Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 40 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, this body has spent to date $113 billion on the war in Ukraine and counting. Yet we do not have any direct oversight of any of the money that is being spent.

My amendment is very simple. Let's create 1 government watchdog--not 2, not 3, not 20; 1 government watchdog--to oversee every cent that is spent on Ukraine and to report back to this Congress and to the American people as to how their hard-earned money is being spent.

Currently, there are dozens of reporting requirements. There are multiple bureaucrats who are involved.

Listen, we learned this the hard way in Afghanistan, where, after years of lack of oversight, billions of dollars wasted, and, tragically, many lives lost, this body finally created a special inspector general to oversee the Afghanistan effort and reporting requirements, to report back to the public on what we knew and were learning. That is what we should do in this case.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. President, do I have any time left?

Mr. President, I would just say, in response to my friend's point about there being 60-plus reporting requirements already in place, that is part of the problem. When everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge.

Currently, the oversight requirements are spread across three different Agencies of the inspector general. The State Department, the Defense Department, and USAID each would have a little piece of this-- dozens of disparate requirements.

Let's unify it. We have done this before--one inspector general, one staff, one set of requirements. Make it public. Give the American people the accountability they deserve.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 40

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I am here today to talk about the kids and parents of Jana Elementary School and to talk about the measure of justice they deserve for the ordeal they are facing now, for the ordeal they have been put through for months, and, frankly, for the ordeal they have suffered through years and years and years of lies from the Federal Government, of misdirection from the Federal Government, and, frankly, of outright falsehoods this community has had to endure.

Jana Elementary School is a small school in the Hazelwood School District in Florissant, MO. That is the St. Louis area. In October of this last year, Jana Elementary was closed. Why? Because they woke up to find out their school was contaminated with radioactive material.

Imagine being a parent and waking up to this headline: ``Missouri elementary school to close after report finds radioactive contamination.''

Where was the radioactive contamination? you may ask. Well, it was on the playground. It was in the kitchen of the school. It was in the air ducts. And where did it come from? How did radioactive material get into an elementary school in the St. Louis area? Well, the answer is, it came from the Federal Government.

Let me tell you a little story about the Hazelwood School District and about Florissant and about St. Louis, and it dates back to the 1940s when the Federal Government used a site in St. Louis as one of the processing centers for the Manhattan Project. Well, when that project wrapped up in the late 1940s, the Federal Government collected the radioactive waste and transferred it. Out of the area? No. Just to the site of the St. Louis Airport, and there it sat for decades. By ``sat,'' I mean it leached into the air. It leached into the soil. It leached into the groundwater.

So what happened? Over the course of 25 years and more, this radioactive material got into the water of a creek called Coldwater Creek. It has been tested many times. Radioactive material has been found there numerous times. And where does that creek go? Well, all along the St. Louis area through numerous communities but also right by Jana Elementary School, right along the school grounds, right along the playground--a creek that is known to the U.S. Government to be contaminated with radioactive material that the U.S. Government allowed to be put into the water.

This last fall, the school board quite reasonably took the step of saying: Hold on. We know it is in the water. We know this creek goes right by the playground of this school, within 1,000 feet of the building itself. Maybe we ought to test the building just to see if our kids are safe.

So they did. Now, the U.S. Government wouldn't do it, I would just like to point out. No, it wasn't the Government that tested the building. The school board paid for it itself. The parents had to demand it. They went and got a third party to go and test the building, and what did they find? That this radioactive contamination wasn't just in the water. It wasn't just by the playground. It wasn't just within 1,000 feet of the school. No. It was inside the building. It was in the dust that is in the building that these schoolchildren, elementary kids, are going to and playing in, the air they are breathing in every single day.

So the school board didn't have any choice. I mean, they found radioactive contamination in their kids' building, so they shut down the school, and, you know, they told the parents: Guess what. There is radioactive contamination in the building. What are we going to do? We are going to shut down the school.

I would just like to point out that these are working people. These people are not sitting around all day. They are out there working jobs--some of them, multiple jobs. Some of them are raising their kids on their own. So what do they hear in October? We are going to close the school. We are going to send your kids online for virtual learning.

I remember one mother saying: There is no such thing as virtual learning. That just means they are not learning. That means they are home with me.

What are the parents supposed to do? They are working. They are trying to provide for their family. Now you have the kids at home not learning. You have the parents unable to work. What was the solution after that? To bus the kids to different schools all over the area. Now they can't go to the school in their own neighborhood.

And what has happened to the Jana Elementary building? Well, it just sits there because what is the Federal Government, which caused this contamination, doing about all of this? Nothing. No, nothing. The parents have gotten the runaround for months now from the Federal Government.

When the reports came out that the building was contaminated, the parents and the school board asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is supposed to be in charge of cleaning up the site--they said: Would you test the building inside and see if you can verify these results?

But the Army Corps said: No, we can't. We don't have any authorization. We can't do any further testing.

So then the parents and the school board asked the Department of Energy. They said: Would you test this site? Would you see if you can verify the results? Would you do something about it?

And the Department of Energy said, you guessed it: Oh, no, that is the Army Corps' problem.

Now, I kid you not. The parents and the school board have written to the Army Corps, and they have written to the Department of Energy, and both of them have just pointed the finger at the other. It is not just the parents. I have done the same. I sat at a hearing just a few weeks ago with the Department of Energy's Deputy Secretary.

I said to him: Sir, do you know about Jana Elementary in St. Louis,

Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Carper's conversation with me earlier today when he committed to me that he wanted to work to get this issue resolved and get this situation for these parents and kids remedied so that they get the justice that they deserve.

I just want to point out that Senator Carper may be the first person in the Federal Government whom I have talked to in months on this issue and who has actually said: Do you know what? I think we can do something about it.

So I hope that we can, Senator.

I would just say to the Army Corps, to the Department of Energy, to others in the Federal Government, and to the administration that would say, ``Delay, delay, delay. The school is safe. The grounds are OK. Take our word for it,'' the people of St. Louis have taken your word for it for 50 years. This is where we are now. These kids deserve relief. No child should be told: It is all right. There is a contaminated stream near your elementary school. It is OK. Go ahead. Go out and play there.

No way.

And I will say again, just because these kids and parents aren't rich and wealthy and well connected does not mean that they can be ignored. So I will continue to come to this floor and to insist on votes on nominees until we can get something done.

I appreciate the good will of Senator Carper, and I look forward to working with him on this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Moran for the opportunity to say a few words and congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs and all of Chiefs Kingdom. I just want to add my words of congratulations to the Hunt family. To Clark and Tavia and all of their kids, thank you for your friendship, thank you for your tremendous leadership.

I want to say congratulations to the president of the Chiefs, Mark Donovan, to Andy Reid, and I particularly want to add a word of congratulations to my friend Harrison Butker, who delivered the game- winning kick, both in the AFC Championship and also in the Super Bowl. He had a tremendous, tremendous season. Of course, the entire team had a tremendous season. But, just on a personal note to Harrison, well done, man--as you would say, to the heights.

So congratulations to all of the team, and I look forward to seeing this resolution and the memorialization of this victory entered into the Congressional Record.

With that, I yield back to the Senator from Kansas.

Madam President, last night, the Senate took the important step of unanimously, on a bipartisan basis, passing legislation to ban TikTok on all Government devices.

Now, this has been a longtime coming. I first introduced this piece of legislation almost 3 years ago. But last night's legislation is vitally important because never has the security threat to the American people from the Chinese Communist Party been more grave and never has the determination on the part of the Chinese Communist Party to leverage every possible asset, every possible platform to gather information--personal information--from the American people been more serious than it is now. That is why last night's action by this body is so critical.

Let's talk about TikTok for a moment, the most downloaded app in the world for the last 2 and 3 years running. Back in 2020, over 100 million Americans--100 million--used TikTok, and that was over 2 years ago. Since 2022, TikTok's average monthly users--and this year, every quarter of this year--has increased by 234 percent. It is incredible growth. You can see why. It is a fun app to use.

Here is what Americans don't know because TikTok doesn't want them to know. It is that the app runs continuously in the background of your phone or device. It collects your keystrokes. It has access to your email, access to your calendars, access to the notes and clipboard functions of your computer or iPhone or tablet or device. It, of course, tracks your geolocation. It is essentially an evidence- gathering, data-gathering machine that runs on your phone.

Can you turn it off? Can you stop it from doing these things? No, you can't, not if you want to use the app.

What is the connection to Beijing? Only this: that TikTok is owned by ByteDance. Under Chinese law that company must--must--provide all data to the Chinese Communist Party that the party wants upon its request.

We know that there are Chinese Communist Party members in TikTok leadership. We know that the Chinese Communist Party has held so-called training sessions for ByteDance and TikTok

employees. We know that this data--Americans' data--is available to the Chinese Communist Party, to Beijing, because of TikTok, and it is time we did something to protect American users.

We have been warned repeatedly by our own intelligence Agencies that TikTok is a security threat. Heck, the Director of the FBI has testified under oath that TikTok poses major security risks. That is why the Pentagon, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, and the Marine Corps have already banned the use of TikTok on Government devices. The only sensible next step is for this Congress to act to make that ban across the board for all Federal devices.

Now TikTok has tried to get in on the act. They issued a statement this morning admitting that there may be national security concerns with their platform, after denying it under oath for years on end to Congress. But they also begged Congress not to do anything rash like actually take action. They said: No, no, no, no. Wait, wait. Negotiate with us.

Well, I just say this: The time to wait to secure the privacy of American citizens is long past, and the least we can do, the very first step we can take, is to ban this app and its use on Federal Government devices.

I hope that now the House and the Senate will act together to move this legislation quickly to the President's desk and we can take the further historic step of seeing this legislation enacted into law, protecting the privacy and the security of every single American.

It is within our reach. Let's act now and get it done.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I ask for permission to hold up this shirt.

Mr. President, this is Jared Schmitz, Lance Corporal Schmitz, from the State of Missouri, Wentzville, MO. His father made this T-shirt and gave it to me just a couple of weeks ago, when I last had the chance to visit with him.

Lance Corporal Schmitz was killed in action at Abbey Gate on August 22 of last year. On the back are the 12 other marines who were lost, along with Lance Corporal Schmitz, on that day.

When I saw his father and he gave me the shirt, he told me about all they are doing to honor Jared's memory. He asked me to continue to fight to uphold that memory and to get answers, and I said: That is exactly what I will do.

The truth is that this family and the families of the other lost marines and every American citizen have been waiting too long for answers about what happened at Abbey Gate, over a year ago, as the Senator from Hawaii rightly notes. We are waiting for answers as to why the commanders on the ground weren't heeded. We are waiting for answers as to why the White House wasn't ready to do a proper evacuation. We are waiting for answers about how the security situation so deteriorated that 13 servicemembers were killed and hundreds of American civilians were left behind to terrorists there in Afghanistan. We are still waiting for answers.

No, I am not willing to pretend that everything is fine at the Pentagon. Everything is not fine at the Pentagon. I am not willing to say that business as usual should go on. No, I am not willing to waive the rules of regular order and expedite nominations without even having a vote on the floor of this Senate, but I understand my colleague's sense of urgency here. I understand that he wants to move these nominations.

I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it has now been 16 months since President Biden's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan; 16 months since Lance Corporal Schmitz from Missouri and 12 other marines lost their lives at Abbey Gate; 16 months since hundreds of American civilians were left behind to the enemy; 16 months and no one has been fired, no one has offered answers. There has been zero accountability.

So for approximately the 200th time, we are here on the floor as I continue to fulfill my pledge to seek accountability for what happened at Abbey Gate, for the lives that were lost, including a life from my own State, Lance Corporal Schmitz, and to press for answers. It is not too much to ask that not just the families of the fallen but that the people of this country not be lied to about what happened at Abbey Gate and that we be given the answers the American people deserve.

In that time, in those 16 months, Central Command has done an exhaustive investigation and report. Here it is right here. It is thousands of pages long. I can't seem to convince my friend from Rhode Island to hold a hearing on it, so I have been entering it into the Congressional Record page by page. We are about--I don't know--100 pages in. We have many hundreds more to go. But when we are finished, everyone will be able to read this report in full. There have been other reports since then. The Special IG for Afghanistan recently issued his own report, that office's own report, about the collapse of the Afghan Government. And what these reports have in common is a consistent theme that commanders on the ground repeatedly

warned the administration, repeatedly warned the National Security Council, repeatedly warned the State Department as early as the spring of 2021 that the security situation was deteriorating rapidly, that the Taliban was gaining ground rapidly, and that there needed be to be an evacuation.

Yet what did the White House do? Well, according to the findings in this report, nothing. Did they plan? No. Did they take action necessary? No. And so on August 26, there was a terrorist explosion at Abbey Gate. We lose those 13 marines. Hundreds of American civilians are left behind in a botched evacuation. And here we are. Yet we are asked to act as if nothing has happened, as if we should just go on, business as usual. Keep the conveyor belt of nominees to this Pentagon running with no votes, no votes on this floor, no debate on this floor; just wave them through; waive regular order; move it right along; nothing to see here. I am not willing to do that. I haven't been willing to do it for over a year.

I hope my colleagues see now, a year on, that I was serious in August of 2021 when I said I would not consent to waiving the rules to send more nominees to this Pentagon until something is done to get answers and, frankly, to change the culture because the truth is, we have a cultural problem in the whole military-industrial complex.

This is an entity, an organization, that has lied to the American people repeatedly over the years. They lied about Vietnam for a decade. They lied about Iraq. They lied about the true state of the war in Afghanistan. And now we are getting the same lies again, to the point that we can't even hold a hearing in public because the White House won't consent to it.

I don't really blame Chairman Reed. He can't get witnesses to come testify in public because this White House doesn't want to say another word about what happened at Abbey Gate. We have a word for that. It is called a coverup, and it is time for it to stop.

Listen, much has been said about my blocking nominees. The truth is, I can't block any nominee. All of these nominees can be brought to the floor. They can't even be filibustered. It is just a matter of what the Senate majority leader wants to do. Sadly my side is not in the majority, and we are not going to be for the next 2 years. So if the Senate majority leader sees fit to vote on these nominees, he can at any time. But as to whether or not I will consent to waiving the rules and allowing these nominees to the Pentagon in leadership positions to be confirmed without even a vote--I will not until something changes at the Pentagon, until something is done about what happened at Abbey Gate.

I know that my colleague the chairman is acting in good faith. It is a privilege to serve with him on the committee. I know he is in a tough spot here because he has a White House that doesn't want to give an inch and doesn't want to say a word. I would just say that I hope, with real oversight coming soon in the House of Representatives, that the Senate will see fit and see its way to doing its part and holding open hearings on this report, on this tragedy, and making sure it does not happen again.

With that, I object.

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive calendar No. 1188, Chrissie C. Latimore, of South Carolina, to be United States Marshal for the District of South Carolina for the term of four years; No. 1196, Peter D. Leary, of Georgia, to be United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia for the term of four years; No. 1197, McLain J. Schneider, of North Dakota, to be United States Attorney for the District of North Dakota for the term of four years; No. 1199, David C. Davis, of Illinois, to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of Illinois for the term of four years; No. 1251, Terry J. Burgin, of North Carolina, to be United States Marshal for the Western District of North Carolina for the term of four years; and No. 1252, Glenn M. McNeill, Jr., of North Carolina, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of North Carolina for the term of four years.

Mr. President, today I honor a superb leader, liaison, and soldier. After 3 years of Active-Duty service with the Army Office of the Chief, Legislative Liaison, MAJ Patrick ``Ryan'' Alban is deservedly moving on and transitioning to the Army Reserve. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize Major Alban's distinguished service and dedication to fostering the relationship between the U.S. Army and this Chamber.

Ryan started his service on the Hill as a legislative liaison in the National Guard Bureau, where he was responsible for the Army National Guard's military construction portfolio until May 2019. He then served as my defense fellow for 12 months where he was instrumental in the drafting of legislation and providing policy advice. Following his time in my office, Major Alban served for over 2 years in the Army Senate Liaison Division, where he was invaluable in informing Senators and staff on Army priorities and policy initiatives.

Over the course of the last 2 years, Major Alban also provided support to multiple congressional delegations to locations within the United States and to various countries around the world. He became a trusted adviser and friend to many of us. He distinguished himself by going above and beyond the call of duty to facilitate and successfully execute each and every trip, despite any number of weather, aircraft, and diplomatic complications.

Prior to his time on the Hill, Major Alban served our Army and our Nation for more than 10 years. He commissioned as an Active-Duty infantry officer from Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, GA. He began his career as a weapons platoon leader, air operations officer, and adjutant in the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) at Fort Drum, NY. While there, he deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. After returning home, Ryan transitioned to the Missouri National Guard. Soon after, he was mobilized to Ferguson in order to protect persons, property, and civil liberties. He was then selected to command a rifle company and, later, a headquarters company, the former of

which he led to the Middle East in support of Operation Spartan Shield.

Major Alban is the epitome of a soldier-scholar. He holds a master of laws in national security law from Georgetown University Law Center, a juris doctor from St. Louis University School of Law, a master of professional studies in legislative affairs from George Washington University, and a bachelor of arts in political science from Webster University.

On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, we thank MAJ Ryan Alban, his wife, and their son for their continued commitment, sacrifice, and contributions to this great Nation. We join our colleagues in wishing him future successes as he continues to serve our great Army and Nation.

Mr. President, if I could, just a brief word of thanks and commemoration for my friend, the senior Senator from Missouri, Roy Blunt. It has been an incredible privilege to get to serve with Senator Blunt these last 3\1/2\ years. In a sense, I don't know that I would be here in the U.S. Senate were it not for Senator Blunt.

I think Senator Blunt was one of--maybe the first person to urge me to consider running for the U.S. Senate, and it has been a true privilege to get to serve alongside him.

He and Abby have been so kind to me and Erin on a personal basis. They were with us throughout the campaign. He was through all of the ups and down, as anybody who has been through a campaign knows. Roy was there. They were there with us on the final days on the bus, with Charlie, as I recall, who, between my boys and Charlie--Charlie was the calming influence on my kid. So they were all the life of the party.

But from that moment forward, Roy and Abby were such good friends and mentors to us. Roy gave me advice about what it is like to raise a family in politics--something that I was just starting out to do. He gave me advice on things large and small in the Senate: helping me understand how the floor worked, helping me choose my first committee assignments. I remember he made time to sit down and talk through that with me about this time, gosh, 4 years ago now. He has been there every time I have had a question, needed help, needed to understand something.

It has been a privilege to get to work together with him on substantive issues that we both care about. I think of veterans in our home State. I think just recently he and I were able together to lead a resolution honoring Jared Schmitz, who is one of the marines who lost their lives at Abbey Gate just over a year ago. I saw Jared's father just a few weeks ago, and he remains grateful for what Senator Blunt did in our continuing efforts to honor him.

Roy and I have worked together for years now to try to get our Nation's laws changed to make sure that the tragedy we saw at Table Rock Lake in our home State involving the failure of duck boats, recreational vehicles, in that State would not happen again. I appreciate Roy's efforts on that. Maybe this is one of the things we will get over the line here in the next couple of weeks.

I want to close--I know there are others who want to speak--I want to close with two stories about Senator Blunt that I have always loved and that I think really give you insight into Roy Blunt the man.

The first is his background, his heritage, being raised on a dairy farm. He mentioned this. I think about this every time I drive home to Ozark, MO, and I drive by the exit near where Senator Blunt's family farm was. Every time, I usually point out to my boys that this is where Senator Blunt is from.

Senator Blunt grew up on a dairy farm. He was the first in his family to go to college, I think.

Is that right? Senator, have I got that right?

He was the first in his family to go to college, and then--this is one of the stories I love--he taught at the same school where his grandfather had been a custodial worker years before. There is something wonderfully Missourian and wonderfully American about that.

One of my other favorite stories is about how Senator Blunt got into politics. I am told--now, he can say whether or not this is apocryphal, but I am told that his first job in politics was when a certain Missourian known as John Ashcroft, who once held the Senate seat I now occupy, ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1972.

The story goes that Roy walked into his campaign office and said: I would like to work for you.

John Ashcroft said: Well, how much gas do you have in your car?

Roy said: Well, I have a full tank.

John said: Good. You are hired.

And Roy went to work.

The thing about Roy Blunt, for anybody who has known him for any length of time and certainly for anybody who has served with him in this body, working on any project of any scale, is that Roy Blunt is a worker. He works day and night. When he says he is going to do something, he does it. When he commits to something, he sees it through. That certainly has been my happy experience with him. He leaves a great legacy of service and commitment and honor in the State of Missouri and here in the U.S. Senate.

I want to say again, Roy, thank you for everything.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive Calendar No. 1101, E. Martin Estrada, of California, to be United States Attorney for the Central District of California for the term of four years and No. 1102, Gregory J. Haanstad, of Wisconsin, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for the term of four years.

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 1137, Travis LeBlanc, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board for a term expiring January 29, 2028. (Reappointment).

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 1134, Natalie K. Wight, of Oregon, to be United States Attorney for the District of Oregon for the term of four years.

Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive Calendar No. 1069, Carlos Felipe Uriarte, of California, to be an Assistant Attorney General; Executive Calendar No. 1070, Carlton W. Reeves, of Mississippi, to be Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission; Executive Calendar No. 1071, Carlton W. Reeves, of Mississippi, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission for a term expiring October 31, 2027; Executive Calendar No. 1072, Laura E. Mate, of Iowa, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission for a term expiring October 31, 2027; Executive Calendar No. 1074, Luis Felipe Restrepo, of Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission for a term expiring October 31, 2025; and Executive Calendar No. 1076, John Gleeson, of New York, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission for a term expiring October 31, 2023.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss American national security and the decisions that we must make to keep this Nation safe.

The Senate will vote today on whether to expand NATO by admitting Sweden and Finland. I intend to vote no, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I want to say a word or two as to why.

Finland and Sweden want to expand NATO because it is in their national security interest to do so, and fair enough. The question that should properly be before us, however, is, ``Is it in the United States' interest to do so?'' because that is what American foreign policy is supposed to be about, I thought.

It is about American security, protecting American workers, defending American jobs, and securing American prosperity, and I fear that some in this town have lost sight of that. They think American foreign policy is about creating a liberal world order or nation building overseas. With all due respect, they are wrong. Our foreign policy should be about protecting the United States, our freedoms, our people, our way of life, and expanding NATO, I believe, would not do that.

Listen, we should tell the truth about the consequences of the decision that we are going to take today. Expanding NATO will require more U.S. forces in Europe--more manpower, more firepower, more resources, more spending--and not just now but over the long haul.

But our greatest foreign adversary is not in Europe. Our greatest foreign adversary is in Asia, and when it comes to countering that adversary, we are behind the game. I am talking, of course, about China. The communist government of Beijing has adopted a policy of imperialism. It wants to dominate its neighbors, dictate to free nations. It is trying to expand its power at every opportunity, and that includes power over the United States.

Beijing wants power over our trade, over our jobs, over our economy. They want us to come to them and beg for market access. They, ultimately, want to reign supreme as the world hegemon, the world's sole superpower.

And, listen, Chinese leaders have said it themselves. This is no mystery. Beijing wants a world in which the United States--and all other nations, for that matter--are forced to bow before China's might. It is their stated ambition.

This would be a world in which the Chinese Government and its proxies would touch every aspect of our lives, from Chinese goods dominating our markets, to Chinese propaganda flooding our airwaves, to Chinese money and influence corrupting American politics.

This would be a world in which China would be free to expand its use of slave labor and to double down on its global campaigns of repression. That is the world that Beijing wants, and the truth is we are not now in a position to stop them.

Let me say that again: The truth is we are not now in a position to stop them. That is a hard truth, but it is the truth, nonetheless, and the American people deserve to hear it. Our military forces in Asia are not postured as they should be.

The commander of our forces in the Indo-Pacific has testified to this on multiple occasions. We do not have the weapons and equipment we need in the region. We don't have enough advanced munitions. Sealift and airlift are far short of where they need to be. Attack submarines are some of the most important assets we have in Asia and Europe, but they are already in short supply and the fleet is sinking.

On top of all of that, we do not yet have a coherent strategy for stopping China's dominance in the Pacific, beginning with the possible invasion of Taiwan, and we are not committing the attention and resources we need to develop and implement that strategy.

Why aren't we prepared to do what we need to do in Asia? Well, because we have been distracted for too long--for decades--by nation- building activities in the Middle East and by legacy commitments in Europe.

So now, the choice is this: We can do more in Europe, devote more resources, more manpower, more firepower there, or--or--we can do what we need to do in Asia to deter China. We cannot do both. We cannot do both.

The Chief of Naval Operations recently testified that the joint force is simply not sized to handle two simultaneous conflicts. That is the reality. Both the 2018 and the 2022 national defense strategies--which were developed, I might point out, by different administrations of different political parties--reached the same conclusion.

We have to choose. It is not enough to simply say that China is the pacing threat or to say that the risk to Taiwan is real. We must do something about it. We have to prioritize. We have to focus, and that means we have to do less in Europe in order to prioritize America's most pressing national security interest, which is in Asia, with regard to China.

Now, this isn't to say that the United States should abandon NATO, but it is to say that our European allies really must do more. They must take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe and rely on U.S. forces for our nuclear deterrent and select conventional assets.

And this is not just so that America can focus on China, although that is of overriding importance to us. No, this is also about NATO's future. European allies have to step up now or risk leaving NATO exposed if the United States and our forces are pulled from Europe into a conflict in the Pacific.

Every European ally must make necessary investments now for today's threat environment or risk the worst, but NATO isn't doing that. Our European allies are far from where they should be. You know, NATO states agreed years ago, back in 2006, to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense, but many NATO members still haven't met that pledge. Meanwhile, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe testified a few weeks ago that our allies need to spend more than 2 percent just to meet existing--existing--ground force requirements, which brings us back to Sweden and Finland.

Both countries are longtime NATO defense partners and strong opponents of Russian imperialism. Both occupy important geography. They are also advanced economies with capable militaries, and I respect all of that. But Finland and Sweden's admission would also bring distinct challenges. Sweden still isn't spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, and it doesn't plan to until at least 2028. Finland has announced a one-time defense spending boost, but it is not clear whether it will sustain those higher investments, which, again, are the minimum investments needed for NATO.

Now, some say we shouldn't worry about any of this. Some say Finland and Sweden can defend themselves and won't require anything through the United States or our NATO allies. But if that were true, why join NATO?

The truth is, both countries want NATO's help defending themselves. That is why they are applying for membership--and fair enough. But because so many current NATO allies have spent years underfunding their militaries, it will be the United States that will be asked to send forces to help defend Sweden and Finland in a time of crisis. Even absent a crisis, NATO expansion will mean more U.S. forces and U.S. firepower in Europe for the long term.

Now, if we want to make NATO stronger, the right course is to increase the amount that member states spend on their own defense--say to 2\1/2\ percent--and press our European allies to take primary responsibility for Europe's conventional defense. But this administration--it is going in exactly the opposite direction. They had the chance to push for greater European military spending and investment at the recent Madrid summit. They didn't do it. Instead, the Biden administration has committed the United States to massive spending in Ukraine, far outpacing our European allies, even as they surged tens of thousands of troops into that region, apparently for good.

Now, some say expanding NATO will allow the United States to do less in Europe. I wish that were true, but how can it be when NATO is overdependent on American support right now? How would increasing NATO's security needs somehow magically enable the United States to do less? The fact is, NATO expansion will generate new requirements. Sweden has already asked the United States to increase its naval presence in the Baltic area, for example.

Now, make no mistake, expanding NATO means expanded obligations for the United States in Europe. That is the nature of a security commitment.

Some say we need to expand NATO in Europe to deter China in Asia. But China isn't going to be deterred by the number of our commitments in Europe; China is going to be deterred by our power to deny their imperial ambitions in Asia. That is it. That is the whole ball game.

We cannot strengthen our deterrent posture in the Pacific if we are sending more forces and resources to Europe to defend new allies. That is the bottom line.

Finally, some say we can't beat China by retreating from the rest of the world, but I am not arguing for retreat, and I am not arguing for isolation. What I am arguing for is an end to the globalist foreign policy that has led our Nation from one disaster to another for decades now. What I am arguing for is the return to a classic nationalist approach to American foreign policy, the one that made this country great; a foreign policy that is grounded in our Nation's interests and in the reality of the world as it is, not as we wish it was or not as we once hoped it would be.

In years past, NATO was a bulwark against an imperial Soviet Union. Today, the world's greatest imperial threat is in Asia, and the hour to address that threat is growing very late.

We owe the American people this truth. We owe them a clear accounting of facts. We owe them the courage to make tough choices. Today, I submit that means voting against expanding NATO and focusing where we must, to do what we must, to deter an imperial China. This isn't an easy vote, to be sure, but it is the right one for our security, for our prosperity, for our people, for our Nation.

I yield the floor.