Floor Statements

Mr. President, Winston Churchill famously said: ``There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them.''

Republicans and Democrats agree: Strong alliances and partnerships are key to the asymmetric advantage that the United States has over our strategic competitors.

Like every President before him, President Biden has rightly made America's alliances and partnerships a cornerstone of his administration. It is a national security policy.

Alliances and partnerships are not a substitute for a strong American military. A strong military is the foundation of our alliances. Military power creates leverage and credibility for our diplomats, and just as importantly, it creates a deterrent.

Real deterrence cannot be achieved unless it is credible, and it cannot be credible unless we properly fund our military and have our allies and partners with us. It has to be both. You can't have one or the other. Why? Because our partnerships are two-way streets. Alliances aren't just for show. They are not just empty statements that we are blindly sending money to support vague goals. These relationships are built on mutual interests. They benefit us just as much as they benefit other countries. Look at the billions of dollars that some of our allies have contributed to U.S. bases in their countries.

``National Defense Strategy''--this book is the one that was put together in 2018. It was put together by 12 people, 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats, all experts in their field. In fact, one of them just this morning was in a committee hearing before our committee. This document has been our blueprint for a long period of time, so this is what we have, and this is what we feel is going to be something that will stay with us for a long time.

In this book, it states that--and I am quoting from it now-- ``mutually beneficial alliances and partnerships are

crucial to our strategy, providing a durable, asymmetric strategic advantage that no competitor or rival can match.'' But maintaining that asymmetrical advantage requires much more than simply saying nice things about our allies and partners.

The bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission report, written by six Democrats and six Republicans, makes this very clear. They talk about how ``these alliances and partnerships . . . have ultimately rested on a foundation of military strength.'' So when President Biden says that ``America's alliances are our greatest asset'' and then goes to underfund the military, it defies common sense. Underfunding the military threatens that very foundation that underwrites the effectiveness of our alliances and partnerships.

Let me explain a little bit of how it works. We will start with nuclear modernization.

The United States maintains a safe and effective nuclear arsenal to protect American families but also to protect our partners and allies. Our nuclear umbrella has three benefits.

First, it makes clear to China and Russia which countries stand with us. You know, they don't know otherwise, and they have a terrible practice of lying about which countries are with us or are with them. So this makes it very clear. It is on the dotted line.

Second, it has the benefit of giving those countries the security of relying on our deterrence rather than feeling like they have to develop their own nuclear weapons.

Thirdly, our umbrella of extended nuclear deterrence is a pillar of our goal of global nuclear nonproliferation. If we cut back our own nuclear deterrent and take away that umbrella, which is what would happen if we reduce our defense budget, it is likely that nuclear weapons will become more common, not less.

President Biden has said nuclear nonproliferation is one of his priorities. Do you see the disconnect here? That is why it is so concerning to me that some administration officials--now I am talking about the current administration--some of those officials are talking about drastically reducing our nuclear modernization efforts.

I am also concerned that some in the administration and in Congress are targeting our fifth-generation stealth air power. Don't get me wrong--the F-35 has had its problems. We all understand that. But it is the cornerstone of our ability to operate with allies and our partners.

The F-35 program--that is our program--has 21 allies and partners in it. For many, it is their main capability and will be their primary contribution to any kind of a high-end problem that should come forward. When we talk about cutting the program or moving away from it, their governments question our commitment. There is no substitute aircraft or capability for these countries. We want our allies and partners to fight along with us; there is no question about that.

Let's remember what happened. First of all, the F-35 is a fifth- generation vehicle, and we only had one other one, and that was the F- 22. I remember so well, just a few years ago, at that time we were going to have 700 F-22 aircraft, but we only ended up with 187 of them because at the last minute, they were talking like they are talking today, a lot of people in the administration, saying maybe we don't need to have as many F-35s. Well, we absolutely do need to have them. We don't want to make the same mistake now that we made several years ago with the F-22

Our combatant commanders have already told us that we will be outnumbered in terms of stealth fighters in the western Pacific by 2025, and it will be even worse if American F-35 cuts lead--because you know that other countries, like our allies in Australia and Japan, they would be cutting theirs if we cut ours.

That is just one of the many serious problems we have in the Indo- Pacific.

Our partners and allies are worried about U.S. force posture and our ability to deter and, if necessary, defeat China's use of military force. I heard that for myself way back in 2018 when I was in that area of the South China Sea. Many of our allies and partners in that region--they were clear. They saw firsthand how China was preparing to swiftly defeat our forces in the Pacific. They were trying to figure out how--if we would be there for them when that happened or if they would be needing to start cozying up to China. They are not going to sit around and wait for us to perform. They are going to have to know that we are going to be there for them.

Our competition out there in that area is clearly China. We know what they are doing, we know what their plans are, and we are concerned about it. Fortunately, our significant investment in the military under President Trump was an encouraging sign to our allies and partners. They were all very proud of us. But after watching China's Communist Party dismantle democracy in Hong Kong and commit genocide on the Uighurs in northwest China, our partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific are now worried that China will try to invade and annex Taiwan. How many years have we been talking about that? Now they are really concerned about it.

General McMaster testified that Taiwan is ``the most significant flashpoint that could lead to large scale war,'' saying that China would take military action against Taiwan as soon as 2022. The former and current commanders of INDOPACOM both emphasized the near-term threat. It is a real threat. It is out there.

This is the primary reason why the Armed Services Committee with overwhelmingly bipartisan support has put in place our Pacific Deterrent Initiative. We call it the PDI. The PDI is intended to bolster our degraded force posture in the Indo-Pacific to counter China's military buildup. We have to restore the favorable balance of power in the region where the problem is the most acute, and that is west of the international date line, where our partners and allies are most immediately threatened by Chinese aggression.

PDI is fundamentally about building basic infrastructure so that we can operate with our allies and partners. It will mean more distributed and smaller bases, maybe hardened communications, as well as increased and more realistic exercises with allies and partners.

If we want PDI to succeed, we need to resource it properly. Both Admirals Davidson and Aquilino told the Armed Services Committee that much just last week in a hearing we had in our committee.

After the hollow promises of the Obama administration to ``Pivot to the Pacific'' and after almost no change in the U.S. military posture in the region over the last two decades, our partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific are worried, and justly so. They want to see sustained investment matching sustained commitments, especially after President Trump rightfully pushed them to step up their own investments. They answered the call. But President Biden will create a credibility problem if we don't continue to invest as well. We want them to do that. This is the case. We are going to have to get this done.

Our INDOPACOM allies and partners throughout that region are watching closely to see what we do with the defense budget top line and with PDI. What they see is that President Biden's defense budget does not even keep up with inflation. We are talking about the defense budget that he came out with just a couple of weeks ago. That actually had a reduction. It didn't even beat inflation at that time and didn't come close to what was really recommended by this document that we are supposed to be using--it is a bipartisan document--let alone matching the real growth we need to implement the National Defense Strategy.

So over in Europe, Biden proclaimed, ``America is back,'' and that sounds good, claiming a reversal from the previous administration. It is just not true. Again, actions are not matching words. Rhetoric without resources will devastate our credibility and undermine our alliances here too.

If defense cuts impact the European Deterrence Initiative, it will serve to weaken our European posture and make our allies and partners more susceptible to Russian aggression. Without a strong defense budget, the Biden administration's goal and pledge to support NATO and deter Russia will ring hollow for our European allies and partners.

Sharing the burden is a key benefit of our international alliances and partnerships, but our NATO alliances

might see the administration's military reductions as a signal that they no longer need to meet their commitments to spend 2 percent of their GDP. Now, remember when the previous President, President Trump, talked to our allies to start bellying up and participating. NATO-- those nations are our friends, but they are not coming to the level that they are going to have to do to carry their end of it.

Don't forget--whether we are facing Russia, China, or other adversaries in other parts of the world, operating jointly with our allies and partners is a core part of our ability to deter conflict in multiple theaters, but it requires investment.

Take the refueling support we provided for our French allies in Mali--6 million pounds of fuel to allow the French to take on that critical counterterrorism mission and support their troops on the ground. It would have cost us billions to do this mission by ourselves. That is why we need the allies. The same goes for Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere. A good portion of our defense budget pays for our military to support our allies and partners so that we don't have to send our own troops over there and our allies can do it for us. It gives us insight into its operations.

So do you see what would happen if our military's ability to posture forward and stay ready is choked by inadequate defense spending? Our allies and partners would suffer, not improve, and the United States would end up spending more money for less security. This goes directly against the Biden administration's stated goals.

Thinking that alliances and partnerships can substitute for U.S. military capability and capacity is wishful thinking. It is illogical. That strategy will harm our national security. As former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said, ``Throughout history, we see nations with allies thrive and nations without allies wither.'' If we want to win against our strategic competitors, it will take both a strong, fully resourced military, as well as strong alliances and partnerships. Let's be clear. One is not an alternative for the other. You got to have both.

So it is clear then that we need our allies. So how do we maintain this mutual relationship with robust defense spending of 3 to 5 percent real growth? That is what it calls for right here. This year, we should have a 3- to 5-percent increase, and the President's budget actually came out with a net decrease. That is why this whole thing is so important.

Just this morning, we had a hearing, and we had one of the authors of this book. I asked him the same question. I said: This was put together back in 2018. Is it still accurate today? He said: Yes, it is. And it doesn't even increase enough to keep up with inflation.

So Eric Edelman--he is one of the cosponsors of the NDS that we are referring to here that has been our blueprint for 5 years now. The report said it best in an article this week by Eric Edelman. He said in this article:

[I]t remains a fact that allies and adversaries will see

the U.S. commitment to defense as a crucial benchmark for

assessing U.S. willingness and ability to succeed at long-

term competition with its authoritarian adversaries.

He continued, and this is Eric Edelman:

A tough declaratory policy without adequate military means

to reinforce it is a recipe for disaster, particularly in the

Indo-Pacific region.

So I would just say this: President Biden walks the walk, but when it comes to supporting our allies, they don't do it, and I and many others know that it is meaningless without a strong defense budget to back it up.

And we need a higher topline. We need a higher topline. It is going to have to be somewhere in the range that was put together by a group of Democrats and Republicans that outlined what we have to do for America to survive. So we need a higher topline, and we are going to end up getting a higher topline.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues strongly to vote against the nomination of Colin Kahl to serve as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. That position is the No. 3 position in the Department of Defense.

Last week, Colin Kahl became President Biden's first nominee not to garner one single Republican vote on the Senate floor. The Vice President had to cast the tie-breaking vote. Every other nominee, even some of the most partisan progressives, earned at least one or some Republican votes.

What makes this nomination even more out of the ordinary is that this truly never happens with DOD nominees. If you look back over the last decade, recorded votes on DOD nominees are rare and only a few times did a nominee receive support from fewer than two-thirds of the Senate. It just doesn't happen. It happened this time.

Some of his tweets have raised concerns from a number of our colleagues that Dr. Kahl might have shared sensitive or classified information on Twitter. The junior Senator from Tennessee highlighted this on the floor last week.

Furthermore, Dr. Kahl's tweets also show a history of volatile behavior that goes further than just being highly partisan and unbalanced. He is also somewhat of a conspiracy theorist.

In May of 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel had seized a major nuclear archive from Iran. That archive has since revealed many previously unknown nuclear sites, and the International Atomic Energy Agency is working to gain access to inspect these sites today, thanks to Israel's discovery.

But what did Dr. Kahl say about Israel's discovery at that time? He was skeptical, and he added: ``This sure has an eerie pre-2003 Iraqi vibe to it.'' In other words, rather than being alarmed about the fact that Iran had many undeclared nuclear sites, Dr. Kahl alleged that Israel was trying to goad America into war.

Somehow, for Dr. Kahl the problem is never Iran or the weak 2015 Iran deal that didn't cover the nuclear sites that Israel revealed. He wants to give Iran massive sanctions relief to return to that deal. No, for Dr. Kahl the problem is Israel, especially when our Israeli friends reveal information about Iran's nefarious behavior.

Again, this isn't about a policy disagreement. This is about whether Dr. Kahl is someone who can accept facts, even when those facts undercut his policy preferences.

National security is a bipartisan priority. It always has been and always

will be. As I said at the beginning of this, traditionally, nominees for key DOD roles receive bipartisan support in the Senate. In fact, I can't recall a single nominee for a top DOD position in the past 40 years who didn't garner at least one vote from the other party--either party.

Now, I hope President Biden keeps this in mind as he staffs the rest of his administration. We need nominees who will work with Members on both sides of the aisle, and those Members have to trust that person in return. Moving forward, I would urge President Biden to listen to his own calls for bipartisanship and unity and send us nominees who could be approved without controversy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was listening intently to the Senator from Texas, who is certainly familiar with the problems on the border. It happens that I spent 30 years down there as a builder and developer many years ago. I got to know the border people. They are trying to do a great job down there against some pretty impossible odds.

You know, one thing I always think about is, it has nothing to do with Central American citizens or Mexicans; it is the people from the Middle East, terrorists from all over. Open borders don't work. So I applaud him for his efforts on that

Mr. President, this week we have a real opportunity before us to pass the bipartisan Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021.

If you listen only to the national media, you would think that Congress can't get together on much of anything, but this bill is a real example of how that is not always the case. The reason is simple: Everyone agrees that we need clean, safe, drinking water and to support State and local projects to protect water quality.

There are tangible benefits for communities too. Just consider what the bill does for my State of Oklahoma. First, it will increase the Federal funding for local projects by over $315 million in the next 5 years, an increase of 123 percent.

More than that, the State retains the control to direct funds to projects they have identified. It is called local support. It is kind of a unique concept. It demonstrates clearly that we who are representing an area know more about the area than people who don't represent the area.

This will increase funding for local projects. It will also provide needed resources to help Oklahoma achieve its comprehensive water plan, meeting its goal of using no more freshwater in 2060 than was used in 2010.

I am proud to cosponsor this bill because it not only recognizes that urban and rural communities have different water infrastructure needs, but it also provides specific benefits to rural States like my State of Oklahoma.

A month ago, the Water Quality Division director of the State of Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Shellie Chard, testified before the EPW Committee to highlight the challenges facing rural water systems and the innovation that they are using in rural States and communities to ensure safe and affordable drinking

water. She highlighted the need for assistance to small, rural States in complying with government regulations, and this bill does that by giving small and rural States access to Federal funding and assistance in complying with government regulations that are often more burdensome and overbearing for them.

The bill also empowers rural communities to work with technical experts at nonprofit entities and State agencies to implement best practices and more efficiently comply with the Federal regulations. When a small town like Meridian, OK, needs help addressing harmful contaminants in their water system, local rural water organizations can provide consistent help and expertise, and they do. They are out there. They want to help. Dedicating resources to help our rural communities will ensure they spend more of their time and their money on community projects, not navigating a bureaucracy.

More than just taking care of our water infrastructure today, this bill has an eye on the future by reauthorizing the Water Resources Research Act. The Water Resources Research Act supports cutting-edge water research at universities across the country, including Oklahoma State University in Stillwater. OSU will receive research funding over the next 4 years to study wastewater reuse, produced water from oil and gas operations, and more.

The bill will also more than double the funding for the enhanced aquifer recharge research program. This program does essential work to refill the groundwater aquifers, especially in areas with water shortages, to sustain a reliable municipal water supply.

I thank my colleagues Senator Carper and Senator Capito for working together to move this bill through the normal committee process and bring it to the floor. This is what bipartisanship means, and we do see this every day, in spite of what you might get from the media. I look forward to this bill being passed and enacted into law quickly. It is important that this not be the end of our bipartisan infrastructure work.

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

Let my start by urging my colleagues in the Senate to vote against the motion to discharge from the Senate Armed Services Committee the nomination of Colin Kahl for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. This is not a decision I take lightly. I have always felt that any new administration should have his team or her team, and I have generally been very supportive.

When President Biden nominated Dr. Kahl for this position, my expectation was that, if confirmed, he and I would often disagree on policy, but we would actually get along together; we could coexist together. I quickly learned that this would really be impossible with Dr. Kahl. I don't think I have ever said that about any nominee for any position that I can recall.

My Republican colleagues in the Senate Armed Services Committee--all 12 of them--reached the same conclusion. We opposed his nomination unanimously. That is very unusual.

Before I explain why not a single Republican was able to support Dr. Kahl's confirmation in committee, I want to emphasize how rare this is. The Senate Armed Services Committee, as everyone knows, is extremely bipartisan, certainly in the years that I was chairing that committee with Ranking Member Jack Reed. We got along famously. We got things done that other people couldn't get done.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has always been bipartisan. We have disagreements, of course, but Republicans and Democrats on the committee have a legacy of consensus. National security and taking care of our troops are bipartisan concerns. This is how we succeeded in passing the National Defense Authorization Act.

The National Defense Authorization Act is the largest bill every year. It is the one where it sets out the guidelines for the coming year, and it is the one where we always have gotten along. We passed it every year for 60 consecutive years. It shows and demonstrates very clearly how well we get along.

The Department deserves a nominee with bipartisan credibility. You have to keep in mind this position is the No. 3 position in the Pentagon. It represents our shared bipartisan vision of effective national security and healthy civil-military relations.

This position demands a nominee who can carry out the President's policies while engaging those who disagree in good faith. That isn't the case with this nominee. That is why we are faced with this vote today.

I also want to clear up a common misunderstanding. Republicans on the committee did not vote against Dr. Kahl simply because we disagreed with his policy views. Policy is what that position is. It is the policy position of the Pentagon. This should be obvious to anyone who paid attention to the confirmation of President Biden's nominees for Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary. We got through both of them quickly. I don't remember a time when any new administration got the two very significant positions of Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense so fast. We got them in record time. There are some things that we disagree with policywise, but we supported their confirmation, as did most of my Republican colleagues, for one reason: They were eminently qualified. I am talking about the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary. Both of them were eminently qualified, with long track records of bipartisan cooperation and strong professional judgment. I have dealt with both of them for many, many years.

In fact, we expedited the nomination to give the President his national security team just about as quickly as we could. Republicans may disagree with him, but we can work with them very well.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Colin Kahl. The national security problems we face are wicked and complex. We wrestle with them constantly on this committee.

What I cannot support are nominees who reduce complex national security conversations to partisan sound bites. For instance, as many of my colleagues will recall, back in October of 2019, Republicans and Democrats disagreed about our policy in Syria. When President Trump announced a full U.S. troop withdrawal from northeastern Syria, some of our colleagues worried about extended deployments. This is a reasonable concern because here is how Dr. Kahl chose to characterize it: Republicans are ``the party of ethnic cleansing,'' he wrote. He actually said that. He said that publicly.

Good and kind people can disagree with each other. They don't have to resort to name-calling and accusations of war crimes.

That is not an isolated example, as we discovered during our review of Kahl's writings and public statements. He often embraces conspiracy theories. For example, he alleged a ``Kushner-Kremlin quid pro quo'' referring to the President's son-in-law. And when given the opportunity to correct this type of conspiracy theory during his confirmation hearings, he refused to do it. He stood by those statements.

Dr. Kahl also has a long history of claiming every policy decision with which he disagrees will lead to war. Thankfully, he has never been right.

Dr. Kahl predicted that President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Iran deal would lead to war. It didn't. He said by sanctioning Iran's Foreign Minister, President Trump was boxing ``himself into war.'' There was no war. It didn't happen.

At one point, Dr. Kahl suggested that President Trump might ``start a war with Iran for political diversionary purposes.'' This is a ridiculous claim. Obviously, it didn't happen.

According to Dr. Kahl, the strike on Iranian terrorist leader Soleimani, the appointment of John Bolton as National Security Advisor, and the events of the Korean Peninsula, among others, were going to lead to war. And none of the wars happened.

His public declarations and policy judgment are consistently partisan and consistently wrong. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy serves as the Defense Secretary's top national security advisor. It requires a leader with sound judgment and even temperament, and Colin Kahl simply doesn't possess either one of these qualities.

Even worse, Dr. Kahl has a long track record of maligning people whom he disagrees with. I mentioned the Syrian example earlier. He also said that the Republican Party has a ``death cult fealty'' to Trump. That is seriously what he said.

The bare minimum for the Defense Department's top policy position is good judgment and even temperament. Dr. Kahl lacks both of these qualifications. It would set a terrible precedent if we confirm someone like him for the job.

I have a history of working so well with people on both sides, which is why I can and have supported many nominees whose policy views differ from mine. That goes with the job.

We have someone who is elected President of the United States. I disagree with him on many of the issues having to do with our defense policy, but because I trust that while we may disagree, they understand that we are all trying to do the right thing for our Nation and for our kids and our grandkids. Unfortunately, I don't have that trust in Dr. Kahl. Confirming him would create a real political challenge for the Department over the years to come.

Every time DOD lays down a new policy or makes a critical military decision, we will have to wonder: Was this the decision informed by the Department's skilled professionals or by the partisan conspiracy theorist that happens to run the Department? That is why all 13 Republicans on the Armed Services Committee voted to reject this nominee. This is why I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to discharge and urge President Biden to consider another nominee--one who can work productively with both sides of the aisle, even when we disagree. Mr. President, I would like to have you consider these things to make your job and my job a lot easier.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last week--no, it wasn't last week; it was about 3 weeks ago, I guess, now, President Biden released his ``skinny budget,'' which gave us a top-line for defense of $715 billion. This is a reduction, and I want to make sure everyone understands this because the cut is actually below inflation, and that is not where we are supposed to be.

You know, we have this document here that everyone agrees with. I don't know one person--and this was written by six Democrats, six Republicans, and this was in 2018. This has been used as our blueprint ever since that time, and it is just remarkable the way it has come out. The recommendations on this, as I said, were made by six Republicans, six Democrats. All of them were experts in the field of defense, and they came out with recommendations. In this year, the amount in the budget for our military is supposed to be between 3 and 5 percent. This is in the document in front of us here. Of course, this is actually a reduction. So it is way below what has been prescribed.

When it comes to China, there are two big reasons we need to make sure our budget matches our strategy. First of all, China is spending more on their military than ever before. As a result, they are getting more technologically advanced and starting to sway the military balance of power in their favor. There is no question about it, and I will document that in a minute.

The threat the Chinese military poses is not a distant threat. It is not something that might happen in 2030, 2035, or sometime in the future. It is a problem we face today, right now, and it only gets worse over time.

Admiral Davidson told the Armed Services Committee that he expects the threat to manifest ``this decade, in fact, in the next six years.'' That is the sense of urgency. That is when they become greater than we are in many areas of defense and aggression.

So today I would like to spend some time dealing with the Chinese military and what they are doing. This is what we are up against. This is why it is so important that we get our defense budget right.

Let's start with China's military budget. Since 2000, Beijing's spending on the People's Liberation Army has gone up 450 percent--450 percent. Now, we knew that back during the Obama administration, that actually went up. Our reduction--it was a reduction in the last 5 years--was 25 percent. At the same time, China went up by 83 percent. So this is what is going on in the world today. Beijing's budget for the military went up 450 percent.

Now, you compare Beijing's buildup with the rest of East Asia. At the same time, our core allies and partners in the region--that is, Japan, Australia, South Korea, and Taiwan--have had basically flat defense budgets since 2000. Compare it with our own military spending. As I mentioned on the floor a couple of weeks ago, at the same time China was adding $200 billion to their defense budget, ours shrunk by $400 billion.

We are certainly not provoking them with defense investment, and we have barely touched our force posture in the Western Pacific over the past two decades. So, if anything, our lack of action, our lack of investment, is what is provoking China into thinking they can push around and threaten our friends in the region.

The Biden administration says they want to take our allies and partners seriously. So we should listen when they say they are concerned about Chinese aggression. And they are, and the administration knows this. I have had visits with the President. He is fully aware of that.

Another progressive talking point is that the United States spends more on defense than the next 10 or 12 countries combined. Now, that is not true. The reality is that any honest comparison of numbers shows that, combined, the Chinese and Russians almost certainly spend more than us in real terms.

China's purchasing power is significantly greater than ours because they pay their workers next to nothing and have much lower material costs. They also focus their defense spending on hard power. I am talking about airplanes, tanks, ships, missiles, and the like. Why? Because they don't take care of their people.

People don't understand this. At least 40 percent of our military budget goes to supporting our people. That is not true with any of the Communist countries that are out there. All they do, they give them the guns and say go out and kill people. We don't do that. And 40 percent is a conservative figure.

You remember the housing issue that was such a big issue; that you were concerned with; I was concerned with; we were all concerned with. That is something that other countries don't have to worry about. China doesn't worry about that. Russia doesn't worry about that. These are things that--and yet that is almost half of our total budget goes to those things for our troops.

We take care of our troops. The rest of them don't. That is the right thing to do. But that is just another reason you can't do a dollar-for- dollar comparison between the Chinese and the defense spending. We need a better accounting.

And incidentally, Senator Romney introduced an amendment to our last year's NDAA, military defense act, to get us a real comparison in spending. And the Pentagon owes us that report by October.

Now, in October--we are going to talk about this. We are going to talk about this in our military because this is what the real spending is, not what a lot of people think that it is. All of this is to say, we don't have a good sense of China's true defense spending, but we do know it is going up.

General McMaster called it ``the largest peacetime military buildup in history.'' That is what General McMaster said just the other day at one of our hearings. It is not just expanding their military; they are modernizing and professionalizing at the same time.

Secretary Austin, our Secretary of Defense, rightfully, calls China our ``pacing threat.'' But here are a few of the ways that they have been outpacing us because they are investing where we are not investing. The American people think we are, but we are not.

China has a 355-ship Navy. You know, we have been talking about that for a long period of time here--how we are going to grow to a 350-ship Navy, and we haven't done it. Well, China has done it. They have achieved that last year. And while we were just talking about it, they were on the attack to get 460 ships by 2030.

By comparison, our Navy is around 300 ships, and it is likely to stay there if our defense budget doesn't grow.

In the air, the combatant commanders assess that China will have more fifth-generation aircraft than we do in the Pacific by 2025, again, the fifth-generation aircraft. We are down right now to the F-35. There are not

any others. We had the F-22. The F-22 was our first fifth-generation fighter, and it was one that we were all very excited about. They started out wanting 700 of them, and we ended up with 187, just for fiscal reasons. Again, that is where China is right now. That gets worse if we have a flat or declining budget here.

China is expanding its arsenal too. The Pentagon's missile experts tell us that China is now over 350 launchers for medium-range ballistic missiles, which are capable of hitting Guam and striking the U.S. warships in the Pacific.

They have produced exact copies of our bases, our ships, and our aircraft to serve as targets. And they are out there right now shooting those targets. That is us. That is America, and they are shooting on the replicas of our equipment to show that they can down them. By the way, they hit those targets successfully, I might add. And that is going on today.

They also have thousands of short-range missiles. Many of those are going right at Taiwan. China is also dubbing its nuclear stockpile and completing their own nuclear triad. That is something that we have criticism in this country, that we have a triad; that is, three ways of deflecting nuclear attacks on America.

So that is what is going on right now. China's military is charging ahead in just about every area. But a lot of the people who don't think China is a problem--they say that none of the Chinese weapons are as good as ours. Well, that was true in 1990. That was true in the year 2000. That is not true anymore.

The Office of Naval Intelligence said in 2015 that China's latest surface warships were comparable in many ways to the mos modern Western ships. China has deployed thousands of ground-base missiles. We are still developing ours. They have fielded hypersonic strike weapons. We are still in the research and development.

You might remember, because we saw that, the parade that was taking place in Beijing. They were demonstrating that they have these weapons that we don't have. And that was invested a year ago.

Just last month, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence assessed that the China rate of investment--they will soon dominate us in artificial intelligence unless we do something different than we are currently doing.

And while the Chinese will spend almost $50 billion on tech infrastructure over the next few years, national security infrastructure is apparently the only thing that President Biden doesn't consider infrastructure.

Not only is China spending more on its military, but it has the tools to beat us. Don't take my word for it. The bipartisan NDS--again, this is the document that we have been using, and it has been remarkably accurate, since 2018. That NDS Commission said, right in this book, the U.S. military might struggle to win or perhaps lose a war against China or Russia. That is what they said in 2018. And China has been going up ever since.

Admiral Davidson told us the other week--only 2 weeks ago--that ``there is no guarantee that the United States would win a future conflict with China.''

China's military buildup isn't just investment for the sake of it; they are already flexing their new muscle to challenge America and American allies and American interests. And the PLA has deployed missiles, radars, stealth jet fighters, and bombers to islands in the South China Sea, claiming and militarizing islands in violation of international law.

Just last year, the PLA fired anti-ship ballistic missiles into the South China Sea, clearly practicing to target U.S. Navy ships in the area. And that is what they are doing today. Those are Chinese troops walking on Woody Island in the South China Sea. And the PLA has been expanding its network of strategic ports and bases around the world from Djibouti to Pakistan and Cambodia and Sri Lanka and elsewhere.

Last year, China started going after the territory of India, which has resulted in dozens of dead Indian soldiers. They have continually harassed Japan and Taiwan in the air and on the sea. Their fishing fleets have terrorized small Pacific island nations. Over 200 Chinese boats are staking out a reef in the South China Sea claimed by the Philippines.

China has just completed a new satellite constellation over Taiwan that allows for almost constant coverage of the island, the highest known frequency of satellite coverage in the world.

A few weeks ago, Taiwan reported the largest ever Chinese incursion when 25 combat aircraft flew into its airspace. And as the cochair of the Taiwan Caucus, this is of specific concern to me. Some people have forgotten that aggression by nation states is not a thing of the past. People have forgotten how costly it is when deterrence fails.

That is why I am arguing for sustained real growth in the defense budget. We know it is necessary. We know that it is attainable because the burden of defense spending on the economy today is half what it was at the height of the Cold War.

The Biden administration is trying to tell us that we can invest in economic and technological competition or the military competition. That is a false choice. We have to do the military.

The reality is, the Chinese are engaged in every dimension of this competition, especially the military dimension, and they are not going to stop anytime soon.

I would have to say, do we really want to be there for our allies or partners? Do we want our children and grandchildren to live in a world where our status of leader of the free world is in name only?

You know, my wife and I have been married for 61 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids so I have a stake in this thing. I have a real concern. Do we want them, these kids, to grow up in a world where China--the same country that is committing genocide against the Uighurs, silencing free speech, and jailing activists in Hong Kong-- gets to set the rules of international engagement?

This isn't a hypothetical question. That is a question that we are answering each year when we set our military budget, and, frankly, I am disappointed in how the current administration is answering that call.

We have to be prepared to take on China from all angles of national power. And this begins with adequate resourcing of our U.S. military with real growth in the defense budget.

It is kind of a myth floating around. I know every time I give a speech someplace in the State of Oklahoma or elsewhere, there is a kind of an assumption that we in the United States have the best of everything. And following World War II, that was true, but that isn't true today. And if America chooses to sit on the sidelines in this competition, and we ask our allies and partners to face China alone, the failure of military deterrence becomes more likely. And that is an outcome that nobody there or here wants.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, this week marks the 26th anniversary of the worst domestic terrorist attack in history, and that was the Oklahoma City bombing. Each year, we mark this solemn occasion, and this year, we come together to do it again.

I remember that day so clearly where 168 people were murdered. I remember the thundering cadence of the police officers, the firemen, and all the first responders as they were going into the--standing there watching them going into a burning building, risking their lives, and many of them died. I had close friends who died that day, and I know there were so many others who lost family and friends and loved ones. It was a day that forever changed our proud State.

I was flying my plane back from the Mexican border to Tulsa, and I didn't have quite enough gas. I had to make a stop in Dallas. I looked up at the FBO, and there were crowds of people around that TV set in Dallas. I went to see what they were watching, and I recognized it. It was our downtown Oklahoma City buildings. The disaster had taken place, and everyone was watching.

We could have let that moment define us and change us for the worse, and it would have been a lot easier to do that, but that is not the Oklahoma way. Second Corinthians reminds us to not lose heart in times of struggle and tragedy, and Oklahoma did not lose heart. What arose from the rubble that day was the Oklahoma Standard--strangers helping strangers, giving sacrificially, and performing acts of service for each other.

I also want to take a moment to recognize the work of the Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum. For the past two decades, they have upheld their charge to honor those who were killed, those who survived, and those who were changed forever.

So, today, please join me as we remember the victims, their families, and loved ones, as well as extend our thanks to all the first responders who were forever changed on April 19, 1995. Let's honor them by taking a moment to rededicate ourselves to live the Oklahoma Standard embodied in the actions of so many on that fateful day. We owe it to them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on January 25, 2021, America lost a great patriot CPT James ``Jim'' Ronald Putek, 75, of Alpharetta, GA. Born in Chicago, IL, Jim was a decorated Army veteran having served in the Vietnam war, where he received the following awards: the National Defense Service Medal, the Bronze Star with one oakleaf Cluster, the Air Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with one Silver and one Bronze Service Star, the Army Aviator Badge, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.

Captain Putek's heroism will live forever. Following his retirement from the Army, Jim continued his passion for aviation as a commercial airline pilot for Piedmont Airlines and US Airways.

Captain Putek is survived by his wife Tricia Putek, his sister Delores, his sister-in-law Mary, and his nieces and nephews Hank, Gwen, Joanne, Janet, and Jon. He was preceded in death by his parents Walter and Frances, and his brother Henry.

Jim Putek was a fine gentleman and a true hero, respected and revered by everyone who met him. When Captain Putek passed, we not only lost a good man, we lost a great American.

Thank you, Mr. President.

It is obvious to just about everyone outside of Washington that the situation on our southern border is a crisis. I can't believe that anyone wouldn't believe that it is a crisis, but there are some who would answer that it isn't a crisis.

President Biden and the DHS Secretary refused to call it a crisis. It is not just a challenge. They called it a challenge. This isn't a challenge. This is a crisis. Ask anyone you see on the street if it is a crisis--people lined up, coming in illegally.

You don't have to take my word for it. Look at the facts. We have had a 173-percent increase in border apprehensions compared with 1 year ago--173-percent increase. This past February, apprehensions were at the highest total for February in 14 years.

DHS admits that we are on track for the most illegal migrants in more than 20 years. This is on the border. This is today. This is what is happening.

Last week, mainstream media news reports found that the administration is restricting information Border Patrol agents are allowed to share with the media about the crisis. The border agents claim that they are under an unofficial gag order. These are the border agents. These are the ones who do this for a living. They are down there. They are protecting our laws, stopping illegals from coming in. That is what their job description is, and yet they are under a gag order.

They don't want the media to find out. And they are being told to deny media requests for ride-alongs at the border. Now, that is so the media can tell the people of America what is going on down there, and they are being denied that opportunity.

The DHS Secretary claims that he is committed to openness and transparency, but this is not openness and transparency. This is hiding from the people what is going on.

Maybe this administration is doing this and refusing to call it a crisis because their policies have invited this surge. This surge is coming as a result.

President Biden has frozen funds from Congress directed for the building of the wall. He ended the ``Remain in Mexico'' asylum policy that was put there by the previous administration. It is a crisis.

Illegal aliens know Biden is opening our borders up, and they intend to take advantage of that. And the illegals are wearing the Biden T- shirts. Do you see this photograph over here? There they are. Biden, we are coming in.

I know a lot about the southern border because I have been there countless times, seeing firsthand the problems on both the Mexican side and the American side of the border. I was a builder and developer for 30 years down there. I know that border. I was there for 30 years, all the way from Brownsville to McAllen, TX, on both sides. I know the individuals that are down there who are the career people protecting our borders.

I am disappointed that the administration is reversing the progress we have made over the past 4 years and shocked that they simply won't acknowledge it is a crisis.

The border security should not be a partisan issue, and I am glad there are a few Senate Democrats who share my concern about this crisis. I applaud them for speaking out. It took guts to do it.

Well, I have got a resolution, and I am going to introduce this resolution. I introduced it, actually, already. I think every Senator will agree with it. It is a simple resolution.

We haven't checked this out yet, but I think this might be the shortest resolution in the history of the U.S. Senate. I am going to read it to you.

It simply states:

It is the sense of the Senate that the current influx of

migrants at the Southern land border of the United States

constitutes a crisis.

That is it. Nothing more.

So, with that, Mr. President, as in legislative session--this is a unanimous consent request, Mr. President. I am making it right now.

As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 132, submitted earlier today. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I object.

Mr. President, I hope everyone heard this. I haven't met the Senator from California real well yet. I look forward to it. I look forward to serving with him, but I hope that everyone heard what is going on now: Just open the borders.

You know, people in other countries--I won't mention some of them because I don't want them to be put in an awkward position--they say: Why in the world don't we have stronger borders in the United States of America? And we don't.

Our previous President, I talked to him this morning. I talked to former President Trump this morning, and I talked about what is going on down there at the border. And the reason I am familiar with this-- much more familiar than the Senator from California or anyone else--is that I worked down there for 30 years on that border, all the way from Brownsville, TX, to McAllen. I know the border people down there. I know the agents down there. And for them to tell me that they have been told not to talk to the media about what is going on--I hope everyone knows what is going on right now, today. This is going on.

You know, President Trump is all for people coming into America the legal way. He has made that very clear over and over again. He has spent time down on the border, both borders, making sure that we can have a legal--one of the most gratifying things in my job as a U.S. Senator, and I have been in these Chambers now since 1994--one of the most enjoyable things is to go to naturalization ceremonies. And you talk to these people who have come and worked to come across legally to our country. I defy you to find any one of these individuals who ha come here legally and gone through this naturalization process--they know more about the history of this country than people on the street, than people who were born here and people who are serving here in the U.S. Senate. They know the language. They learn the language. They did it the hard way. How do you tell them: You have gone through all this in the process of becoming legal, but you didn't have to do that. You just march right in. They are inviting you in. They want you in.

Put it back up. Yes, that is what is going on right now. That is what is going on at the border. So I want everyone to know what is happening now.

We can be sympathetic to a lot of people, but the idea of saying that we had a President who was putting kids in cages, come on. Let's get real. We don't want to do that. We don't have to do that. We just want to make it very clear to the American people that we have borders, and we ought to be protecting these borders.

A lot of the people who come in, they aren't necessarily from Central America or from Mexico. These are--a lot of them are terrorists coming over. They are coming from the Middle East, coming from all over the world, coming into our porous borders.

Now, is that what people want? No, it is not. Overwhelmingly, they have rejected the idea of open borders, letting everyone come in.

Well, we are to going stay with this, and I am going to resubmit this very simple resolution, as follows:

It is the sense of the Senate that the current influx of

migrants at the southern land border of the United States

constitutes a crisis.

It is a crisis.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I understand we are not in a quorum call.

Mr. President, I am down here today to talk about something that I have talked about many times before, and that is the need to have a strong defense budget so we can deter our adversaries.

You know, it is not like it used to be in the old days. It is for real. These guys--China, for example, is in a position they have never been in before. I think it is important that we talk about this budget that is coming up again. It is more important now than ever.

Over the past few weeks, the Senate Armed Services Committee has been having hearings in which we have heard from top military leaders, defense experts, and Pentagon officials. What we have heard has been grim.

LTG H.R. McMaster told us that since the 1990s, China has undertaken the ``largest peacetime military buildup in history.''

Admiral Davidson, who leads the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said, ``I think our conventional deterrent is actually eroding in the region.''

Last week, Admiral Faller, who leads the U.S. Southern Command, said, ``Now more than ever, I feel a sense of urgency about global threats we face in our neighborhood.''

Now, I agree. I thought the Cold War was bad, but the threats we are facing now, especially from China, are more complex and more dangerous than they ever have been before. In fact, I look back sometimes wistfully at the days of the Cold War when things were predictable. We had two superpowers. We knew what they had; they knew what we had. Mutual assured destruction meant something. It really doesn't anymore. Times have changed. I agree that the Cold War was bad, but it is worse today.

I am glad to hear President Biden and members of his administration say that China is our top pacing threat. Both Secretary Austin and Deputy Secretary Hicks told the Armed Services Committee during their nomination hearings that was the situation.

What concerns me is, I haven't seen the Biden administration take any action that backs up these words. Instead, we are hearing rumors that the Biden administration is considering a flat defense budget, which is actually a 2-percent cut when you adjust for inflation. At the same time, China is increasing theirs by 6.8 percent.

It kind of reminds me of the last 5 years of the Obama-Biden administration. That would have been from 2010 to 2015. During that 5- year period, the budget for the military was reduced by 25 percent. At the same time that it

was reduced by 25 percent, China was increasing theirs by 83 percent. This was happening out in the real world. People are not aware of this.

This sort of thing tells me that the administration isn't serious about pushing back on China. And do you know what? It also tells China the same thing. So talk is cheap, but defending our country is not.

If we really want to send the right signal to Beijing--a signal that says you can't ever win against us--we need sustained investment in our defense.

We have seen what happens when we cut defense spending before. Look no further than the Obama administration's 25 percent cut over 5 years. If we had just increased defense spending with the rate of inflation over the past decade, we could have invested another $400 billion in modernizing our military--money we wouldn't have to spend today. Instead, we are playing catchup with China, which added at least $200 billion that we know of--we never know for sure with China--to its defense budget over the same time period. Chinese military modernization has been nothing short of astonishing. Their ability to move fast and increase production rates is leaving us back in the dust.

We have invested heavily in the advanced capabilities we know we need, like hypersonic weapons, biotechnology, and quantum computing.

We are already spreading our military too thin. Our servicemembers have been asked to do too much with too little for too long.

But we know how we can put our military on a better track. We have a blueprint--the 2018 National Defense Strategy. This strategy actually has been very effective. It was put together back in 2018 by six Democrats and six Republicans, and they all had expertise in the area, where it has not been questioned. So we actually have a document here that shows us what we can do.

If we had increased--the Chinese military modernization has been nothing short of astounding. Their ability to move fast and increase production rates is leaving us in the dust.

Here we have something that we can follow, and it has been successful so far. We have all agreed that this is what we should be doing, but we have not been doing it successfully. We know the strategy is right when it comes to priorities and the long-term nature of this competition. Secretary Austin and Secretary Hicks said as much in our committee hearings.

So why are they talking about adding more missions, including the Department's role in climate change and pandemic response and not countering China?

So we know what the strategy needs to be, and that tells us what the demands on our force look like. Those demands keep growing. Now we need to mesh the budget with the strategy. We know what it looks like, and that is at least a 3- to 5-percent real growth above inflation.

Now, that is what was determined some time ago, in 2018, and that is what we really need to be doing, but we are not doing it. And yet we know what should be done.

So, you know, this is a new administration, and I am going to do all I can. I have already met with the President, with the administration. I know that they are concerned, but we are going to have to get down and actually get it done. It means, in real dollars, an increase of at least $75 to $125 billion each year. Now, that would be if we stuck with the 3- to 5-percent increase that is predicted as being necessary in this book. This kind of investment for 5 years in a row would completely close the difference between U.S. and Chinese defense spending.

And what does the investment get us? It allows us to keep our commitment to our servicemembers to not only take care of them and their families but also to give them the tools and training to do their jobs.

You know, often, we hear about the fact that we are spending too much on the military. We talk about that we spend more on the military than both China and Russia put together. But there is a reason for that. The most expensive line that we have in our military is taking care of the troops, their families. You know, in the communist countries, they don't have to do that. They give them the guns; they go out and kill people. They don't have to spend the money that we do. But we do it, and we do it right. But we need to continue to increase so we can get dug out of the hole that we have dug over decades of insufficient funding and overuse of the force. The bills have been piling up for years. This is a down payment to get the U.S. military healthy for decades of strategic competition.

Now, I am hesitant to even entertain this idea, but I think it is important to talk about it. I know that there are some out there who would like to see the President go even further and cut defense spending by 10 percent. This is wrong, and Congress has already flat rejected it on a bipartisan basis last year. In the Senate it was defeated by 77 to 23. Even in the Democrat-led House, it was defeated on a 3-to-1 margin.

Now, take it from the President's own Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kath Hicks, who wrote that a 10-percent cut would turn the United States into a regional power, increase nuclear proliferation, and weaken our allies. This is completely opposite of everything President Biden says he wants to do. It would preemptively surrender the 21st century to the Chinese Communist Party.

A strong defense budget is the first step. It underpins all of our efforts when it comes to diplomacy, the economy, and technology.

Is China going to slow its military investments any time soon? No, it is not. In fact, we know their actual level of spending is a lot larger than it looks. Economics, yes, but the Chinese Communist Party also lies about its military budget--no surprise. We know that they lied about COVID-19, and they continue to lie about their human rights atrocities against the Uighurs.

So if we don't properly resource our military and put our right forces in the right place at the right time with the right staff, we are going to fall further behind.

So it is kind of early right now, and this is the time, though, that we need to be talking about it immediately to be preparing for the future.

The bipartisan 2018 NDS Commission report already said the U.S. military could very well lose the next state-on-state war it fights.

We need the Biden administration to lead here--to walk the walk and not just talk the talk when it comes to China. And if the Biden team won't lead, I will make sure that we use our role in Congress to send the message.

It is not just Beijing that needs to see that we are serious, but our allies and our partners need to see this as well.

The best signal we can send is a strong defense budget topline. This can't simply wait any longer. This is common sense, and this is something, I think, that we will, on a bipartisan basis, recognize that we need to do and prepare for immediately. That is what we intend to do, and that is what is expected of us at this time.

With that, I will yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, President Biden has a lot of duties and obligations and a lot on his plate right now. The important thing that we are involved in, that we are all concerned about, are the nominees, who they are, what the process is, and what leverage do we in the minority have to impact that.

I think that Xavier Becerra is not fit to be our Secretary of Health and Human Services, and I say this because of his appalling track record disrespecting the sanctity of life, blatantly attacking First Amendment rights, and his extreme policy views.

Now, throughout his career, Mr. Becerra has proven he has no shame when it comes to his pro-abortion beliefs. As attorney general of California, Becerra led a yearslong lawsuit targeting the Little Sisters of the Poor. This order of Catholic nuns is devoted to caring for the elderly poor. All they want is to be free to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs, and I think we can all understand that. But Becerra sued the Federal Government to force the nuns--and we are talking about the Little Sisters of the Poor--to provide access to birth control and abortion-inducing drugs, completely disrespecting their religious beliefs.

During his confirmation hearings, multiple Senators asked Mr. Becerra about his lawsuit, and he said:

I've never sued any affiliation of nuns. [M]y actions have

always been directed at the Federal agencies.

But I think it is pretty misleading because he may have sued the Federal Government, but his actions certainly were directed at the nuns.

And that is not his only assault on life. Mr. Becerra also fought against the Trump administration's title X rule in court. We all remember this. This is where he ensured that Federal tax dollars would only go toward family planning clinics that don't offer abortions.

And, during the pandemic, Becerra has been an aggressive advocate of expanding access to chemical abortions, thereby providing abortions by mail that are done at home and without the supervision of a medical provider. And all abortions, in my view--and I know a lot of people don't agree with this, but I think all abortions are bad. But increasing unsupervised access to chemical abortions, which are four times more likely to cause problems and complications for the mother than surgical abortions, shows that Mr. Becerra's concern isn't about health; it is about his pro-abortion agenda.

We shouldn't be surprised. During his time in Congress, Mr. Becerra voted against multiple pro-life bills, including the partial-birth abortion ban, and that was one that was sponsored on both sides. It was a bipartisan bill. It banned the horrific procedure in which a baby is partially delivered and then painfully destroyed.

But Becerra isn't just radical in his support for abortion. He also goes after the First Amendment rights of individuals who disagree with him. I am sure everyone here remembers the shocking, heart-wrenching evidence collected by two undercover journalists in 2015 that showed Planned Parenthood's involvement in selling the body parts of aborted babies. Becerra has chosen to prosecute the journalists rather than take the action to protect babies and investigate the evidence of this behavior.

Becerra also targeted the California pro-life pregnancy centers by forcing them to advertise abortions, in violation of their First Amendment rights. Now, he fought them all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and he lost.

But he didn't give up. Last fall, he supported California's ban on indoor worship services, also in violation of the First Amendment, and he lost again in the Supreme Court. He doesn't give up. Justice Gorsuch said--and this is a quote from Justice Gorsuch. He said:

If Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing

competition while not a single soul may enter California's

churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone

seriously awry.

I agree with Justice Gorsuch in that observation.

Becerra also wants to decriminalize illegal immigration, saying:

They are not criminals. They haven't committed a crime

against someone.

Should he be confirmed to be the HHS Secretary, he would be positioned to give illegal immigrants access to his programs.

So, lastly, I just want to send a message to the pro-life movement, to people in Oklahoma and Americans all around the country who really believe in the sanctity of life. We are not going to give up in trying to block this nomination, and we will do everything we can to stop the confirmation of Xavier Becerra.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I call up amendment up No. 786 and ask it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I yield 15 seconds from our time to our friend, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Hagerty.

Mr. President, this amendment shouldn't be controversial to anyone. It has been our position in the United States for 25 years that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and we should have our Embassy in Jerusalem.

This is not controversial. In 1995, the same amendment was 93 to 5. In 2017, it was 90 to 0.

With that, I retain the balance of my time

Vote on Amendment No. 786

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

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

Mr. President, I think there is something that may be coming up that is worth addressing right now and addressing early. It has been a concern, a bipartisan concern, for a long period of time, and that is that President Biden has made it clear that he intends to reenter the 2015 Iran deal, better known as the JCPOA.

Now, this was something that disturbed a lot of people--a lot of Democrats as well as Republicans--back during the Obama years, and I want to get it on record here to make sure that reentering that Iran deal would be a terrible mistake and that the administration would face stiff opposition in Congress if he tried to go that route. There are things that we can do but not reentering that one. There can be no return to a deal with limitations on Iran's nuclear program that begin to expire in 4 years or the return to a deal that, ultimately, allows Iran to enrich enough uranium for a nuclear weapon after those limitations.

Keep in mind that Iran is the country that is right in the middle of all of the terrorist activity, promoting terrorism around the world, and to even think about allowing them to keep some kind of a nuclear capability that can be used as a bomb--it is just unthinkable that it could happen. We couldn't return to a deal that lifts the sanctions on a government that is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and is targeting U.S. personnel and partners across the Middle East. You don't need to take my word for it. My Democratic colleagues warned the Obama administration in 2015. I was here. I remember when it happened. They were talking about the shortcomings of that deal.

One was the senior Senator from New York, the current majority leader, Chuck Schumer, who warned that, under the Iran deal, ``inspections are not `anywhere, anytime,' '' and ``the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.''

That would be right. Essentially, what he said was that they can do anything they want to do for 24 days before we restrict anything that they are doing. He was right.

He further said: ``That delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions-- the tools that go into building a bomb but don't emit radioactivity.'' That door was left wide open that this could take place.

Or listen to the Democratic colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. He is the new chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and he warned that the deal meant ``we are now embarked not on preventing nuclear proliferation, but on managing or containing it, which leaves us with a far less desirable, less secure, and less certain world order.''

Or listen to my Democratic colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin. He serves with me on the committee that I had chaired for quite some time, the Senate Committee on Armed Services. He warned us. He said: ``Lifting sanctions without ensuring that Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is neutralized is dangerous to regional and American security.''

I mean, these are no-brainers. These are things that Democrats and Republicans alike were warning us about--of the frailties that were in that proposal back in 2015.

Now, my Democratic colleagues were pretty prophetic in what they were warning. They were warning three things. First of all, we still, after this period of time, do not know the full scope of Iran's nuclear program. Secondly, Iran's nuclear production slowed, but it did not end after that. Third, Iran did, in fact, use its sanctions relief to fund terrorism, and it continues to support groups who target Americans for murder.

I just wish that then-Vice President Biden had listened to my Democratic colleagues and their warning about the Iran deal's shortcomings then, and I hope that he will listen now that he is President. It is more significant, and there is simply no good argument for returning to a bad deal.

Too often, supporters of the Iran deal have accused the Iran deal's critics--talking to me and others, I am sure--of being opposed to any deal at all. Back in 2015, the Obama administration depicted the opponents of the Iran deal as warmongers.

Let me just be clear. Nobody wants war with Iran. If anything, I believe the Obama-era deal makes war more likely by enriching one of the worst state sponsors of terrorism and by giving it a clear pathway towards nuclear weapons capabilities.

I am not making this stuff up. This is serious. Calling the people who oppose him warmongers couldn't be further from the truth.

In fact, after killing Iran's arch-terrorist, Soleimani, last year, President Trump explicitly called for a deal that makes the world safer and more peaceful. He was calling for that at that time.

So we don't want war, but we also don't want a flawed Iran deal. That terrible deal isn't and never has been the only choice. But we would absolutely consider supporting a good deal. What would a good deal look like? I want to highlight four main principles that we would look for, and this is something the President can do now.

First, the deal has to be comprehensive. That means addressing all of Iran's bad behavior: its funding of terrorism, terrorist proxies, its ballistic missile program, its nuclear program--the things my Democratic colleagues were worried about back in 2015.

Secondly, the deal has to be inclusive of the views of Israel and our Arab partners. The Obama administration sidestepped their concerns, and President Biden should not do the same now. We should have learned from that.

Third, the deal must be permanent. The 2015 deal allowed for sunset provisions that would ultimately allow Iran to possess a nuclear weapons capability. And I will be clear: Iran should never be allowed to have a nuclear capability.

Fourth, the deal has to be transparent. It has to allow for regular and unconditional inspections of Iran's nuclear program, just as the majority leader called for 6 years ago. I mean, what is wrong with making sure that we are allowed to make inspections to make sure they are doing what they have agreed to do? There is nothing wrong with that.

Now, these are things my colleagues and I agree on. President Biden can find bipartisan support here. To repeat, we want a diplomatic resolution, not war, but that means a good resolution.

Of course, it is far from clear that the Iranian regime is ready and willing to engage in serious negotiations. So I call on the Biden administration to lay the groundwork now so that a new deal has the foundation to succeed when the Iranian regime is ready. You know, that is a logical thing that I think would encompass a lot of support from the Republican side and support from the House.

Specifically, this means maintaining our leverage with Iran through sanctions and a strong U.S. military posture in the region. It also means opening discussions with our European allies and our other regional partners to coordinate priorities for the new deal. Most importantly, it means working with Congress early and often so that there is a sustainable, bipartisan path forward when the time is right.

Along those lines, I was disappointed by President Biden's decision to appoint someone who negotiated the Iran deal as his new Iran envoy. A new deal requires new thinking. Bipartisan cooperation won't be achieved by elevating the partisans of the past. If something didn't work back then, just try somebody else. Send new personnel working on these problems.

Moving forward, the Biden administration should expect difficult confirmations for any nominee who was involved in negotiating that deal back in 2015. President Biden has an opportunity to correct the Obama administration's mistakes on Iran. It has a chance to build bipartisan congressional support for a diplomatic resolution that is truly comprehensive, inclusive, transparent, and permanent.

A successful Iran deal allows the United States to focus more squarely on the challenges of Russia and China. A return to the Iran deal, however, will empower the Iranian regime and keep us mired in the region.

I think everyone knows Iran. It is the world leader in terrorism, and we should do everything we can to make sure they don't get a nuclear capability to develop a nuclear weapon. I can't imagine that anyone could argue with that.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 75 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I have a hard time with that, I say to my friend from Connecticut.

Somehow, in protecting those with Down syndrome, you are killing those with Down syndrome.

Right now, I am really shocked that people would talk about protecting children. The previous speaker was from Pennsylvania. He had a bill on childcare and taking care of kids. Yet now we are talking about the fact that a baby, in having been diagnosed with having Down syndrome, somehow should be aborted. I can't think of how anyone could oppose this bill, especially because the American people overwhelmingly--70 percent of them--oppose aborting a child on the basis that the child would be born with Down syndrome. That includes 56 percent of the people who consider themselves to be pro-abortion people. Fifty-six percent of the people who support abortion oppose this on the basis of a Down syndrome diagnosis.

In the United States, over two-thirds of the unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted right now. Why? Instead of receiving information, resources, and support, mothers often resort to feeling pressure to abort.

Justice Clarence Thomas put it a little bit more directly. He said: ``I am deeply concerned that for babies with Down syndrome, abortion has become `a tool of modern day eugenics.' '' That was from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

My bill would protect these innocent lives from systematic discrimination through abortion. We say that we support equality in the United States. Yet countless babies' lives have been stolen because of their chromosome counts. So I am surprised that my colleagues can object to this commonsense bill and that they reject protecting the most vulnerable among us, and, certainly, those who are born with Down syndrome are among the most vulnerable among us.

I just want the people to know out there, our friends in the Down syndrome community--and there is a community--that a lot of people are concerned about this. I am going to keep fighting for you even though some are using any kind of excuse that they can think of from protecting these babies.

Before I yield the floor, I will respond to any comments from the Senator from Connecticut.

Hearing none, I yield the floor.