A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Food and Nutrition Service relating to "Application of Bostock v. Clayton County to Program Discrimination Complaint Processing-Policy Update".

Mr. President, so last night, I filed cloture on President Biden's nominees to serve as Chief of Naval Operations and Chief of Staff to the Air Force, the remaining vacancies on the Joint Chiefs of Staff which we said we would fill. We will move on these critical military appointments soon here on the floor.

I also filed on the nomination of Lieutenant General Mahoney to be second in command of the U.S. Marine Corps. His appointment has become urgent because this weekend the Commandant of the Marines, Gen. Eric Smith, was unexpectedly hospitalized after a serious medical emergency. Now, normally, Lieutenant General Mahoney would have been able to immediately step in to temporarily serve as Commandant. But, unfortunately, because of the blanket holds of just one Senator, Senator Tuberville, that cannot happen. The situation at the Marine Corps is precisely the kind of avoidable emergency that Senator Tuberville has provoked through his reckless holds. Lieutenant General Mahoney is one of more than 300 nominees Senator Tuberville is currently blocking. So while the Senate will proceed quickly to vote on Lieutenant General Mahoney's nomination, these holds cannot and must not continue.

Yesterday, my colleague Senator Reed, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, introduced a resolution that will allow the Senate to quickly confirm the nominations that are currently being blocked by the Senator from Alabama. The resolution will be referred to the Rules Committee; and when the time comes, I will bring it to the floor of the Senate for consideration.

We must--we absolutely must--ensure that our military is fully staffed and fully equipped to defend the American people, and it begins by confirming these vital nominations that are currently on hold. Every day that Senator Tuberville continues his blanket holds, our military preparedness is degraded. Our military families--most of whom have served decades in the Armed Forces--suffer. Our military appointments risk being further ensnared in partisan politics. These nominees must be confirmed, and both parties should work together to make sure we fulfill our obligation to America's servicemembers.

Government Funding

Mr. President, now on the minibus, for the information of Senators, today we will pass the first of three bipartisan appropriations bills: Agriculture, MILCON-VA, and T-HUD.

When these bills pass, they will be the only--I underscore--the only bipartisan appropriations bills that have passed either Chamber. These bills will make a huge difference for America's farmers, for our infrastructure, for housing on our military bases, and for veterans. Bipartisanship isn't easy. On the contrary, it is very difficult. But here in the Senate, we are making sure

that the appropriations process is succeeding. I want to thank the good work of Chair Murray, Vice Chair Collins, and all the appropriators. Passing these appropriations bills today is not just terrific news for the country, but an affirmation of what I have said since the start of the year: The only way to get things done in a divided government is bipartisanship.

The House is going through a futile exercise in passing partisan appropriations bills that have no input or support from Democrats. They are going nowhere. The House ought to learn its lesson. The Speaker ought to understand that the 30 hard-right people should not be dictating what the entire House or the entire country does. Those bills are filled with poison pills. They break the agreement and cut below the agreement that we made when we wanted to avoid the debt from being not fulfilled, and they are nowhere.

On the other hand, the Senate has bipartisan bills. And that is the real difference here. Sooner or later, the House and the new Speaker will learn the lesson: If you don't do it bipartisan, it ain't getting done. The Senate has been a strong model for how bipartisanship can work, even amidst the deep disagreement, and I thank my colleagues on both sides for their work on these bills.

Artificial Intelligence

Mr. President, now, we continue on our AI Insight Forums. Today, as leaders gather in London for the first AI summit, the Senate will hold our third and fourth bipartisan AI Insight Forums. This morning will be focused on the intersection of AI in the workforce. We will hear from a balanced group of leaders in labor, tech, civil rights, and business about both the opportunities and risks that AI presents to the American worker and to our economy.

People are worried. Many people worry, Will I still have my job as AI kicks in? We want to make sure that we have guardrails that protect workers, not make the mistake that was done with globalization, where so many were thrown out of work through no fault of their own.

And then this afternoon, we will discuss AI's use in high-impact areas like finance, healthcare, law enforcement. We will focus especially on the potential bias in AI technologies in these high- impact areas and how Congress can create guardrails to protect our civil rights in the age of AI.

The Senate is continuing to be all hands on deck when it comes to trying to pass AI legislation. Yesterday our bipartisan AI gang-- Senators Rounds, Heinrich, Young, and I--had a great meeting with President Biden at the White House on AI. So we are making good progress, but we still have more to learn about AI as we work to develop bipartisan legislation. And the world is paying attention. There is a forum in London today where the Vice President will attend. And, inevitably, they will be looking. The whole world will be looking to the Senate to see whether and what kind of legislation we can pass. We will work hard to get the best possible bipartisan legislation done.

Government Funding

Mr. President, about the supplemental, on Monday, Speaker Johnson and House Republicans released a totally unserious and woefully inadequate package that omitted aid to Ukraine, omitted humanitarian assistance to Gaza, had no funding for the Indo-Pacific, and made funding for Israel conditional on hard-right, never-going-to-pass proposals. What a joke.

Yesterday afternoon, President Biden issued a veto threat on the GOP proposal, and it is no wonder why: It needlessly politicizes aid to Israel. It balloons the Federal deficit. Here the House is talking about we need to pay for, to reduce the deficit, and they put in a provision that actually increases the deficit. Why? Because they don't want their superrich, megawealthy friends to be audited by the IRS like every other citizen is.

As we know, when Trump was President, he almost exempted them from auditing. Someone making $40,000 a year had a greater chance of being audited than someone making $4 million a year.

It is amazing that the main focus as the world is in crisis--in the Middle East, in Ukraine, in the Indo-Pacific--our House Republicans are spending more time trying to further reduce taxes of those who don't pay much tax at all. So I am so glad that President Biden issued a strong veto message. I would urge every House Republican, every House Democrat, every Senate Member to read the President's veto message. It is strong and well thought out. He talks about it politicizing aid to Israel, it ballooning the Federal deficit, and it failing to address the national security threats America faces around the globe-- particularly our need to help Ukraine, provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, and help in the Indo-Pacific.

So the House GOP proposal is not going anywhere. It is dead before it even is voted on. The Speaker should start over--this time without terrible, partisan poison pills; this time sitting down with Democrats and working this issue through.

Israel has suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history. It needs help. But House Republicans are asking a price for helping them by cutting off funding that holds rich tax cheats accountable. That ain't happening, House. It ain't happening.

Now, Speaker Johnson says that this supposed pay is needed because of his concern about the national debt; but as I mentioned, every independent estimate shows this partisan bill raises the deficit by billions of dollars. So, what hypocrisy. It is not responsible. It is reckless. It is utterly baffling--baffling--that at a moment that demands maximum bipartisanship, when the country is in crisis and our friends in Israel and Ukraine are in crisis, that the House GOP is, instead, trying to pick an egregiously partisan fight over wealthy tax cheats.

Years back, both parties would have come together for the good of the country and the good of security in the world when crises like these happen. But the House GOP--continuing the kind of recklessness, the kind of inability to get their act together--continues to do these kinds of things.

Their proposal is simply not a serious one. And, worse, it still wastes precious time at a moment when we need to help Israel, Ukraine, and send humanitarian aid to Gaza ASAP.

All friends of Israel should loudly and clearly say that any move to make the United States-Israel relationship a partisan one, as the House is doing, is a move that hurts Israel. That is what they do, unfortunately: harming our partnership with Israel by politicizing their aid package. I urge Speaker Johnson: Quickly change course, Speaker Johnson, because this stunningly unserious proposal is not going to be the answer. It is not going anywhere. As I said: It is dead almost before it is born.

Oil Industry Mergers

Mr. President, the FTC letter that we sent this morning--and I think people should pay attention to this because this is a very serious issue. Last month, America's two largest oil companies, ExxonMobil and Chevron, announced two of the largest oil acquisitions of the 21st century--in fact, some of the largest mergers in the history--in the whole history--of the United States. And where are these mergers occurring? In the heavily concentrated oil industry where the consumer has almost no say whatsoever.

These deals have all the hallmarks of harmful, anticompetitive effect. And if they are allowed to happen, Americans could see the consequences through higher prices at the pump. People are complaining, justifiably, that gas prices are too high, and these mergers inevitably will make the price even higher.

So today, I am leading a group of 22 Senators calling on the Federal Trade Commission to use the full powers of the FTC to investigate these mergers. In our letter, we say that if any antitrust laws may be violated, the FTC should step in and oppose the mergers.

We broke up Standard Oil's illegal monopoly in 1911. We are quickly getting back to that place. The FTC should also investigate whether it is time to break up today's anticompetitive oil conglomerates. When America's largest oil companies can just buy some of their largest competitors--here we have Exxon, the biggest oil company in America, buying the largest oil driller in the Permian Basin, which is the biggest U.S. oil field--it is outrageous. When the largest companies can control the lion's share of the supply chain, when they are able to act

with little accountability, the result is a raw deal for American consumers, American workers, and the American economy.

And this isn't speculation. We have seen this happen before. In the 1990s, there were over 2,600 mergers across the petroleum industry. The number of major oil companies was cut in half.

I will never forget the day. This was a Democratic President. President Clinton, unfortunately, allowed the merger between Exxon and Mobil--two of the biggest oil companies. I opposed it at the time. The result of these mergers and lax accountability was market manipulation, an unstable supply, and, ultimately, price hikes for Americans.

Well, why repeat that mistake? We cannot allow it.

With ExxonMobil's merger with Pioneer and Chevron's merger with Hess, we are seeing history repeat itself. More consolidation and less competition may be good for the shareholders and the big oil company execs, but it ain't good for America, and it certainly ain't good for the consumer, who will inevitably pay more for gas, oil, and so many other things.

There is something deeply wrong about seeing the largest oil and gas companies in the world manipulate their way to higher profits as Americans are struggling at the pump. Last year alone, the world's five largest oil companies saw record profits--$219 billion--more than double the profits of 2021.

And where did the profits go? Did they translate to lower prices for Americans? Did the companies invest in worker productivity or in finding new, clean energy sources? No. The soaring profits fueled soaring stock buybacks. Americans, meanwhile, saw higher prices every time they filled up the tank.

And one other point about these mergers: At one point, the big oil companies said: Hmm, we understand that the world is moving in a direction of clean energy. We are going to move that way, too.

These mergers show they are not. They are not. They are simply investing in the old carbon resources that we know, in the long run, will do such damage to our world and our world economy. Yet they are just moving headlong in that direction--short-term gain, long-term loss.

Mergers will accelerate these disturbing trends of high gas prices and less competition. So we are calling on the FTC to look into the announcements made by ExxonMobil and Chevron and step in if necessary.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 60- affirmative vote threshold for the adoption of the substitute amendment, No. 1092, as amended, be withdrawn.

I know of no further debate on the substitute amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 1092

Madam President, I am proud to say that today the Senate becomes the first Chamber in Congress to pass bipartisan, responsible appropriations bills: MILCON-VA, Agriculture, and Transportation-HUD. These bipartisan bills deliver big wins for America's farmers, for our infrastructure, for housing, and for our military bases and veterans and more. And passing these bills affirms what I have said all year long: The only way--the only way--to get things done in divided government is bipartisanship.

I hope the Senate's success today shows Speaker Johnson and House Republicans that bipartisanship is the way to go. The American people won't support futile exercise of passing partisan, extremist legislation that has no chance of becoming law, which is what the House is doing right now. Their appropriations bills, A, are loaded with poison pills that they know are not going to be accepted in this Chamber or by Democrats in their Chamber, and they make cuts in the budget that go against the agreement we made during the debt ceiling.

I told Speaker Johnson last week that if we can figure out how to work on appropriations together, we can get good things done for the country, which is what both sides, I am proud to say, in the Senate want to do. I urged Speaker Johnson not to repeat the mistakes of Speaker McCarthy's team, who pushed party-line funding bills that went way below the agreement from June, without input from Democrats. Only-- only--bipartisan appropriation bills will be able to fully fund the government.

I want to recognize my colleague. Chair Patty Murray has done excellent work in her first year as chair of the Appropriations Committee. She has been outstanding. I also wish to thank Vice Chair Susan Collins for her terrific work, as well as all the appropriators on both sides of the aisle.

Pursuing bipartisanship isn't always easy. Most of the time, it is difficult--more difficult now than ever. But if you stick with it, we can do it. And we have stuck with it, and we have done it. Thanks to both sides, we are reaching a good outcome for the country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the situation in Gaza today is a disaster. Congress must take action. The administration must take action. The world must take action.

Today, 3 weeks after Hamas's barbaric attack against civilians in Israel, which began this war, many hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza are on the brink. Over the past 3 weeks, it is estimated that some 8,000 people in Gaza have been killed in bombings, including more than 3,000 children, and far more have been wounded.

More than a million people in Gaza have been displaced from their homes, and some 670,000 are sheltering in U.N. installations, where they are down to 1 liter of water per person per day. They lack sufficient food, water, medical supplies, or fuel. The hospitals and medical facilities there are in nightmarish conditions, with hundreds of

babies in incubators and patients on life support at risk of death should the generators that sustain them run out of fuel. Corridors are lined with injured and displaced people, and overwhelmed doctors must turn patients away or operate without anesthesia or antibiotics.

The humanitarian crisis is dire and getting worse by the minute. There must be a humanitarian pause now so that sufficient supplies-- food, water, medicine, fuel--can reach the people of Gaza. If not, thousands more will die needlessly. We cannot allow that to happen. A stop to the bombing is critical to save innocent lives and secure the safe return of hostages.

Let us never forget the lives of all children--all people--are sacred, whether they are Palestinian children, Israeli children, or American children, and we must do everything we can to protect them. But if we are going to make any real progress in addressing this never- ending conflict between Israel and Hamas--there have been five wars in the last 15 years--we need to understand somewhat as to how we got to where we are today. If peace is to come to that troubled region and if the Palestinian people are ever going to be able to enjoy lives of security and dignity, there must be a vision of where we go in the future.

So, let us be clear, the living conditions in Gaza before October 7 were horrific and inhumane, and that is before Hamas ignited the latest war. Before this conflict, in Gaza, nearly 80 percent of people there lived in poverty, and two-thirds were reliant on humanitarian assistance. Almost half the population and over 70 percent of young people were unemployed in Gaza. What kind of life could they look forward to? Electricity there was intermittent, with 11- to 12-hour blackouts every day. Water and sanitation systems were inadequate, and there were constant shortages of all basic necessities.

Gaza was mostly cut off from the world, with Israel and Egypt severely limiting the number of people and types of goods that could go in or out. In fact, many observers described Gaza as ``an open-air prison''--and all of that is before October 7.

If we are serious about bringing freedom and dignity to the Palestinian people, that is a situation that can never be allowed to be returned to. The Palestinian people are entitled to much more than that.

In Gaza, Hamas, an authoritarian terrorist organization, ruled by force, stockpiling arms and war materiel, taxing the desperately poor population, and stealing resources to build tunnels and rockets. Make no mistake about it, Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel, and long before this horrific attack, they had killed countless innocent people, including Americans. They advance a fundamentalist ideology which treats women as inferior, second-class citizens and which threatens to kill people who are gay.

Hamas is an authoritarian nightmare, repressing dissent and stealing from Gazans not just many materials of life but the dream of a better future. And that was the situation before October 7.

And what was going on in Israel before Hamas's terrorist attack? What was going on there? That country had the most rightwing government in its history, a Cabinet that included outright racist Ministers who consistently dehumanized the Palestinian population. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, was under indictment for a litany of corruption charges, and many believe that Israel's intelligence--or lack of intelligence--on October 7 had everything to do with his government's preoccupation with his political problems.

Before the war, this rightwing Israeli Government had systematically undermined the prospects of peace. Netanyahu and his extreme partners in the Cabinet had worked to marginalize Palestinian voices committed to peace, pursued settlement policies designed to foreclose the possibility of a two-state solution, stymied economic development in Palestinian areas, and passed laws that entrenched systemic inequality between Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel.

This last year saw record Israeli settlement growth in the West Bank, where more than 700,000 Israelis now live in areas the United Nations and United States agree are occupied territories. Despite that, the Israeli Government authorized thousands of new homes for settlers and opened up new areas to construction, while bulldozing thousands of Palestinian homes and schools and further restricting Palestinian movement.

Legal experts agree, these policies constituted nothing less than illegal annexation. All of these policies and more greatly increased tension in the West Bank. Before October 7, 179 Palestinians had been killed in 2023--179 Palestinians in the West Bank--which made it the deadliest year in two decades. Since October 7, 121 more Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank, including some by settlers.

These tensions were part of why so much of the IDF, the Israel Defense Forces, was deployed in the West Bank rather than the border with Gaza.

And then came October 7 and Hamas's atrocities that began this latest and horrific war. The Hamas attack was unspeakable. Over 1,300 innocent men, women, and children in Israel were killed; over 200 Israelis and Americans taken hostage, including young children and grandparents. Young people were gunned down in cold blood at a music festival, babies and older people brutally murdered in their homes.

And let's remember that Hamas did not primarily target the military-- no. They intentionally targeted civilians. Their goal was to kill civilians. Their attack was designed to provoke a response, and in that they succeeded.

Many Israelis are now understandably furious, and they want to strike back forcefully. I think we can all understand that. But rage and revenge do not make useful policy. And here in the United States, after the attack on 9/11 in this country, we acted with rage and revenge, and I think many people now understand that that was a horrific mistake.

Killing innocent Palestinian women and children in Gaza will not bring back to life the innocent Israeli women and children who have been killed by Hamas. Like any other country, Israel has the right to defend itself and destroy Hamas terrorism, but it does not have the right to kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza.

Israel does not have the right to endanger the lives of millions of Palestinians--half of whom are children--by shutting off water, food, fuel, and electricity. That type of action against a helpless and impoverished population is morally unacceptable and in violation of international law.

Israel does not have the right to bomb an entire neighborhood to target one Hamas leader or installation, but that is what the Israeli Government is doing. One need only look at the satellite imagery and photography of Gaza to see that this is not a carefully calibrated campaign. These are not surgical strikes.

Yesterday, Israel struck the densely populated Jabalia refugee camp and killed a Hamas commander, but they also killed some 50 other people and injured hundreds more, although the exact toll is not yet known. That was actually the fourth airstrike on that community. An October 9 airstrike killed 60, an October 19 airstrike killed 18, and an October 22 airstrike killed 30, according to outside researchers.

UNRWA reported yesterday that their head of security--that is the United Nations Relief Agency--their head of security was killed, along with his wife and eight children. In total, 67 United Nations Relief Agency workers have been killed, and 44 United Nations facilities have been damaged since October 7.

The current Israeli strategy must end. Israel must begin the process of restoring water and electrical services to areas where they are still operable. The international community must also rush generators and solar capacity to Gazan medical facilities to address acute needs and reduce Israeli fears of diversion to Hamas.

Israel will not stop going after Hamas, but it must do it in a very, very different way, and additional pauses will be needed.

Let me conclude by saying that Israel must also begin the process of laying out a political strategy. It cannot bomb its way to a solution. Such a strategy must include as minimum first steps a clear promise that Palestinians displaced in the fighting will

have the absolute right to safely return to their homes; a commitment to broader peace talks to advance a two-state solution in the wake of this war; an abandonment of Israeli efforts to carve up and annex the West Bank; and a commitment to work with the Palestinian Authority to build genuine governing capacity.

The United States must make it clear that these are the conditions of our solidarity. Just as we want justice for the Israelis murdered by Hamas, we also want justice for the Palestinian people, and that is not going to happen with Hamas. Palestinians need a state of their own, contiguous, with the freedom of movement and access that can sustain a vibrant economy.

This will be a long and difficult road. It will take concerted U.S. and international support and a doubling down of our political commitment to a two-state solution. But the first step right now must be to stop the bombing and bring in as much humanitarian aid as possible.

I think Secretary Blinken said it well when he said:

Providing immediate aid and protection for Palestinian

civilians in the conflict is a necessary foundation for

finding partners in Gaza who have a different vision for the

future than Hamas--and who are willing to help make it real.

This is a dreadful situation. It is part of a very, very long-term conflict between Israel and its neighbors. But the immediate crisis is to save lives, to stop the bombing, to bring forth a humanitarian pause, and then to go forward to bring peace and stability to the region.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me say that I associate myself with the remarks that were just made by the previous two speakers--the senior Senator from the State of North Dakota and the distinguished Senator from Alaska.

I rise today to follow on with the importance of national defense and, in that regard, to speak specifically about the historic Australia, United Kingdom, United States agreement known as AUKUS.

This pact, AUKUS, builds upon a bond forged during the First World War between the United States and Australia and made unshakable in the second. That bond remains strong today as we face the greatest challenge of our lifetime--the Chinese Communist Party.

The Senator from Alaska just spoke about the importance of building our defenses in the Indo-Pacific, and that is exactly what the AUKUS agreement is designed to address.

Our military leadership has made the stakes clear. The Secretary of the Air Force, Frank Kendall, recently said:

The intelligence couldn't be clearer. . . . China is

preparing for a war and specifically for a war with the

United States.

Now is the time for free nations across the Pacific to prepare for this sobering possibility. The AUKUS deal will help prevent that war from happening. Indeed, the AUKUS agreement is vital, but there is more work to do beyond that. We have yet to take the actions necessary to ensure that our industrial base can support both the United States and Australia.

The basic fact is this: Our defense industrial base is not where it needs to be. Workforce shortages, a shrinking base of contractors, and insufficient resources have damaged our military readiness. Year after year, we have deferred maintenance on our surface ships, even as these ships are spending more days deployed and the fleet continues to shrink. Our capabilities are stalling as we hurtle toward a window of maximum danger with the Chinese Communist Party.

The story for our submarines is no better. We are not prepared to fulfill our Navy's submarine construction and maintenance needs, let alone fulfill the prospective commitments in the critical AUKUS agreement.

Our Navy's requirement is to have 66 attack submarines at 80 percent readiness. We currently have 49 attack submarines at 67 percent readiness. Let me say that again. We need 66 attack submarines. We have only 49. They need to be at 80 percent readiness. They are only at 67 percent.

We should be building two attack submarines per year, but we are really building 1.2 attack submarines per year. The demands of the AUKUS agreement would push this requirement higher to above 2.3 attack submarines per year. We should do that, but we can't meet that challenge right now. To meet this challenge, our defense industry will need to handle more demand than ever before.

To handle this demand, our defense industry will need to reverse its current trajectory. Since the so-called peace dividend of the 1990s, we have closed two nuclear submarine repair yards and one construction yard. COVID-19 took a sledgehammer to an already declining workforce, and our government is expecting that same inexperienced workforce to meet deadlines not just on our Virginia-class submarines but also the critically important, nuclear-armed Columbia-class.

Our submarine fleet, just like our surface fleet, is still living off the Reagan-era defense buildup. Many vessels are in a deteriorating state and will soon need to be retired, but replacements are not waiting in the wings. The remaining ships will face longer deployments and fewer opportunities for maintenance. This is not a blueprint for American command of the seas, nor does it put us in a position to provide our Australian friends the submarines which they need.

These cascading problems create what some have called a debt spiral of submarine construction and readiness. This spiral keeps us from hitting our shipbuilding targets. Moreover, today's threats mean the current targets are actually too small. China's navy is now the world's largest navy. Russia is increasing its nuclear submarine activity in the Atlantic. Keeping up with these challenges means raising our shipbuilding goals in the first place, then expanding our industrial capacity to meet them.

According to our Acting Chief of Naval Operations, Virginia-class construction needs to nearly double. This is the man whom we have put in charge and confirmed to let us know about the readiness of our Navy.

I am grateful for past congressional and executive branch efforts to fund this work; otherwise, we would construct fewer than one Virginia- class submarine each year. But even those funding increases have not matched our need. At the current rate, we will be at least nine submarines short by 2030.

Our defense policy cannot continue to hinge upon a hope and a prayer. To make good on AUKUS and stand by our friends in Australia, the administration and Congress need to make the investments necessary to improve submarine construction.

Our first step is clear. We must enact into law the nearly $3.4 billion in submarine funding, including in the defense supplemental Congress is considering. We need every bit of this funding increased and more.

These funds will be spread throughout our industrial base in the United States--inside the United States, employing American workers. It will modernize our shipyards, accelerate maintenance on our existing submarine fleet, and put capital investments in place for future submarine components to be built in our country. They will put Americans to work, showing that economic development and national security go hand in hand.

This additional funding is a welcome first step, but we must do more to show our allies and the U.S. industry and our adversaries that we can meet the obligations of the AUKUS agreement without putting our own submarine fleet in jeopardy. We should sustain investments in our shipbuilders, public shipyards, and the nearly 16,000 suppliers across the Nation, many of them--most of them--small businesses around the Nation. This industry network supports American undersea supremacy and prevents conflicts on the seas, but it needs more long-term investment to stay afloat.

We already have some sense of what this investment should look like. I want to emphasize this. The Biden administration commissioned the ``Submarine Industrial Base 2025'' study to examine the best way to execute

AUKUS. From what I understand, the study will document what we already know: We need significant additional funding to fulfill Australia's needs alongside those of our fleet. But here is the problem: We commissioned the study. Inexplicably, the Biden administration has yet to let Congress actually see the specifics of the study--not Members of the Democratic leadership, not Members of the Republican leadership. Until the elected Members of the U.S. Senate and the House see this study, Congress cannot make its strongest argument for submarine investment.

I led a letter, signed by a bipartisan group of defense leaders, asking the administration to send us the study without delay. This was a bipartisan letter. Friends from both sides of the aisle joined me on that. We are an equal part of the government. We have authorized this study, and, for heaven's sake, the elected Senators and Representatives of the people need to see this.

If the President desires the same success for the AUKUS deal that many of us in Congress desire--and I believe he does, given the funding request included in the supplemental--then the administration ought to release the study promptly. They ought to release the study to us today.

This study is just one element of strengthening AUKUS. Of course, the most crucial element is increasing overall American sea power. For years, I have cast a vision for restoring American maritime supremacy, following President Reagan's own defense buildup. Again, this is not something that sprung from the brow of Senator Wicker. These are requirements given to us by the top military Navy and Marine leadership, in particular, across the Nation. AUKUS ought to be part of that buildup.

This vision will require historic investment to ensure we have the necessary shipbuilding capacity. It is not an easy task, but history suggests it would underwrite and protect American security for decades.

It will also include strengthening the U.S.-Australian alliance throughout the 21st century. This alliance is symbolized by Australian Prime Minister Albanese's travel to Washington last week. I was honored to meet with him and his team several times during that visit.

The bond between our two nations is deep and abiding. It stood the test of World War II, and it will continue to stand as we confront the challenge of Xi Jinping's communist Chinese fleet.

I can think of no action more emblematic of our bond than the AUKUS agreement, which, again, I fully support. I know the Australians do. They told me last week. They show this also by committing $3 billion to our industrial base. The best way to honor our special relationship would be to back AUKUS with funds of our own. Australia's economy is a tenth the size of ours, and the United States should commit a proportional investment. The current plan doesn't get us there.

We have never pursued a defense technology partnership at this scale and level of sophistication, but we have moments in our history to draw upon that inform our path forward. Since its invention in the American midcentury, our nuclear Navy has been second to none because we have never accepted anything less.

Our adversaries knew this. When Admiral Rickover, the founding father of our nuclear Navy, traveled to discuss nuclear submarines with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and his aides, Admiral Rickover boasted:

Although the United States is a democracy, it can act fast.

. . . Can't Russia act as fast as the United States?

The answer was that Russia could not act as fast as we could. The strength of our free enterprise system, the clarity of our mission set by our Federal leaders, and our collective appreciation of the Soviet threat gave us a focus, a singular focus, and it allowed the American system to unleash our arsenal of democracy, and we prevented war with the Soviet Union by maintaining our naval supremacy. We need to unleash that arsenal again.

In the words of Admiral Rickover, ``We shall let nothing deter us from building a nuclear Navy in the shortest possible time.''

Once more, we cannot let anything deter our skilled shipbuilders from cutting the steel and constructing the fleet that will safeguard America for a generation to come.

We have submarines to build. Let's get to work.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have spoken frequently about the clear links between the biggest national security challenges facing our country and about what we need to do to address them, but let's not lose sight of a few overarching points.

America's adversaries don't ease up when we lose our resolve. In fact, they press their advantage. How many of our colleagues would disagree that withdrawing from Afghanistan caused America's friends and foes to question the credibility of our commitments?

How many would disagree that failing to respond decisively to hundreds of terrorist attacks against U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq has weakened our deterrence against Iran?

How many Senators would disagree that the Biden administration shouldn't have withheld lethal assistance to Ukraine in the summer of 2021 or that they should have shipped lethal weapons more quickly as Russia's preparations became glaringly obvious that fall and winter?

How many would disagree that the President's caution and hesitation to provide critical weapons--like HIMARS, Patriots, tanks, and ATACMs-- has prolonged the conflict in Ukraine?

Over and over again, history has taught us that the costs of disengaging from the world are far higher than the costs of engaging. And just as the threats we face aren't isolated, neither are the benefits of investing in American leadership.

So here is the plain truth: The overwhelming majority of the resources approved by the Senate as security assistance for Ukraine has, in fact, gone directly--directly--to American manufacturers, supporting American jobs, expanding the American industrial base, and producing new weapons for America's military, with almost $70 billion in investments spread across at least 38 different States. The production of artillery rounds alone has distributed multiple billions into facilities from Arkansas to Virginia and Texas to Ohio--all to improve our ability to equip the United States and our allies for the growing challenges we face.

These investments are not just replacing what is being used to destroy Russia's military strength; they are expanding production capacity to meet the soaring demand from allies. NATO countries have invested $90 billion in capabilities produced here in America since last February, and they are helping equip U.S. forces for our own long- term competition with China.

Take the Patriot interceptor. This air defense system is arguably the most in-demand weapon in the United States' arsenal. It has saved thousands of American and allied lives. It is deployed across Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific. It is produced in Tucson, AZ, with components coming from all over our country; and the supplemental resources we are working on could expand production capacity by nearly 20 percent.

Or take the 155-millimeter round. It is relevant in nearly every conflict imaginable. More than 75 percent of our investments marked for this munition has gone toward capacity expansion. Today, U.S. manufacturers are able to produce double what they could before our response to the Russian aggression last year. With the further investment of so-called Ukraine spending, American production would reach 1 million rounds per year.

The notion that this money is distracting from America's other security priorities is nonsense. Anyone making this claim doesn't understand how critical production lines work. The truth is the investments we have made in expanding production capacity to respond to Putin's escalation are helping American manufacturers produce more of the weapons Israel and Taiwan need.

I have spoken at length about America's clear national security interest in helping Ukraine demolish Russian military strength and in a secure and peaceful Europe. I have spelled out the glaring and immediate threats we face from Iran-backed terror and of the importance of supporting our closest ally in the Middle East. I have emphasized the gravity of strategic competition with China and the urgency of the threat facing our friends out in the Indo-Pacific.

But, as foolish as it is to deny the clear link between America's adversaries and the threats we face, it is every bit as dangerous to pretend that, as a global superpower, our Nation cannot or should not face each of them down. We have the means to lead the free world and ensure our own security. In the face of coordinated aggression from our adversaries, we have the clearest possible objective: We win. They lose.

Border Security

Now, Mr. President, on a related matter, as I mentioned last week, illegal crossings at our southern border are setting alltime records. In just 3 years, under the Biden administration, the CBP has recorded 6 million border encounters--6 million. And yet, in the face of these astonishing statistics, the Secretary of Homeland Security continues to say: ``Our approach to managing the border . . . is working.''

The White House Press Secretary has reiterated this insanity, saying:

It's not like someone walks over [the border]. . . . That's

not how it works.

Well, of course, we know that is exactly--exactly--how it works. The Border Patrol has been tracking 1,000 known ``got-aways'' per day-- 1,000 ``got-aways'' per day.

The facts on the ground send a clear message: The Biden administration's handling of the border crisis is a complete and utter failure.

Yesterday, Senator Cruz and Senator Barrasso both shared an encounter they witnessed on the border, over the weekend, of a 10-year-old girl and a man claiming to be her father. They described the terror on the girl's face as the man attempted to use the Biden administration's family unit loophole to cut the line at the border. As Senator Cruz put it, ``the cartels are renting children to grown men.''

The crisis that has unfolded on President Biden's watch is inhumane and dangerous. Fiscal year 2022 was the deadliest year on record at the southern border, and fiscal year 2023 set an alltime record for terror watchlist encounters. We are watching a humanitarian crisis that has become a glaring national security vulnerability.

The solution is pretty clear. The solution isn't billions of dollars to make it easier and faster to process illegal immigrants or ``money for a welcome wagon,'' as Senator Barrasso put it yesterday. The solution is a clear and commonsense policy that forces the Biden administration to enforce the law and treat the border with the legal consequences that it demands.

So I am grateful to my Republican colleagues who are working hard on a policy proposal to deliver actual border security and drawing on ideas put forward by Senator Lankford, Senator Cruz, Senator Grassley, and others.

Washington Democrats have proved that their border security approach is simply not working. President Biden's border supplemental request is just more of the same. It is time to wake up and embrace policy changes that will keep Americans safe.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to address this Chamber at an increasingly important moment in our Nation's history, to discuss the national security issues that we are currently facing and the ways in which the U.S. Senate can address them.

On the floor, over the past several weeks, I have repeatedly called for American leadership in support of our allies abroad and in support of the many challenges that we face here at home. Again, today, I renew that call for American leadership and continue to stress the urgency created by the trials at hand: from the vicious, horrific attacks on our allies in Israel by Hamas to Putin's aggression we see in Europe; from North Korea's brazen nuclear posturing to Iranian militias attacking our men and women overseas in uniform; and, of course, the increasing tensions that we see in the Indo-Pacific, where China continues to threaten stability and to pursue the largest military buildup since World War II.

We are currently living in times and are tasked in making decisions that will greatly shape the world in which we and the young people here today will be living in. Our Nation is being tested. Our resolve is being tested. And a country as powerful as ours needs to show strength, clarity, and control that only the United States of America can generate.

This is something I have addressed repeatedly with my constituents across West Virginia and something that I am confident they understand and agree with. The Mountain State is incredibly patriotic. We are very proud Americans. Pride in our country and a steadfast belief in the ideals and values that we stand for are invaluable, both now and in our future. I agree with my fellow patriotic West Virginians that this is the greatest country on Earth and that the title requires us to make critical investments in both our own national security and in the security of our allies, before it is too late.

It is imperative that Americans across this country recognize this and that we come together as our adversaries attempt to turn us against one another.

I am appreciative of the Biden administration for proposing a supplemental appropriations package that addresses key areas of concern that I have talked to, but those key areas of concern that we see across our country and the world. That being said, the administration's supplemental request needs to be recognized for what it is--a request. The Senate must and will have a say in how this is formulated. The Biden administration has not shown the strength it needs to during these challenging times.

We need to unabashedly stand with Israel. We need to responsibly support

Ukraine as they further deteriorate Putin's military. They are getting back land that they lost. They are regaining it. We need to strengthen our allies and our own defense capabilities in the Indo-Pacific. And we may need to make strong changes to policies that have allowed our southern border to remain in chaos for years now. Any response from the Senate must reflect these four categories because they are directly tied to what is in the best interest of our country and our national security.

Yesterday, I participated in a Senate Appropriations hearing to examine President Biden's request. This was an important step. It allowed us to grow consensus as we move toward a supplemental that will be crafted by the Senate. I firmly believe that this was one of our most important Appropriations Committee hearings, and I congratulate the chair and the vice chair. This hearing highlighted how investments into the defense of Israel and Ukraine go a long way to strengthening our own defense capabilities and how the lack of deterrence and enforcement at our southern border is creating elevated threats to our national security.

This further underscores the importance of responsible relief efforts that need to be included in a response from the Senate. It is critical that a Senate-crafted supplemental address all four areas that I have mentioned and that we provide the tools needed for our allies to win and to strengthen our own defense capabilities, at the same time, in the process.

Israel is currently under attack by Hamas and Hezbollah and terrorists who are supported by America's most evil adversaries. American lives have been lost, and far too many innocent families have been left without a home and without their loved ones.

Ukraine is facing an unjust and unprovoked ground war, the likes of which we have not seen in generations--nor did we think we would see in this generation. Putin's aggression creates dangers all around the globe. The Ukrainian military is decimating Russia's military strength without putting one American troop in harm's way.

Additionally, funding toward Ukraine goes straight into replenishing our own stockpiles with new and more advanced weapons. These are weapons that are made in the U.S.A., for the U.S.A., some of which are made in my home State of West Virginia.

Our Indo-Pacific allies remain on heightened alert. I saw this directly when I visited the region last summer. It is irresponsible to neglect the tie between the attacks on Israel, the war in Ukraine, and the security of Taiwan and the increasing aggression from China--and on our southern border, which remains in chaos.

President Biden's policies have led to record after record of illegal crossings, with an alarming amount of encounters with individuals on our own country's Terrorist Watch List. I saw where Secretary Mayorkas testified yesterday that 600,000 ``got-aways''--we don't even count them in the over 2 million who were apprehended. This is 600,000 people who are believed to have entered our country without any interdiction at all. We don't know who these people are.

We do not just need funding for a border wall; we need substantial changes in policy, as I said earlier, that will strengthen our security and protect our homeland, which has been left under siege for far too long.

It is important that Congress and the American public recognize the importance of support across those four categories. The investments will support our own defense industrial base. It will increase the security of the United States. We will support our allies in their time of need, and, most importantly, we will keep U.S. servicemembers from fighting in these battles. Each of these categories is in the direct and best interest of the United States and the security of our homeland and the security of our allies.

There is no doubt that now is the time to act. If we fail to meet our obligations in any of the four areas, we weaken the overall impact of all of them. I am confident in the ability of this Chamber to craft a supplemental that meets the growing and urgent national security needs of our country and our world.

The time for American leadership is now.