partners around the world are investing in American capabilities themselves, including more than $120 billion and counting from NATO allies. Overall, even accounting for direct assistance sent to allies like Israel, more than 75 percent of this legislation is bound for investments right here in America, and more than 60 percent of it goes to the defense industrial base, where increasing capacity is a direct investment in long-term strength abroad and prosperity here at home. This is about rebuilding the arsenal of democracy and demonstrating to our allies and adversaries alike that we are serious about exercising American strength. I can present these facts as frequently as necessary. It is what I have been doing quite literally for years. Every one of our colleagues is capable of understanding that security assistance appropriated in support of Ukraine is money invested right here in America. Every one of our colleagues is capable of understanding that the investments this legislation makes in expanding production capacity--from artillery rounds to rocket motors, to submarines--are investments in readiness for long-term competition with China, a competition America cannot afford to lose. Every single one of us knows what is at stake here, and it is time for every one of us to deal with it head-on.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 4 months ago, Senate Republicans asked our colleague from Oklahoma Senator Lankford to take on a pretty tall order: negotiate serious border security policy with an administration that had shown no interest in actually securing the border. He put in an enormous amount of work, and I am very grateful for the persistence he has shown over many nights, weekends, and a few holidays. The product he was able to secure earned the endorsement of the National Border Patrol Council, a sign that you are pointing in the right direction. But as our colleagues recognize, the agreement does not have a path to become law. The border crisis that President Biden invited through his rhetoric and his willful neglect will continue to challenge the brave men and women of the CPB and ICE and impact communities across the country, and its effects will follow his legacy forever. I wish I could say that a record-setting border crisis was the only challenge that the President's failures have laid before us, but our colleagues know as well as I do that that isn't the case. There have always been aggressive forces seeking to harm America and to challenge our interests. The very existence of a Western order in which sovereign nations choose their own leaders has always been an affront to repressive and aggressive regimes around the world. But even in the face of serious threats, for large portions of modern history, the United States has dictated the terms of engagement. For decades, the world's foremost superpower has been the one doing the deterring. Not anymore. It is no longer a settled question that America will meet aggression with overwhelming force or even that we will back our allies 100 percent. Take this headline about President Biden's response to the attack that killed three U.S. soldiers last month: U.S. Strikes Steer Clear of Iran's Red Lines. Here is the subhead of another one: U.S. officials acknowledge that the militias targeted still retain the majority of their capability to carry out future attacks. Oh, here is one more: Pentagon says it's not planning for a long-term campaign [against Iran's proxies] in Iraq and Syria. So, Mr. President, what can the American people--and the entire world--gather about the Biden administration's approach to the threats that we face? First, we know that Iran is deterring America, not the other way around. Second, we know that the Commander in Chief has not yet directed the strongest military in the world even to exercise sufficient force against expendable proxy terrorists, let alone their Iranian sponsors. Finally, we know that the Biden administration lacks the resolve to defeat those who spill American blood. The Pentagon conceded this week they were not aware that even a single IRGC officer had been eliminated by their response. Yet administration officials say this is what sending a message of deterrence looks like. Let's be honest here. Do our allies see in this behavior an America that is willing to impose decisive costs on our adversaries? Do our adversaries, in turn, see any reason to start changing their calculus? In the Middle East, we already know the answer. Since the President's telegraphed ``response'' to the deadly Tower 22 attack, Iran-backed terrorists have already launched more attacks--from Iraq and Syria to the Red Sea. Iran and its proxies are undeterred. But beyond the region, is there any reason to expect that the President's conduct of foreign policy is causing Putin or Xi to think again? Not a chance. No doubt, the Commander in Chief's halting response to Tehran's aggression emboldens Moscow. Russian forces, like Iran and its proxies, were direct beneficiaries of President Biden's hesitation and self-deterrence as they escalated their invasion of Ukraine. Beijing--after it watched us abandon allies in Afghanistan and second-guess Israel's response to terrorism--has a reason to doubt that the United States is well-positioned to rally allies and partners to resist aggression in the Indo-Pacific. If America fails to stand with our partners on the frontlines of Europe and the Middle East, we will shred our credibility with friends in the Indo-Pacific. So today's strategic competition is more perilous. Support for our allies is more tenuous. And the security of U.S. personnel and interests is more questionable than it was 3 years ago. These are the circumstances in which the Senate must consider some weighty responsibilities of our own: to invest in the hard power that the President instinctively shies away from exercising, to commit to allies that fear being abandoned, and to address the requirements of long-term competition that becomes more difficult the longer America neglects its leading role.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday, Iran-backed terrorists carried out another deadly attack on a base that houses U.S. personnel in Syria. The Iran-backed Houthis continue to threaten U.S. vessels and international shipping in the Red Sea. Three days after President Biden directed strikes in response to the killing of three U.S. soldiers in Jordan, Iran and its proxies are demonstrating that their particular calculus has not changed. The President said on Friday that our adversaries should know that ``if you harm an American, we will respond.'' Well, by their actions, our adversaries are turning the President's words back around. They are essentially saying: We will attack America at times and places of our choosing. Iran and the expendable terrorists it trades for American blood are demonstrably undeterred, and they are hardly the only ones. For 3 years, America's adversaries have luxuriated in a world that no longer takes us at our word. Embarrassing retreat from Afghanistan, fawning climate diplomacy with our top strategic competitor, failure to take Putin seriously until it was too late, and fears of escalation that delayed lethal aid to Ukraine at every turn--for 3 years, America's foreign policy has been defined by hesitation, half measures, and self- deterrence. President Biden has dug our credibility--the value of America's word--into a hole. Meanwhile, our adversaries are aligning and coordinating to an unprecedented degree. As America gives our allies and partners reasons to doubt our resolve, Russia and China are engaged in a ``friendship without limits.'' The contrast couldn't be starker. But it doesn't have to be this way. Take it from practitioners who know that better than anyone. For example, just yesterday, former National Security Advisor retired Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster had this to say: The abandonment of Kyiv would be a gift to the Moscow- Tehran-Beijing-Pyongyang axis of aggressors. Allies and partners would lose trust in America as those aggressors are emboldened. The result could be cascading conflicts even more costly than the interconnected wars in Ukraine and across the Middle East. Of course, General McMaster was the National Security Advisor to President Trump. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in the Trump administration, put it this way, after his recent visit to Ukraine: It will be far more costly and dangerous if Putin wins. Another former National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien, also with the previous administration, expressed his support for supplemental security assistance to Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine, saying simply: The free world has been attacked, and we're the arsenal of democracy. It is in America's direct interest to take growing threats seriously, to invest even more urgently in our capabilities to meet them, and to support our allies and partners on the frontlines. The reality of hard power competition simply does not wait for the President or Congress to take it seriously. Either we confront challenges we face with clear strategic and firm resolve or we lose. Around the world, 21st-century autocrats and medieval theocrats will continue to challenge the U.S.-led order that has underpinned global peace and prosperity for generations, and their proxies will continue to target American personnel and American interests with lethal force. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, 4 years ago, as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, President Biden promised his base functionally open borders: I would in fact make sure that . . . we immediately surge to the border all those people who are seeking asylum. That was President Biden when he took office 3 years ago. As people surged to the border, they insisted that the President had told them to come, and by his actions, we know they were exactly right. The Biden administration invited a crisis at our southwest border. In the tradition of Washington Democrats dating back decades, they chose an issue over its solution, and then they made it worse. The President of the United States threw out essential border security tools like ``Remain in Mexico,'' froze new funds for commonsense measures like border wall construction, and abandoned the brave men and women of the CPB and ICE to clean up his mess. President Biden's border crisis has upended life in communities across America. Flows of deadly fentanyl have snuffed out precious lives in States like Kentucky. Catch-and-release has confronted even the bluest so-called sanctuary cities with the harsh realities of unchecked illegal immigration. For 3 years, the President and his administration have tried to convince the American people not to believe their own eyes. They tried in vain to pretend that we weren't facing a crisis, but the country knows better. This is a humanitarian and security crisis of historic proportions. Senate Republicans have insisted--not just for months but for years-- that this urgent crisis demanded action. Three months ago, we asked our colleague Senator Lankford to lead that action. In just the time since Washington Democrats finally decided to join him at the negotiating table, the President's border crisis made history all over again. December saw the highest daily and monthly tallies of illegal border crossings ever on record. The crisis has literally never been worse. This is the reality as the Senate begins careful consideration of the border security agreement announced last night. The gaping hole in our Nation's sovereign borders on President Biden's watch is not going to heal itself, and the crater of American credibility after 3 years of the President's foreign policy will not repair itself either. Today, our adversaries are emboldened. As terrorists and authoritarian thugs challenge the strongest military in the world, our Commander in Chief is hesitant--hesitant--and self-deterred. It is long past time for the President to demonstrate more resolve and start imposing decisive costs on those who dare to attack America, and it is now time for Congress to take action on supplemental national security legislation that finally meets those challenges head-on. I have spoken at length for months about the urgent need to invest in American hard power, stand with our allies, and start showing our adversaries that the world's foremost superpower intends to start acting like one again. My colleagues know where I stand. They know as well as I do that America's adversaries in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran are working together to undermine us, and they know that the time has finally come for the Senate to respond with strength. The national security legislation we are preparing to take up will invest heavily in the capabilities and capacity America and our allies need to regain the upper hand over this emerging axis of authoritarians. Make no mistake, the gauntlet has been thrown, and America needs to pick it up.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the People's Republic of China is the single greatest strategic challenge facing the United States. It poses a potentially existential threat to our friends in the region and a growing threat to our allies in Europe as well. The PRC is working to undermine the prevailing order that has maintained a major power piece for eight decades. It is useful to think about this challenge from our adversary's position. President Xi aims to expand China's influence at our expense, to rewrite the rules of the road, and to dominate his neighbors. Each of these tasks becomes easier the more the West is distracted, divided, and deterred. And depending on the choices America and our allies make, our adversaries may succeed without even trying. Are we distracted? Ask Beijing what it thinks about the Western diplomatic energy expended on unenforceable climate mandates while Chinese industry accelerates its carbon emissions. Our adversaries must scratch their heads at some of the things about which Western leaders obsess. Are we divided? The PRC clearly hopes that the West's shared values are not as strong as our adversaries' shared disdain for them. Beijing no doubt enjoys watching the United States abandon allies in Afghanistan, second-guess allies in Israel, and initiate trade fights with its closest allies rather than China. Are we deterred? We are self-deterred. Hesitation and hand-wringing over fears of escalation have become hallmarks of the Biden administration's foreign policy. Right now, you would be forgiven for wondering whether President Biden might take longer to respond to the Iran-backed strike that killed U.S. soldiers in Jordan than he did to finally approve long-range fires for Ukraine. The administration's public obsession with avoiding escalation at all cost only signals to our adversaries that, indeed, authoritarians can take what they want by force. Fortunately, Putin's aggression has clarified our allies' thinking. The West is waking up, turbocharging investments in new capabilities, and accelerating the expansion of our own defense industrial base. Beijing and Moscow are not happy to see war in Ukraine prompt two more highly advanced European nations make historic new commitments to collective defense of the West by joining NATO. They are not happy to see America's allies direct a gusher of historic military investments into cutting-edge American weapons made by American workers. In the past 2 years, Pacific allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia have been buying American to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. NATO allies have invested $120 billion of their own in U.S. capabilities. Importantly, they are also investing in expanding their own defense industrial capacities. Our allies recognize that Russia, China, and Iran are, as Secretary General Stoltenberg put it just yesterday here in Washington, ``shaping [an] alternative world where U.S. power is diminished [and] NATO is divided.'' In response, they are rejecting division and committing to interoperability and collective defense. In many ways, NATO is now more united than during the Cold War. But this progress is not a given. It depends on American leadership, and it is quite capable of unraveling. President Xi would like nothing more. There is really no quicker way to make sure we will be distracted from necessary competition with China than by letting Russian aggression in Europe fester. There is no surer path to dividing America from our closest allies than by shredding our credibility and abandoning Ukraine. The PRC hopes that America and our allies will lose our will to stand up to Russian aggression. President Xi hopes for Russian victory but will benefit, too, from a frozen conflict. As they watch Russia fight in Ukraine, what Beijing and Tehran fear is a Western victory. We must understand that the threats our adversaries pose are connected. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are making alarming new commitments to support and underwrite one another's aggressive behavior. Our Asian allies know it. They know that leaving Russia undefeated means leaving the PRC undeterred. And their security assistance to Ukraine demonstrates how seriously they take these linked threats. There is also growing transatlantic agreement that China is a systemic rival and a revisionist power. When the most successful military alliance in history stands together, it represents fully half of the world's military power and half of its economic power. NATO is a formidable force that inspires confidence and collaboration among an even wider circle of allies and partners, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. But when America and our allies let aggression linger undefeated, this force is spread thin. Beijing wants nothing more than to face a West still consumed by self- deterrence in a conflict halfway around the world. Europe has woken up. It is outpacing America in direct assistance to Ukraine, with another =50 billion in assistance announced just today. This is good news. But even as our European allies ramp up their support, strengthen their defenses, upgrade their capabilities, and expand their defense industrial capacity, America doesn't get to opt out--opt out--of doing the same. Even as our most technologically advanced allies take historic steps forward, America doesn't have the luxury of pawning off our interests. Deterring China means defeating Russian aggression. Degrading Russia's military means weakening Beijing's ``friendship without limits'' with Moscow. Equipping Ukraine to defend itself means confronting the PRC with the thing it hates the most: sovereign nations that choose their leaders and defend their interests. Strengthening America's national security means standing with our allies and investing even more heavily in the capabilities we need to face our top strategic rival and every threat we face with formidable American strength.

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, it has been 3 years since a thuggish military coup derailed prospects for democracy, unity, and self- determination in Burma. The military--or Tatmadaw--has engaged in a ruthless, systematic war against the people of Burma. This war has displaced roughly 2\1/2\ million people. Last year alone, it claimed over 15,000 lives. And, of course, the junta has placed tens of thousands of innocent people behind bars for opposing the military regime. Right now, nearly 2,000 members of the National League for Democracy, Burma's leading pro-democracy party, are being unjustly held as political prisoners, as are many others from all corners of Burma's society and its myriad ethnic groups. Undoubtedly, the most well-known political prisoner is my friend Aung San Suu Kyi. For the longtime leader of Burma's pro-democracy movement and for the hopes she represents, I can only imagine the 3 years of pain, suffering, and frustration. I would hope my colleagues would join me, on this third anniversary of the coup, in calling for the unconditional release of all political prisoners in Burma. In the face of sustained repression and brutal violence, the people of Burma continue to resist. Working together, increasingly across ethnic and religious lines, they continue to defy the heavy fist of the junta. In recent months, forces resisting the Tatmadaw have conducted promising counteroffensives and drawn significant defections from the ranks of the pro-junta military. They are determined to establish a new democratic Burma committed to coexistence, justice, and the rule of law. As I have said repeatedly, the world must encourage and support their efforts. The United States must urge more of our allies and partners to join in applying maximum pressure to the ruling junta, to state-owned enterprises like the MOGE, and to their enablers abroad. There is also more the Biden administration can do to help the people of Burma. For one, it is past time to implement the bipartisan BURMA Act and deploy its new authorities and resources to engage and provide nonlethal assistance to those struggling to resist the junta, including ethnic groups and organizations on the frontlines of this terrible conflict. The conflict in Burma is not just about freedom or justice. It has also been a boon to China and Russia. Both of our adversaries have armed the Tatmadaw for a healthy profit and growing influence. Beijing also has its eyes on critical infrastructure projects it sees as expanding its strategic reach into the Indian Ocean. Foremost among these is a $7 billion deepwater port in Rakhine State. I would encourage my colleagues to look at a map and consider just where this complicated country of more than 50 million people sits. Geography may not exactly be destiny, but it certainly matters. The outcome of the conflict will matter in the geostrategic competition unfolding all across Asia. Throughout my career, I have been proud to be a voice for my friend Aung San Suu Kyi and for her fellow democracy advocates in Burma. I have been proud to celebrate their remarkable progress and to call attention to their setbacks and ongoing struggle. And the American people should be proud that so many are willing to risk so much to follow their example of self-government. As the people of Burma begin to turn the tide of the conflict, I will continue to stand with them against the Tatmadaw thugs who seek to snuff out the bright light of their future. I hope my colleagues, the administration, and America's friends in the region and democratic countries around the world will do the same.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, after nearly 150 Iran- backed attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria, a reporter asked President Biden if he had a message for Iran. The President confidently replied: I've already delivered the message to Iran. They know not to do anything. The Commander in Chief had the temerity to suggest that the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism was effectively deterred. Repeated attacks since then, including a deadly attack in Jordan that killed three American soldiers and injured dozens more, suggest otherwise. SGT William Rivers, SPC Kennedy Sanders, and SPC Breonna Moffett now rest with generations of brave Americans before them who have given their lives in service to our country. I know my colleagues join me in grieving with the families and comrades they leave behind. For 3 years, the threat of Iran-backed terror against American personnel and interests in the Middle East has been growing. Iran is emboldened and believes it can use its proxies to attack America with impunity. The Biden administration has hastened this erosion of deterrence. Their public hand-wringing and fear of escalation send exactly the wrong message to Tehran and other enemies of America. To paraphrase Henry Kissinger, when our primary objective becomes avoiding war or escalation, we are at the mercy of our most ruthless adversaries. The United States' objective is not to avoid escalation at all costs. If it was, the quickest way to achieve it would be to retreat and cede the whole Middle East to Iran. Instead, our objective is to compel Iran and its proxies to stop attacking American forces and our interests in the region and to preserve American influence in a critical part of the world. But to achieve this objective, we have to convince our adversaries that we are prepared to escalate and to threaten the interests that they hold dear. If the Iranian regime thinks America is most afraid of escalation, it will use that fear because it believes it will drive us from the Middle East, just as we were driven from Afghanistan. It was reasonable to hope that the eruption of proxy violence against American forces in the wake of the October 7 massacre in Israel would convince the Biden administration to start seriously exercising American strength. It was reasonable to hope that a global superpower might finally begin to act like one. That hasn't happened yet, but perhaps the gut-wrenching tragedy of American casualties will finally wake this administration from its delusional approach to Iran. Yesterday, the Secretary of Defense echoed President Biden's hollow assurance from earlier this month, insisting that the administration ``will not tolerate attacks on U.S. forces, and we will take all necessary action to defend the U.S. and our troops.'' Unfortunately, this sentiment isn't yet backed by any action. The fact that Iran's proxies have targeted Americans 166 times in the past 3 months demonstrates that the Biden administration is willing to tolerate attacks on U.S. forces. The question for the Commander in Chief is whether his actions in the coming days will convince Iran and its proxies that America's tolerance has been exhausted. It is time for the administration to provide Senators with a briefing on the current situation in the Middle East. As I have said before, the President has the necessary authorities to strike those responsible for killing and wounding Americans, targeting our interests, and threatening our allies in the region. He has the capacity to go after the Iranians who sponsor and direct this campaign. But his administration has an obligation to inform Congress of its objectives and strategy and to explain why their attempts to deter Iran and its proxies have as yet been unsuccessful. Of course, the failures of their own approach to the region haven't stopped Washington Democrats from trying to police the internal politics of a close ally fighting for its security or from trying to tie Israel's hands as it works to eradicate Hamas terrorists. Some of our colleagues have apparently mistaken themselves for members of the Knesset. They have started using the press to cast bizarre, unsolicited votes of no confidence in a sovereign democracy's duly elected Prime Minister. Talk about foreign political interference. And their Bibi derangement syndrome isn't just unseemly behavior for an ally; they want to compel Israel to pursue policies that even prominent leaders of the Israeli left have insisted they have no time for. It is increasingly, glaringly clear that a headlong charge forward to a two-state solution puts the cart before the horse. Israel needs a partner in peace before it can be expected to make peace. Palestinians need leaders and a government worthy of the name before they can expect a state. As I have said before, responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, for the weaponization of hospitals and schools, and for the corruption of aid agencies charged with helping the Palestinian people--all of that belongs to Hamas. Each time Hamas has faced a choice between improving Palestinian lives and taking Israeli lives, it has chosen the latter. And last week we learned the horrific degree to which international humanitarian agencies have been corrupted--corrupted--by Hamas's hate. No fewer than a dozen credentialed staff members of the U.N.'s Relief and Works Agency are linked directly--directly--to the slaughter of Israelis on October 7. So let me say that again. At least 12 paid staff of the U.N. agency that purports to lead humanitarian efforts in Gaza moonlit-- moonlit--as Hamas terrorists on the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. According to news reports, Israeli intelligence indicates that a full 10 percent of UNRWA's staff have ties to the Iran-backed terrorist group that steals aid shipments to build terror tunnels. Yet, instead of reckoning with UNRWA's complicity, the head of the agency responded with a whining statement that emphasized just how few of the supposed relief workers under his authority had been caught killing Israelis on company time. In fairness, UNRWA comes from the same anti-Israel family of organizations as the self-proclaimed ``global champion'' for the empowerment of women, a U.N. entity that took 57 days--57 days--to condemn Hamas's rape and brutalization of Israeli women and girls. The United States and our allies need not search for moral authority in such a fallow field as the United Nations. Unfortunately, even the Biden administration's announced pause on additional funding to UNRWA may fail to carry sufficient weight. As one outside analysis points out, $51 million already allocated by the State Department for use this year will be delivered as scheduled to an organization that clearly lacks the means to fulfill its most basic purpose. So as I have said before, there is no room for the tired cast of corruption and terrorism in the future of the Palestinian people. As such, Senate Republicans will not accept any legislation that allows taxpayer dollars to fund UNRWA. And America's ally Israel deserves the time, space, and support it needs to remove Hamas from the equation--root, stem, and branch.

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, the Constitution of the United States, the consensus of our Nation's Founders, and the weight of exhaustive historical precedent give the President the clear authority to use military force when American lives and interests are under attack. The Commander in Chief does not lack authority; rather, he is failing to sufficiently exercise the authority that he has. Right now, every day, enemies of the United States are engaged in a campaign of brazen aggression that threatens American servicemembers, our interests, and our allies in the Middle East. This campaign is hardly new. Year after year, the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism trains, equips, finances, and coordinates efforts to drive America--the ``Great Satan''--from the Middle East and to wipe Israel-- the ``Little Satan''--off the map. When President Biden took office, Senate Republicans warned him not to go soft on Iran. We urged him not to abandon maximum pressure, not to obsess over restoring a failed nuclear deal, and not to ignore Iran's relentless--relentless--campaign of terror. But the President failed to heed this advice. He ignored the 80-some attacks on U.S. troops over his first 2 years in office. He failed to recognize the killing of an American in an Iran-backed drone attack in Syria last March as a wake-up call. Instead, his administration slept through glaring indications that Iran-backed terror was actually reaching a tipping point. So, today, America and our allies face an adversary profoundly undeterred. Iran's proxies are responsible for more than 150 lethal attacks--and counting--against U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria since October 7 and for persistent strikes against U.S. warships and civilian vessels in the Red Sea, including just yesterday. But we have yet to see signs that the administration understands how to compel Iran and its proxies to stop. Even with the world's strongest military at the ready, the Commander in Chief has failed to deter Iran and its proxies. Instead, a fear of escalation has only invited more aggression from Tehran to Moscow to Beijing. For nearly 2 weeks, the President has hesitantly and intermittently directed strikes against low-value Houthi terrorist targets. He has played Whack-A-Mole against warehouses and launch sites but has left the terrorists' air defenses and command-and-control facilities intact. The same is true over in Iraq and Syria, where the U.S. response to Iran-backed terrorist attacks has been to impose limited damage on proxy storage and training facilities. Yet the administration has refused to impose meaningful costs on Tehran itself--on the architects of this entire regional conflict. Tehran is happy to fight until the last Houthi, Hamas, or Hezbollah terrorist. That is literally why they use proxies--they are expendable. Until Iran feels that its own interests and its own IRGC officers across the region are threatened, attacks on U.S. forces will continue. Now, while the President hesitates to use his constitutional authority, some of our colleagues seem to argue he shouldn't have this authority to begin with. They are profoundly mistaken. Exercising the right to defend against imminent threats to our Nation and servicemembers is a central responsibility of the Commander in Chief. His authority is enshrined in the Constitution, and its application dates back more than 200 years. President Thomas Jefferson was hardly an enthusiastic proponent of a muscular executive, but his recognition of the threats to core national interests posed by the Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean forged consensus around the appropriate roles of the article I and article II branches in the conduct of war. Freedom of navigation has been a core national interest of the United States from the very, very beginning. If we aren't prepared to defend the vital sealanes on which our economy rests, there is really not much point in having a military. If there is something our colleagues ought to be questioning, it is not our history or our Constitution; it is our President's judgment and understanding of deterrence as well as their own. If they oppose U.S. and coalition efforts to defend the freedom of navigation against Iran- backed terrorists, our colleagues simply should say so. Just last month, the Senate voted on a resolution to compel the President to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria. That resolution failed 84 to 13. I suspect that even fewer of our colleagues would support a resolution to withdraw the Navy from the coalition we have built in the Red Sea. This is no time for 535 commanders in chief to dictate battlefield tactics from halfway around the world. Congress can and should exercise the oversight of military operations through our own robust authorities. We can and must keep a firm grip on the power of the purse. But the President does not need additional authorities to deal with this threat. I will oppose any effort to tie the hands of our military commanders or to limit the scope of their ability to go after terrorists who threaten our servicemembers as well as our interests. As General Mattis counseled a decade ago in the debate over modifying the 2001 AUMF, we must not ``reassure our adversary in advance about what we will not do.'' Instead, it is time for President Biden to reassure America and our allies that he intends to lead with strength.