Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, during a year of unprecedented challenges, students, staff, and faculty at the University of Kentucky have been fortunate to have Eric King as their tireless advocate and supporter. As UK's executive director of federal relations, Eric has made lasting contributions to Kentucky's students, professors, and administrators. In recognition of that hard work, Eric was honored last month by the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities with the Jennifer Poulakidas Outstanding Achievement Award. Today, I, too, would like to recognize Eric for his strong advocacy on behalf of the University of Kentucky community and our State as a whole. Eric has been making contributions to Kentucky higher education since he was an undergrad, serving as the student body president of Murray State University. Since then, he has dedicated his career to helping Kentuckians. Fresh out of college, Eric served as a legislative correspondent in my office and was later promoted to a legislative assistant focused on energy, agriculture, and environmental policy. He contributed to the passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014, which delivered major wins for Kentucky farmers and their families. Eric also served as the director of government and community affairs at the Kentucky Association of Electric Cooperatives, KAEC. There, he advocated for a statewide association of 24 consumer-owned electric distribution utilities that collectively serve nearly 2 million Kentuckians. I know that Eric's work at that organization had a real and lasting impact on Kentucky families. Now, Eric has taken his advocacy skills to the University of Kentucky, working closely with President Eli Capilouto to promote the well-being of more than 30,000 students, 12,000 staff, and 2,000 faculty. When the coronavirus pandemic threatened to shut down colleges and universities across the country, Eric stepped up and fought to include vital funding for higher education in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security, CARES, Act. Because of advocacy like Eric's, the CARES Act included the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund, providing millions of dollars to colleges and universities to overcome the challenges imposed by the pandemic. Thousands of Kentucky students and graduates benefited from Eric's leadership. Eric has been described by his colleagues as a man with ``unmatched integrity'' and a ``can-do attitude'' who has made ``incredible contributions'' to our Nation's system of public and land-grant universities. As Eric's former boss, I can confirm that these superlatives are correct. His hard work during the coronavirus pandemic provided vital protection to our colleges and universities, both in Kentucky and nationwide. Kentuckians--and especially Wildcats--are grateful for Eric's tireless dedication to our State's public university system. On behalf of the Senate, I would like to express my congratulations to Eric for receiving this award and my thanks for his service and leadership amid a time of incredible hardship.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, Southeastern Kentucky lost Eula Hall this May, a humanitarian titan who blessed her community with generosity, tenacity, and dedication. Eula was a self-described ``hillbilly activist'' whose efforts to improve healthcare in Kentucky enhanced the lives of her neighbors and friends. As the founder of the Mud Creek Clinic, now known as the Eula Hall Health Center, Eula was driven by her selfless spirit to deliver quality care to thousands of Kentuckians. Today, I recognize Eula Hall as a lifelong champion of Floyd County and the entire Southeastern Kentucky region. Eula founded the Mud Creek Clinic in 1973 with a $1,400 donation and a calling to improve healthcare in her disadvantaged community. She served everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, through a primary care clinic, mental health counselor, pharmacy, and food and clothing pantry. Even after her clinic burned down in 1982, Eula did not miss a day of service, delivering help directly from her own home. She redefined healthcare in Southeastern Kentucky from the ground up, leaving an indelible impact on the region. Eula was born into extreme poverty, growing up without plumbing or electricity and only receiving an eighth-grade education. In spite of these obstacles, she was driven by a higher calling to serve her community. When Eula founded the Mud Creek Clinic, she did so based on a conviction that all Kentuckians, regardless of income, deserved to be cared for by their neighbors. Her work quickly caught the attention of local leaders and physicians, bringing much needed resources to her distressed region. She was a local activist from a young age, driven by the struggles and suffering she saw during her childhood. Motivated by a desire to assist the vulnerable, Eula gave help to the needy and a voice to the voiceless through an ever-expanding series of projects. With an unflappable work ethic, Eula would go on to run the Mud Creek Water District, piping drinking water to 800 homes, and served as the president of the Kentucky Black Lung Association. Her tireless, grassroots efforts have left an enduring legacy of community-based activism in Southeastern Kentucky. Eula's industriousness permeated every aspect of her life, even as she entered old age. Just last year, she was working on a proposal to found a nursing home in her area as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In recognition of her determination and tenacity, Eula received a number of awards, including honorary doctorates from Berea, Midway, and Pikeville colleges in Kentucky and Trinity College in Connecticut. She was also the subject of a landmark book on healthcare in Eastern Kentucky, ``Mud Creek Medicine,'' by Kiran Bhatraju. She led a vibrant family, and is survived by 4 children, 8 grandchildren, 14 great-grandchildren, and 5 great-great-grandchildren. I had the opportunity to speak with Eula just a few weeks before she passed and expressed my deep appreciation for her decades of hard work. During our numerous conversations and visits, I was always struck by her ceaseless devotion to Southeastern Kentuckians. Eula was honored with tributes from around the country, including from the U.S. Senate, but she never sought the spotlight. She preferred to dedicate her entire focus to the needy in her community. After her passing, Eula was recognized by both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, demonstrating the nationwide impact of her work. She was one of the toughest women I ever met, and it was an absolute pleasure to work with her over the years to deliver much needed help to Kentucky communities. I would like to express my personal gratitude for Eula Hall's decades of service to the Commonwealth and encourage my Senate colleagues to join me in sharing condolences with her family, colleagues, and neighbors, whose lives were uplifted by this one-of-a-kind Kentuckian.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today the Senate will wrap up consideration of a broad bipartisan effort to update our approach to competition with China. This bill has accelerated an important conversation on a topic we all know deserves our full attention. From critical supply chains to intellectual property, to counterespionage, it touches on key issues that will help determine our strategic footing for decades. That is why an overwhelming majority of us, myself included, voted to proceed to the measure here on the floor, not because the bill was already perfect. In fact, as the ranking member of the Commerce Committee noted when it was reported out, the legislation was ``not ready for prime time.'' Rather, we took it up precisely because it deserved robust debate and amendment. So I was glad that several of our colleagues were allowed to offer substantial revisions here on the floor. In particular, I am glad the Democratic leader thought better of blocking Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo from including their bipartisan provision on combating illicit trade practices. But I was disappointed that he proceeded with an effort to end this important debate without allowing the Senate to consider a number of other outstanding Republican amendments. There is no practical reason our consideration of this important issue should have to compete for sufficient space on the Democrats' dance card. We are talking about making America more competitive with its biggest and fastest growing rival. If any issue demands thorough, exhaustive debate, it is this one. Unfortunately, the final bill we will be voting on today will remain incomplete. It includes several smart, targeted measures but leaves many more on the table. And so it will advance as an imperfect approach to an extremely consequential challenge. One thing this legislation did demonstrate extremely well, however, was that the rules of the Senate don't stand in the way of bipartisan legislating. Needless to say, final passage of this legislation cannot be the Senate's final word--final word on our competition with China. It certainly won't be mine. As I have warned repeatedly, soft power is only as strong as the hard power underpinning it. The Chinese Communist Party doesn't hesitate in investing the proceeds of its predatory trade practices and influence campaigns directly into modernizing its hard power arsenal. Over the past two decades, defense spending in Beijing has increased astronomically. Meanwhile, the Biden administration's proposal for defense spending puts forward such a meager--meager--year-on-year increase, it fails to keep pace with inflation, let alone with our rivals. The White House request would degrade our ability to project power quickly out in the Western Pacific. It would cannibalize Pacific Deterrence Initiative funds intended to build infrastructure and enhance interoperability with our partners in the region just to cover shortfalls elsewhere in the budget. And it would cut procurement of critical munitions that are already in short supply. The administration is playing a dangerous shell game, and the political consequences aren't lost on either side of the Pacific. The perception that the United States might be any less than fully committed to prevailing in great power competition has left China emboldened and our friends in the region quite worried. Here at home, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs sounded the alarm, warning that great power peace was ``fraying at the edge.'' Preserving that peace will require more than the action we will take today. It will require this administration to get serious about funding our national defense. It will require major investment in the sorts of cutting-edge capabilities that deter those who intend harm on America and our allies. So in the coming weeks, we will see whether Democrats' talk about rebuilding alliances has any substance to it. In the annual Defense authorization and the appropriations process, the Senate will embrace this essential debate about restoring America's hard power head-on. This is a pivotal moment, not a time for half measures on America's national security.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on Friday, the U.S. job market got another monthly checkup. Hiring in May was up from the previous month but still fell short of the level experts and American employers had hoped for. Of course, the highest expectations for our economic recovery under Democratic control were set by none other than the Democrats themselves. Back in February, the Biden administration pointed to projections that its so-called American Rescue Plan would boost job creation in 2021 by 4 million over existing expectations. Meeting that new higher goal meant the economy would have to grow by over 900,000 new jobs a month. Needless to say, the job market is nowhere close--nowhere close--to meeting this target. In fact, hiring is falling short of where nonpartisan experts forecasted it would be even if--even if-- Democrats hadn't rammed through a multitrillion-dollar liberal wish list this spring. I have been clear on the dangers of that bill from the beginning, and the data is now spelling it out very clearly. Democrats' bloated additions to unemployment insurance haven't just failed to help our recovery, they have actually hurt it, and the consequences on Main Street are now in full focus. As hiring lags, employers are struggling to entice workers to rejoin and keep their facilities staffed. After a year that already tested budgets to the breaking point, small business owners are having to dig even deeper to attract staff, offering bigger bonuses and flexible hours. But even that hasn't been enough. For the fourth straight month, one survey of small businesses came back with record-high reports of unfilled job openings. As one small business owner in London, KY, reported to me, ``The current labor shortage is by far the worst'' he has ever seen. In fact, his short staff has had such a hard time keeping up with orders that ``customers are already considering moving business from this facility to other states.'' Unfortunately, this situation isn't unique. As I traveled the State last week, I heard the same story from employers of all sizes. Kentucky's labor force is still 90,000 workers below prepandemic levels. Nationwide, workforce participation has remained stagnant for nearly a year. All the while, prices for consumers are continuing to creep up. This is exactly what Republicans and nonpartisan experts had warned against months ago. We urged Democrats not to force our country's promising early recovery into a permanent defensive crouch. Now, as States and business owners grapple with the consequences, I hope Democrats in Washington are paying attention and learning from this costly mistake

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Madam President, on another matter, after a week of work with our constituents, the Senate reconvenes with a chance to refocus on the most important issues facing our folks back home. Already on multiple occasions this year, we have demonstrated that even a narrowly divided Chamber is capable of taking productive, bipartisan steps on serious issues. Wide majorities have come together to extend access to the critical PPP loans, invest in drinking water infrastructure, and equip the justice system to better combat hate crimes against Asian Americans. This week, the Senate is set to do the same on legislation regarding competition with China, and many of our colleagues are working hard to make further consensus possible on issues that have historically enjoyed bipartisan support, like transportation infrastructure. Remember, this sort of collaboration on serious priorities is what the American people insisted upon just last November. They elected a 50-50 Senate, shrunk Democrats' majority in the House, and took President Biden up on a promise to unite the country. So the question at the outset of this work period is how Democrats will use their razor-thin majority over the next few weeks. Unfortunately, the Democratic leader already signaled his answer a week ago by laying out a June agenda that is transparently designed to fail. As I understand it, Senate Democrats intend to focus this month on the demands of their radical base: exploiting the cause of pay fairness to send a windfall to trial lawyers; saddling hospitals, schools, and small businesses with crippling new legal burdens if they fail to keep pace with ``woke'' social norms; and opening an unprecedented new front in the left's war on the Second Amendment. As written, these are not proposals aimed at earning bipartisan support. They are not designed to clear the Senate's necessarily high bar for ending debate. Bizarrely, it appears they are being floated in order to illustrate that the bar is too high. After a spring in which the Senate has repeatedly passed mainstream legislation by wide margins, Democrats have decided that now--now is the time to argue that the legislative process is somehow broken. Let's not forget the Democrats' poster child for why the Senate should change its rules is a bill that would forcibly change the rules for elections in every State in America. Let me say that again. Democrats' poster child for why the Senate should change its rules is a bill that would forcibly change the rules for elections in every State in America. Their marquee bill, S. 1, is such a brazen political power grab that the question isn't whether it could earn bipartisan support; the question is how wide the bipartisan opposition will be. This is the bill the Democratic leader has placed at the vanguard of his campaign to destroy the filibuster, even though multiple Members of his own majority are now on the record objecting to it. So make no mistake: Failing to sell reckless, wholesale changes to our democracy isn't proof that the guardrails should be removed; it is a reminder that they are there for a reason. The American people rightly expect a 50-50 Senate to spend its time finding common ground, but our Democratic colleagues seem to believe that the most important expectations are those of their far-left fringe. They put forward an agenda that is designed to fail, and fail it will.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, from coast to coast, American families are facing an explosion of violent crime on their streets and in their neighborhoods. The year 2020 saw homicides skyrocket nationwide--the sharpest 1-year increase in decades--and 2021 is already shaping up to be even worse. Last year, Seattle saw a 61-percent increase in murders citywide. In 2020, Minneapolis saw homicides hit levels not seen since the 1990s, and, so far, 2021 is about doubling last year's pace. Here in Washington, DC, 2020 saw homicides hit a 16-year high, and, again, 2021 is already on an even worse trajectory. The situation is devolving all across the country. In my hometown of Louisville, as one report put it: ``[T]he number of slayings in 2020 dwarf[ed] anything Louisville has seen--obliterating the previous record.'' Crime and delinquency have many causes. In some ways, the pandemic likely contributed, but it is impossible to ignore that these terrible trends are coming precisely as so-called ``progressives'' have decided it is time to denounce and defund local law enforcement. Seattle, for example, cut police funding by 20 percent. Minneapolis defunded cops by millions of dollars. The District of Columbia's city council approved $15 million in cuts. These boneheaded decisions are the direct result of an anti-law enforcement fad that has swept through the political left like a wildfire. Perhaps just as important as these funding cuts is the wave of hostile sentiment that has come with them. Harvard scholars have found that, after high-profile incidents reduce the trust that the public and politicians put in the police, the cities in question receive less active policing and, subsequently, see an increase in crime, including homicides. In other words, in the wake of terrible incidents like we saw last summer, local leaders should look for ways to build bridges and rebuild trust between the vast majority of brave and honorable officers and their communities. Oh, no. Instead, from city councils to the Halls of Congress, many on the far left decided to crank the knob all the way up on anti-cop rhetoric all across the board: Not only do we need to disinvest from police but we need to completely dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department. Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist . . . No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. Incredulous people asked whether this nonsense was ever meant seriously. Helpfully, one Member of Congress clarified: ``Defunding police means defunding police.'' That is a clarifying comment. A small set of politicians may see selfish opportunities for fame or fundraising if they defame and defund the police, but American families are paying a deadly price. Defunding the police isn't just a terrible idea for overall public safety; it is also a uniquely awful strategy for racial justice. One study recently confirmed: ``Larger police forces save lives, and the lives saved are disproportionately Black lives.'' So, look. I am not sure exactly how the rantings of far-left Twitter about crime and policing became official Democratic Party dogma in so many places across America. What I do know is that ordinary Americans cannot bear much more of this, and that goes double for the most vulnerable neighborhoods.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now one final matter. As my colleagues know, I have been clear and unflinching in my own statements about January 6. But as I have also repeated, there is no new fact about that day we need the Democrats' extraneous Commission to uncover. The Department of Justice is deep into a massive criminal investigation. Four hundred and forty-plus people have already been arrested. Hundreds--hundreds--have been charged. Even more arrests are said to be planned. And the Attorney General indicates this investigation will remain a top focus. Multiple Senate committees are conducting their own bipartisan inquiries. And, obviously, the role of the former President has already been litigated exhaustively-- exhaustively--in the high-profile impeachment trial we had right here in the Senate several months ago. I do not believe the additional extraneous Commission that Democratic leaders want would uncover crucial new facts or promote healing. Frankly, I do not believe it is even designed to do that. That is why the Speaker's first draft began with a laughably rigged and partisan starting point and why the current language would still lock in significant unfairness under the hood. So I will continue to support the real, serious work of our criminal justice system and our own Senate committees, and I will continue to urge my colleagues to oppose this extraneous layer when the time comes for the Senate to vote.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, last week, the Senate took up sweeping legislation that touches on big issues that span many committees--from economic policy to national security, to scientific research, and beyond. Eighty-six Senators voted to proceed to this debate, me included. That wasn't because the legislation was ready to go. It happened because there is broad bipartisan agreement that America needs to upgrade our competitiveness with China. There was broad agreement that this subject deserved a robust debate and amendment process. Since then we have voted on some amendments, but as of this moment, the Senate's bipartisan work is simply not completed. The Democratic leader indicated that if the chairman and ranking members worked together, if committees put their heads together, their work would get consideration out here on the floor. Well, Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo of the Finance Committee have a bipartisan provision that is ready to go. They have already done the hard work. They have reached a solution, but thus far the Democratic leader has refused to include it in his substitute and has not allowed the Senate to vote on it separately. These are long-term issues we are considering. We need to get this right. And during the time this legislation has been on the floor, we have had entire days come and go without any votes at all on the bill. In several instances, the Democratic leader chose to pivot away from this legislation and devote floor time to nominations. So there is no excuse for shutting off debate prematurely before the Senate has been able to have its say. So we will have to see how today unfolds, what additional amendments the Democratic leader lets the Senate consider, how open a process he permits. Republicans don't want some big fight over this. We would like to see an outcome--a bipartisan outcome. Even now, discussions are continuing behind the scenes. But the Democratic leader should not try to force a cloture vote prematurely to stifle the Senate before Members are satisfied that our work is finished. There is nothing unusual about a minority party denying cloture to secure more amendment votes. I have been here a while. This happens all the time. Six years ago, even after about two dozen amendment votes, Democrats blocked cloture on a Keystone Pipeline bill until the Senate took a dozen more amendment votes on top of that. Just last year, even as the economy was tanking around us, the Democratic leader blocked cloture multiple times on the CARES Act-- emergency legislation. Why? He wanted more changes. But I hope it doesn't come to that today. I hope the Democratic leader lets the Senate be the Senate so we can finish this important legislation.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn this morning that our friend and former colleague, Senator John Warner, passed away last night. By the time I arrived in the Senate, John was already churning a long wake as one of this body's foremost voices on national defense. As a wartime veteran of the Navy and Marine Corps, he was deeply devoted to the men and women who serve in uniform. As a proud Virginian, John took seriously his Commonwealth's role as host to massive portions of America's military might, including the largest naval base in the world. As a former Secretary of the Navy, he brought Pentagon clout and technical chops that would help the Senate play a hugely consequential role in defense policy. John's career was capped, of course, by years as chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. But John made an even wider impact. My predecessor as chairman of the Rules Committee was a principled patriot across the board. He was also a truly old-school Virginia gentleman. John knew a thing or two about horseracing, for example, and that is high praise coming from a Kentuckian to a non-Kentuckian. Members on both sides of the aisle looked to John as a trusted mentor and friend. Our thoughts today are especially with our current colleagues from Virginia. So many Senators, past and present, knew John very well. Most of all, we are thinking today of his wife Jeanne; his children, Virginia, John, and Mary; and the entire Warner family. The Senate will keep them all in our prayers in the days ahead.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. On a completely different matter, today two Senate committees will consider and vote on two very different pieces of legislation. Over in the Russell Building, the Environment and Public Works Committee just approved a bipartisan bill, led by Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito, to invest in better roads and bridges for the American people. This would be the first major action on surface transportation since the FAST Act 6 years ago. It would raise the baseline funding for roads and bridges to an alltime high. And, as expected, our colleagues just reported this bill out unanimously, 20 to 0. That is legislating done right. Our colleagues are modeling the approach that would let Congress build a successful, big-picture infrastructure bill later this year. Meanwhile, in the Hart Building, the Finance Committee will spend its afternoon marking up a leftwing, partisan bill written fully within the spirit of the Green New Deal: maximum pain for working American families in exchange for minimal--minimal--environmental gain. Under the guise of Clean Energy for America, Chairman Wyden is leading the charge against the most reliable and affordable ways to power our country. The legislation he has drafted is full of the sort of policies that would increase the price of gas at the pump, hike the tax burden on independent American producers, of course, killing jobs, discourage the industry-led innovations that have already been reducing emissions without hurting workers, and dragging the United States away from energy independence back toward reliance on imports from places like Russia, Venezuela, and the Middle East. In exchange, the bill would have ordinary Americans subsidize the lifestyle preferences of wealthy people in places like New York and San Francisco. So one committee unanimously approved a smart, targeted, bipartisan approach to key infrastructure projects that America needs, and another will consider a partisan descendent of the Green New Deal that would raise taxes, probably raise gas prices, and leave us with a less and less reliable electricity grid. Really, this contrast is a fork in the road that the Biden administration is facing writ large. Which route to take; a lonely road leading to the far left versus a mainstream, bipartisan road leading straight ahead toward practical policies that make American lives actually better? The Senate knows how to walk that road. This last highway bill passed the Senate with 83 votes. Just last month, we passed a water infrastructure bill with 89 votes. If President Biden wants to secure lasting solutions, build a lasting legacy, and improve the lives of Americans in practical ways, he has the map in hand. For the sake of the country, let's hope he and his party decide to follow it.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Mr. President, on a related matter, the Democrats' far-left turn thus far has affected the entire U.S. economy, and it is hitting working families right where it hurts. In January, President Biden inherited safe and effective vaccines. He inherited a reopening economy and a country that was sitting on more pent-up savings than anything economists had seen in living memory. That was the condition of the country when the President took office. The Democrats have already dreamt up a massive, record-shattering Washington spending spree. Like one House Democrat admitted way back at the start of the pandemic, liberals saw the crisis as ``a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' The Democrats had already decided to run up the American people's credit cards no matter what. Their first purchase was a $1.9 trillion excuse for a COVID bill that the Democrats rammed through on a party- line vote. Even liberal economists and even former advisers to Presidents Clinton and Obama cautioned that the Democrats' bill was way larger than the remaining hole in our economy, badly tailored, and might well cause inflation. So everyone, from Republicans to liberal economists, warned that the Democrats' bad bill could easily cause inflation that would hurt ordinary American families. Well, look where we are today. Where are we today? We just got the most dramatic monthly inflation report in over a decade. Ask any working family about gas prices, food prices, home prices, lumber prices, used car prices. One survey just found that more than 80 percent of American families are literally tightening their household budgets because of the threat of inflation. Yet the problem with the Democrats' product wasn't just how much credit and borrowed money it flooded into the economy; the problem was also how little of substance American families got for the money. Larry Summers, former President Clinton's Treasury Secretary, put it this way--and this is the Larry Summers who also had a role in the Obama administration. Here is what he said: What's striking about [that bill, the COVID bill] is that all of the trillions of dollars--all of it--does not include a penny directed at ``building back better.'' He continued: It transfers to state and local governments that don't have any new budget problem. . . . It's paying people who have been unemployed more in unemployment insurance than they earned when they were working. It's giving checks to families in the 90th percentile of income distribution. That is from Larry Summers. He is a Democrat. He is a friend of the administration's. The Democrats' hard-left turn has already hurt our economy, but they still seem to think that this massive bill should only actually just be the appetizer. The administration has proposed a total of about $7 trillion of spending in its first few months in office. That absurdly overpriced COVID package would actually be the cheapest of the three massive bills the Democrats actually want to pass. For some perspective, about $7 trillion is considerably more money in inflation-adjusted terms than America spent in fighting and winning World War II. The Biden administration wants to tax, borrow, and print more money than America spent on World War II to finance a grab bag of miscellaneous liberal programs that would further jack up prices on the things families actually need to buy. It took less money to win a global war than these Democrats want to spend on a hodgepodge of stuff--stuff like electric cars and welfare programs. This is $7 trillion of mediocre socialism and liberal social engineering. No serious expert thinks this is what our economy actually needs. No wonder Larry Summers says he is concerned that these proposals are ``substantially excessive . . . way overdoing the requisite response.'' The sooner this administration can get the memo, the more bipartisan progress we will be able to make, and the better off working families will be.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the world is relieved that Hamas has stopped firing rockets at Israel's cities and, for the moment, the fighting has stopped. Israel's response to Hamas's terrorism was entirely justified. It was targeted, restrained, and extraordinarily precise. So it was disappointing to see disproportionate blame heaped upon Israel, the victim, and disproportionate pressure put on Israel's democratic, coalition government to spearhead the cease-fire with the aggressors. Israel's actions appear to have helped restore some measure of deterrence and damaged Hamas's ability to wage terror, but we have every reason to expect the terrorist commanders will seek to rebuild their arsenal with assistance from their sponsors in Tehran. The Biden administration must not pursue Iran policies that make this process even easier. We should not lift terrorism and missile sanctions just to leap back into discussions over the flawed Obama-era nuclear deal. Already, this administration removed terrorism sanctions on Iran's Houthi proxies in Yemen, hoping to encourage negotiations. Instead, the Houthis have escalated their offensive, rejected diplomacy, and actually fired into Saudi Arabia. Likewise, giving Iran relief from sanctions will just yield more support for terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas. Now, I am encouraged that the President has committed to refilling Israel's Iron Dome stockpiles. I hope his budget proposal coming this Friday will make room for increased military assistance to Israel and reflect the fact that America's interests are not served by cutting our own defense budget. Sadly, here in Congress, more and more Democrats are falling under the anti-Israel influence of the farthest left branch. From the junior Senator from Vermont, we have a resolution to block a routine sale of precision-guided munitions that would make it harder for Israel to avoid civilian casualties as it defends itself; from a Congresswoman from New York, the accusation that Israel is an ``apartheid state.'' Historically, support for Israel has been bipartisan. During the last major flare-up with Hamas back in 2014, when hundreds of rockets were fired at Israel, the Senate passed a resolution reaffirming our support for Israel and making clear Hamas's responsibility for the violence, and we did it by unanimous consent. Back in 2019, after another rocket attack, the Democratic leader insisted, ``No government can allow its civilians to be subject to rocket attack.'' He said he stood ``shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of Israel . . . and doing what they must do to defend their homeland.'' That was true in 2019. Well, this month's attacks involved not hundreds but literally thousands of rockets. Yet, instead of vocal support for Israel, 29 Senate Democrats pressured Israel's coalition government to stop defending itself. One of our colleagues who ran for President said the United States helping our ally means ``supplying weapons to kill children.'' Their base is energized. An open letter from hundreds of former Democratic Party and campaign staffers has urged President Biden to be harder on Israel. Apparently, a lot can change in just 2 years. Helping Israel defend itself against terrorists shouldn't be a divisive issue. The Senate should vote on Senator Sanders' resolution and reject it overwhelmingly.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on a related matter, the despicable, age-old specter of anti-Semitism continues to rear its head, even here in our country. Last week, authorities from New York to Los Angeles were investigating assaults on Jewish people. According to press reports, in New York City, one Jewish man was kicked, punched, and sprayed with chemicals by five or six men yelling anti-Sematic things. That happened, by the way, right in Times Square. A synagogue in Arizona was vandalized. So was another in Illinois. A Jewish family visiting South Florida had a car pull up next to them and multiple occupants begin screaming: ``Free Palestine . . . die, Jew.'' That is what he got for wearing his yarmulke in public. The head of the Anti-Defamation League said: We are tracking acts of harassment, vandalism, and violence as well as a torrent of online abuse . . . it's happening all around the world. This garbage--this garbage didn't begin a few weeks ago. It isn't a response to geopolitics. This hatred long predates the recent fighting between Israel and Hamas, and it hasn't gone anywhere since the cease- fire. This spring, in the shadow of this Capitol Building, a U.S. Capitol Police officer was killed in broad daylight by an unbalanced follower of the Nation of Islam, the extremist group led by the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan. This trash should be the easiest thing in the world for every person in a leadership position to call out. But perhaps--perhaps--because Israel has become a strangely controversial issue on the far left, the condemnations do not seem to be flowing quite as easily and unequivocally as they should. Yesterday, a Democratic Congressman from Minnesota tweeted this: I'll say the quiet part out loud. It's time for ``progressives'' to start condemning anti-Semitism and violent attacks on Jewish people with the same intention and vigor demonstrated in other areas of activism. The silence has been deafening. I couldn't say it better myself. So Senator Cotton and I are introducing new legislation to fight anti-Semitism. Our bill will support State and local law enforcement and ensure the bigoted thugs who are attacking Jewish Americans face the full force of our justice system. I am proud to be cosponsoring this legislation, although I regret that in the year of 2021, it remains, unfortunately, necessary. I hope every one of our colleagues will join Senator Cotton and myself.

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, now on one final matter, the President's decision to retreat from Afghanistan is not clear-eyed or strategic; it is dangerous, wishful thinking. As discussions with the administration are making clear, this decision is not underpinned by a coherent plan to mitigate the geopolitical and humanitarian risks that our departure will create. When we are gone, after we leave, there is every reason to believe al-Qaida will regroup in its historic safe haven. Giving up the high ground while the enemy is still on the battlefield isn't a strategic move. Neither is banking on conducting so-called ``over the horizon'' counterterrorism missions without presence on the ground. If we have learned anything in the fight against terrorists, it is the importance of reliable access and local partnerships. Give up the former, and we likely lose the latter. The military currently flies both reconnaissance and strike missions against terrorists from within Afghanistan. The country is not easy to get to. Its immediate neighbors are Iran, Pakistan, and Russian- influenced Central Asian nations. They aren't exactly likely to let us base significant counterterrorism units in their countries. So where will we be basing these forces? How will we maintain sorties from thousands of miles away? How many forces will be required to secure our Embassy? If a pro-Taliban mob threatens to overrun it, what will we do to protect it? Where will a quick-reaction force be based if not in Afghanistan? Will it be quick if its response time goes from minutes to hours? We learned from Benghazi the so-called tyranny of distance. If the Taliban takes Kabul, will the Biden administration recognize it as the legitimate government of Afghanistan? Will we shutter our Embassy and our aid programs? The reality is, they don't know. They can't say. There is no plan It is not courageous to abandon our allies. That is a view many Democrats said they held when the last President considered withdrawing from Syria and Afghanistan. But now, as Afghans, especially women and girls, face even worse dangers, many Democrats have suddenly become much less vocal. The horrific--horrific--reports of the Taliban beginning to reimpose their version of sharia law are just a taste of the catastrophes facing our friends in Afghanistan who have borne the brunt of the fight. Human rights. Women's rights. Counterterrorism refugee flows. As far as I can tell, the administration has no plan. But the world is watching--allies and adversaries. Democrats can dress up this decision in flowery language, but the world will see it for what it is: retreating from the fight, abandoning our partners. This is the President's decision. He chose precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Unbelievably, he even chose the anniversary of September 11 as the deadline. As his team belatedly confronts him with the risks and the consequences of this decision, I hope the President will think again and reconsider.

Mr. McCONNELL

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

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this week, the National Guard is departing what has been a months-long presence here at the Capitol. Aspects of the Guards' presence here were not fleshed out as clearly or coherently as either Congress or the servicemembers deserved, and Members of Congress will continue to discuss and debate whether it is appropriate for uniformed military personnel to play an ongoing role in policing the U.S. Capitol going forward. But where Senators are absolutely, 100 percent united is in our great admiration and appreciation of the individual men and women who volunteered to serve in the National Guard, who have put on the uniform, and whose orders brought them here to the Capitol Complex. It was my particular honor to get to meet and talk with several groups of the remarkable men and women of the Kentucky National Guard during this period. Thank you, all, from all 50 States, for your patriotism and for your service.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. On a completely different matter, when President Biden's nominees have been qualified and mainstream, they received bipartisan cooperation. But the President's choice to head a key Division at the Department of Justice as an Assistant Attorney General failed to even advance out of the committee. The Democratic leader had to reach into the Judiciary Committee and rescue the nomination of Kristen Clarke. Our colleagues on the committee did not give her a favorable recommendation. That is because of a long history of statements that placed the nominee on, frankly, the far-left fringe of the political spectrum. If our Democratic colleagues have their way, a couple of days from now, the American people will have an Assistant Attorney General who argued publicly just last year that ``we must invest less in police.'' She used that exact phrase three times in one essay. Violent crimes shot up dramatically in 2020. One survey of 30-plus major American cities found that the murder rate jumped 30 percent last year alone. Other estimates have found even larger increases. Experts say 2020 saw the largest 1-year rise in homicides that America has ever seen as far back as we have recorded these kinds of statistics. Early data from this year suggests that 2021 may even be worse, but, apparently, the President's response to this violent crimewave is to have a proponent of defunding the police help run the Department of Justice. Adequate policing is not an enemy of civil rights. Among other things, a recent study by multiple university professors confirmed that more cops lead to fewer murders: Larger police forces save lives, and the lives saved are disproportionately Black lives. Police funding isn't the only important issue where the nominee's judgment has missed the mark. Three years ago, when the then-Attorney General was standing up a task force on religious liberty, Ms. Clarke said this was designed ``to make it easier for people to use religion to mask their discriminatory goals''--an incredibly out-of-touch, far-left statement. Finally, we are currently watching an alarming spike in anti-Semitic attacks and violence across our country. I introduced new legislation on Friday, with Senator Cotton, to confront anti-Semitism head-on, but as a Harvard undergraduate, Ms. Clarke invited, welcomed, introduced, and then defended a famously anti-Semitic guest speaker who had authored a book literally entitled--now listen to this--``The Jewish Onslaught.'' The nominee has stated recently that she regrets that decision. Goodness, I would certainly hope so. Yet she also claims that her op-ed from just last year, which asserted three times--three times--that we must invest less in police, was not actually suggesting that we invest less in police. This is not the right nominee for a crucial post at a crucial time so I would urge colleagues to vote no this week.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Madam President, on another matter, last week, a bipartisan majority of Senators voted to proceed to floor debate about our Nation's long-term competition with China. There is no disagreement that the People's Republic's strategic capabilities and its growing influence beyond the Indo-Pacific pose a singular challenge to American strength and security. There is robust debate about the right ways to address this challenge. The legislation before us arrived on the floor incomplete, and it spans a number of huge issues that occupy multiple committees' jurisdictions. It is a prime example of a bill that needs a thorough, bipartisan amendment process here in the Senate. So far, we have had a few votes on important amendments. There are a lot more that need consideration, and we should not close debate on this bill until those amendments are addressed. Unfortunately, during one important vote last week, our Democratic colleagues sent a telling signal. They voted down Ranking Member Inhofe and Vice Chairman Shelby's amendment to make sure that the real backbone of our competition with China--the resources we allocate to our Armed Forces and national defense--was not neglected. Make no mistake, supply chains, espionage, intellectual property-- those are all important topics, but all the policy tweaks in the world would not amount to much help if we lose our military edge with respect to China. Soft power isn't much good without the hard power to back it up. The Chinese Communist Party appears to understand this quite clearly. According to one watchdog, it has increased military investment by 76 percent over the last decade. China has increased its military spending by 76 percent over the last decade. The same data show that our own U.S. defense spending fell 10 percent over that period, thanks to the approach of the last Democratic administration, and now President Biden has signaled that he wants to cut defense spending after inflation-- exactly the wrong approach. No serious strategy for our competition with massive foreign powers could leave the U.S. Armed Forces, their tools, and their resources out of the conversation in a meaningful way. I hope and expect we will have a number of further votes on important amendments before there would be any attempt to shut off debate on this wide-ranging measure.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Mr. President, on a completely different matter, as Democrats have pushed their massive political takeover bill, S. 1, Americans' First Amendment rights and privacy rights have been thrust into center stage. The legislation contains multiple elements that would chill Americans' exercise of free speech and let Washington bureaucrats hoard more of citizens' private information without cause. We know exactly how this could go wrong. Remember President Obama's IRS scandal? Unelected bureaucrats treated organizations differently and subjected Americans to unequal scrutiny depending on their beliefs. Nonprofits with a whiff--just a whiff--of conservative beliefs were slow-walked and singled out for unfair treatment. Or think back to 2014. The Obama administration had to reach a settlement after a government worker leaked confidential information about a conservative group, which was in violation of Federal law. Unsurprisingly, those private details found their way to a liberal group that had plenty of ideas about what to do with them. Courts have found that the State of California has repeatedly leaked or inappropriately released confidential information about nonprofits' donors. Last year, in remembering all of these incidents, the Treasury Department finalized action on a basic, commonsense principle: If there is no legitimate reason for the IRS to have certain information, then the IRS shouldn't collect it. It makes sense. The prior administration had the IRS stop the blanket collection of nonpublic information about citizens who make non---I repeat, non--- tax-deductible contributions to certain organizations. Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are not tax deductible. The IRS doesn't need these details just for kicks and giggles, but now the Democrats' politica takeover bills would roll back this step and open new fronts in the far-left war on privacy and free speech. S. 1 would narrow the protections of the First Amendment. It would empower the Feds with new authority to track and police the speech of Americans. This is the same bill that would essentially make Washington Democrats the board of elections for every county and State in America. I guess, somehow, maybe, that wasn't enough. Well, I have worked with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Braun, on legislation to nip one part of this nonsense right in the bud. Our bill would codify the rule issued by the last administration. Americans would remain free from a Federal dragnet collecting private information that it neither needs nor uses for legitimate law enforcement purposes--information that can be mishandled or, worse, used to target and harass Americans based on their views. So I am proud to stand with Senator Braun, with 39 Republican cosponsors, and with citizens across America, across the political spectrum, who don't need the IRS peering into their First Amendment activities any more than is strictly necessary. I would certainly urge all of our colleagues to support our simple bill.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, we know that competition with China will shape America's security and prosperity for decades to come. That is a fact. The legislation on the floor purports to deal with this issue. It covers a huge range of topics, from economics to education, to foreign and defense policy. Earlier this week, I voted with the majority of Senators to proceed to this important debate, but as Members have noted, this bill did not come out of committee quite ready for prime time. It needs thorough floor consideration, with a robust, bipartisan amendment process. Today, we will vote on a very important amendment that I will be proud to support. Ranking Member Inhofe and Vice Chairman Shelby have legislation that will return the pivotal issue of the funding of our national defense to the center of the conversation about competing with China, and this is right where it belongs. All the soft power in the world will only benefit us as long as we have the hard power to back it up. We must maintain our military edge against China and Russia. Yet, for all of this talk about competing with China, the Biden administration's budget proposal seeks to cut defense spending after inflation. China's long-term military investments are paying dividends that really should alarm us, but Democrats want to pump the brakes on our own? Fewer resources for our own men and women in uniform? Less defense innovation? What sense does that make? If there is truly broad bipartisan support for taking our competition with China more seriously, there ought to be big bipartisan support for the Inhofe-Shelby amendment later today. (Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)