Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Procurement Regulations amendments and Senate Procurement Regulations, as amended, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as Republican leader, I always enjoyed calling our colleagues' attention to longtime Senate staff as they notched milestones of service in our institution, but today, I would like to reflect for a few moments on a longtime advisor who is an institution in his own right.

There have been any number of occasions over the past several decades when it would have been right and fitting to praise the talents and service of Paul Grove. There has certainly been no shortage of situations where, except for the efforts of this one man, the Senate might have missed opportunities to advance America's influence on the world stage.

The longtime Republican clerk at the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations is quite literally that good, but Paul, like so many of the brightest unelected members of the Senate family, is also good at dodging credit for his extraordinary service to the Senate and to our country.

Well, not this time. Tomorrow will mark a cumulative 30 years of Senate service for Paul--25 of them consecutively. He has more Senate experience than 96 of our elected colleagues, and as his first Senate boss, I am invoking my right to say a few words about it.

Long before Paul Grove was the Senate's resident expert on the levers of American soft power and our trusted emissary to the furthest corners of Southeast Asia and even beyond, he was a junior legislative aide to a freshman Senator. And if memory serves, I initially paid him to advise me on, believe it or not, healthcare policy.

In that sense, Paul's career resembles many Capitol Hill success stories: Show up with intelligence, a good work ethic, and let the rest of it sort itself out. But with due respect to the many thousands of smart and hard-working

staff who walked these halls, Paul Grove's engine runs on even rarer fuel--a deep, sincere, and abiding belief that the task before him was good and worthy of his best.

My fellow appropriators understand that when folks complain about ``how the sausage is made'' here in Washington, they are referring to us and the complex ways that we try to keep the lights on around here. But if you are ever tempted to think it is all a bunch of grizzled paper-pushers and number-crunchers, untethered to the real world, I would encourage you to spend some time with Paul Grove.

My good friend Robin Cleveland, who preceded Paul at the subcommittee, described him as a ``true believer.'' That is dead right. He is a true believer in the dividends of American leadership, the power of our influence, and the prospects of democracy--even in places where it seems to be on the ropes. Perhaps that is why the only thing that ever pulled Paul away from the Senate and our important role in shaping American foreign policy was a chance to go even closer to the frontlines.

By the time Paul returned from several years in Cambodia, where he supported fledgling democracy movements across Southeast Asia, he was the obvious choice to help me lead the subcommittee. And while no one could fill Robin's shoes, Paul brought his own, and they fit perfectly. His approach is certainly less profane but no less fortunate and formidable. Ask anyone in the State Department who has dealt with Paul whether it is worth trying to dodge his pointed inquiries.

During my time as chairman, Paul and I crisscrossed the world together, and I learned the hard way that Paul's approach to trip planning could have made even our late friend the intrepid John McCain think twice.

On my first codel to Iraq and Afghanistan with Paul, he had us wake up in Pakistan, attend briefings and lunch in Afghanistan, refuel in Oman, and have dinner in Turkiye. Paul may have been the only one still awake during that dinner, and I tried to institute a maximum ``two countries per day'' rule after that.

In capitals and far-flung outposts alike, Paul's devotion to our mission made me smarter and more effective, and I am sure my successors as SFOPS chair, Judd Gregg and now-Chairman Lindsey Graham, know the feeling--no doubt, so did full committee leaders like Ted Stevens, Thad Cochran, Richard Shelby, and now Susan Collins.

When I look back on this chapter of our work together, I am particularly grateful for Paul's focus on a cause that has come to mean a great deal to both of us: the pro-democracy movement in Burma. As the old saying goes, success has 1,000 fathers. Needless to say, Washington hasn't exactly jumped to claim credit for the modest progress of Burma's brave champions of democracy like our dear friend Aung San Suu Kyi, who sits today in house arrest under the thumb of a military junta. And yet, for friends of the people of Burma, Paul Grove has been a constant presence--scrutinizing every development, pressing successive administrations toward sensible United States policy that counters PRC influence and holds a military junta to account--and tending the embers of hope for a people who has faced far more than their fair share of hardship.

Paul has been to the bottom of seemingly intractable challenges across the globe but has never lost sight of America's interest in resolving them.

He became a master of using the power of the purse to compel transparency, extract justice for Americans, reward dedicated partners, and oil--or sometimes replace--the squeaky gears in the machine of soft power.

Frankly, to the extent that America has had more responsible friends and capable allies in the fight against terrorism or communism or authoritarianism, it has been in no small part due to Paul's dogged efforts.

I have been fortunate to get to hire and to have had the opportunity to hire a lot of very smart and dedicated young patriots during my time here in the Senate. Very rarely have I managed to draw on their talents for as long as I have been able to lean on Paul Grove.

So, today, with 30 years under his belt, it is a good time to say thank you, Paul.

Mr. President, this week we learned that a seventh American had died in the war with Iran. SSG Benjamin Pennington, U.S. Army, was a native of Glendale, KY. That is right near Fort Knox. He was deployed with the 1st Space Battalion, 1st Space Brigade, at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia.

An Iranian strike mortally wounded him in the line of duty. I am confident, today, Glendale and the rest of Hardin County are surrounding Sergeant Pennington's parents Timothy and Carrie with support. Their son was, by all accounts, deeply admired by neighbors, pastors, and coaches who helped him become the man he became.

At his alma mater Central Hardin High School, Benjamin Pennington was remembered as ``the quintessential all-American.'' Of course, there is no amount of praise for Sergeant Pennington's character, commitment, or bravery that can fill the hole left by his loss. The knowledge that he fell pursuing a noble cause is actually small comfort, but it cannot obscure the empty seat at the dinner table.

And so my deepest sympathies are with the Pennington family today and in the difficult days that lie ahead.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend of mine and a titan of Kentucky politics. He is the steady hand that has led the Kentucky State Senate as president for a record of more than 12 years--and counting--during which time his leadership has delivered exceptional wins for the Commonwealth. His name is Robert Stivers.

Senator Stivers broke the record for longest serving Kentucky Senate leader last November, and as someone familiar with breaking a similar record, I am honored to recognize my friend, fellow leader, and a true Kentucky statesman of our time. I ask my colleagues to please join with me in applauding President Stivers on achieving this milestone and celebrating his impressive service over the years on behalf of his constituents and all Kentuckians.

Robert's mother Joan graduated from Harvard and moved from Massachusetts to Clay County in eastern Kentucky where she met and married Bertram Stivers, a prominent lawyer who later served as a circuit judge. They were married 57 years and raised four children in eastern Kentucky, instilling in each of them a deep value of education and strong roots anchored in the mountains.

When Robert ran for the 25th Senate District for the first time in 1996, the Beattyville Enterprise praised him stating, ``He's made of the same stuff as we are . . .''. There is no doubt that Robert leads every single day with the interests of his constituents at the forefront of his decisions. He is a proud graduate of the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville--like me--and his legislative work shows his understanding of how critically important these universities are to our Commonwealth's success.

After being elected to the Kentucky State Senate, he quickly made a name for himself working on important legislation and building relationships within his conference and across the aisle. This diligence earned him the trust of his colleagues who elected him to the position of majority floor leader in 2008. Robert held this position until being elected senate president in 2013. His accomplishments are numerous, and Kentuckians across the Commonwealth have undoubtedly felt his impact.

Senator Stivers has led the charge on combatting drug abuse and maintains an unwavering commitment to helping find solutions to this issue that plagues his constituents and so many other Kentucky residents. He has paved the way for increased cancer research funding and operations at the University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center. In the most recent State budget, President Stivers helped UK secure $20 million, and previously, he helped them acquire designation as a Comprehensive Cancer Center, which allowed increased access to Federal funding and attracted top talent in the medical research field. President Stivers' work in these spaces has improved thousands of lives and continues to set Kentucky up for future success in healthcare.

Robert is a champion for Kentucky businesses, tirelessly pushing for significant incentives that attract investment to the Commonwealth. These include lowering the State income tax, providing tax credits to the entertainment industry, and a host of other policies, all of which have helped foster a business-friendly atmosphere in Kentucky. And it is worth noting that all of President Stivers' legislative wins have been accompanied by an impressive stewardship of taxpayer dollars, ensuring Kentuckians are being served by good government and not losing their hard-earned dollars to wasteful spending.

Kentucky's bourbon industry has President Stivers as a close ally in the legislature. He helped change the State tax code to ease costs for the bourbon industry and change the flow of revenue so that our signature industry's success drives other sectors of Kentucky's economy, including education. Economic development in Kentucky is rapidly increasing, and when we search for those to thank, we should look no further than Robert Stivers.

In his role, he has also worked to elevate Kentucky's profile in national legislative organizations. He has served as chair of the Southern Legislative Conference, chair of the Council of State Governments, and as chair of the Senate Presidents Forum. In 2015, he was recognized by Governing Magazine as Public Official of the Year.

President Stivers leads with integrity every day, and while his portfolio proves an incredibly successful career, Robert's character is what distinguishes him the most. As a good listener and collaborator, he helps resolve disputes among his colleagues to make sure that minor disagreements refrain from blocking monumental progress. This is what it takes to make things happen, and Robert exemplifies this type of leadership all the time.

As a prudent advocate for Kentucky, Robert has been an invaluable partner in my work in the U.S. Senate. I have always seen it as my duty to ensure Kentucky punches above its weight in securing Federal funding, and I have had the pleasure of working with Senator Stivers on these efforts for many years. I am grateful for Robert's friendship and his steadfast leadership in the Kentucky State Senate. He is a trusted adviser, and I am honored to work with him on behalf of our constituents.

There is no doubt that Robert's work has made Kentucky a better place and has set our Commonwealth up for tremendous success. I know his family, and especially his four children, are incredibly proud of what he has been able to accomplish. So once again, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Robert Stivers for becoming the longest serving State senate leader in Kentucky history.

Mr. President, later today, the Senate will consider a resolution from my good friend and colleague Senator Kaine of Virginia. The purpose, as our colleague puts it, is to prevent the Nation from sending our young people to die in war without legitimate justification.

I do not doubt the sincerity of our colleague's intentions. Like Kentucky, Virginia is a State with a large military footprint, and the magnitude of the risks undertaken by the brave people we represent is simply inescapable. But I would submit to each of our colleagues a few reminders as the debate unfolds.

First, this weekend's events are not the beginning of a war but an attempt to end one that has spanned nearly half a century. The Islamic Republic of Iran was, quite literally, founded on the premise of existential war against America and against Israel. Over and over again, it has escalated this war, exported more terror, spilled more blood, and destabilized an entire region. So, make no mistake about it, this war belongs to the mullahs in Tehran.

As I have explained so many times, over the years, the powers of the President for the use of military force--with or without prior congressional approval--are, actually, well established.

Every single President during my time in the Senate has invoked these inherent authorities. From President Reagan's strikes on Libya to President Biden's strikes on the Houthis, to President Trump's use of force to end Iran's war of terror, it is squarely within his inherent authorities as Commander in Chief. Therefore, I will oppose the Kaine resolution and would recommend our colleagues do the same.

Now, with that said, a President's clear authority to use military force does not absolutely absolve him from a responsibility to place his national security decisions on the broadest possible political foundation. In fact, precisely because Presidents hold such expansive constitutional authority, it is incumbent on them to ensure such use is judicious, rooted in core national interests, and broadly supported by the American people.

Literally, for decades following World War II, Presidents of both parties tended to take this responsibility quite seriously. They understood that wild swings in foreign policy between administrations could confuse our allies and embolden our adversaries. So, throughout the Cold War, they spent considerable time and political capital explaining to the American people the stakes, objectives, and strategies they intended to pursue in service of our national security.

When it came to Iran policy, President Obama did not take this responsibility to heart, and it is little surprise that his unilateral deal did not survive for long after his Presidency. Likewise,

despite my urging, President Biden failed to speak clearly to the American people about our national interest in helping Ukraine resist aggression.

President Trump has made a bold and tough decision--one that could transform the region for the better, literally, for generations to come. But there are risks involved, and I hope his administration will work to explain the connection between the Commander in Chief's worthy objectives and the military and diplomatic means to achieve them. Connecting ends and means is the essence of strategy, and it is important for the administration to explain to the American people how they intend to do so.

In turn, our colleagues in the minority have a responsibility to actually listen and to not reflexively oppose foreign policy decisions of Presidents they don't like. After all, we don't have to look far into the past to find Senate Democrats voicing support for keeping the military option on the table in America's dealings with Iran or supporting President Biden's unilateral military force against Iran's proxies in the absence of explicit congressional authorization. More immediately, I hope our colleagues will consider the consequences of terminating ongoing operations before they have even succeeded.

What would the Chinese or the Russians conclude if America abruptly lost its stomach for decisive action?

What cold comfort would our allies take from an increasing erratic and partisan application of U.S. foreign policy commitments?

The consequences of successfully ending Iran's decades-long war against us and our allies and partners could reach far beyond the Middle East. This is evident in the way Russian and Chinese officials quickly--very quickly--condemned U.S. and Israeli operations and in their unwillingness or inability to come to Tehran's aid in a meaningful way.

Two observations at this point:

First, one of the reasons U.S. operations have enjoyed such freedom of maneuver in the Western Hemisphere and the Middle East is that Russia is bogged down in its war in Ukraine--a war whose battlefield innovations are already shaping operations over in the Gulf. If Russia were more unencumbered, it could have provided more materiel assistance to its partners in Venezuela and Iran.

The price of peace in Ukraine matters, and we should be careful not to compel an outcome that allows Russia to reassert itself in regions of critical importance to the United States. At the same time, there is tremendous value globally to destroying Iran's ability to produce the drones that rain down death in Europe and the Middle East alike. There is likewise value in disrupting its illicit oil trade with the PRC.

And, finally, a word about munitions and military readiness and the defense industrial capacity. Regardless of disagreements on the pending question, every one of us should want the United States to have the best possible military. Every one of us should want our Armed Forces to be prepared for even more challenging threats.

Today, the U.S. military is not prepared to confront aligned adversaries and deter or defeat aggression simultaneously on multiple fronts. The reasons are numerous, and there is plenty of blame to go around.

Administrations have failed to submit budget requests that meet the basic requirements of the military. Congress has failed to pass timely, full-year appropriations. Industry has failed to anticipate inevitable demand. And, now, America faces Russia's war against Ukraine and China's determined military modernization with shallower magazines of critical munitions.

But there is good news. With more funding, there is spare production capacity to be tapped for this year, fiscal year 2026. We can build more munitions, produce more spare parts for airplanes, repair ships, invest in dilapidated military infrastructure, and deepen our cooperation and coproduction with our allies.

We shouldn't wait another year to seize these opportunities. The way to realize the well-resourced military our Nation requires for future conflicts is to build it today, right now.

My colleagues have heard me invoke the wartime words of the late ADM Harold Stark, but his warning bears repeating:

Dollars cannot buy yesterday.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, hard power is the cornerstone of U.S. national security. It is the credibility behind our commitments to defend our core interests, and investing accordingly is one of Congress' core responsibilities.

I am proud that the Senate will uphold that responsibility today by passing a full-year Defense appropriation for the fiscal year 2026.

Our action today is urgent, important, overdue, and yet insufficient. Allow me to briefly remind our colleagues what this vote represents.

About a year ago, I offered the incoming administration a few recommendations on the nature of American power and what it would take to sustain it in the face of grave and growing threats. I urged them to push for sustained, year-on-year increases to the Defense top line to prioritize investments in the industrial base that equips both America and our allies and expand the use of multiyear procurement contracts to solve glaring shortages of critical munitions.

Suffice it to say, the President's advisers didn't initially seem to heed this advice. In fact, senior budget and defense officials welcomed the first full-year continuing resolution for the military in history-- a move that effectively left the Pentagon operating on President Biden's budget and handicapped President Trump's efforts to ensure peace through strength.

Then, they went about trying to internally cut 10 percent of the military services, setting arbitrary budget reduction quotas to shortchange growing military requirements. Even the administration's first official budget request left much to be desired.

Indeed, Defense appropriations received a fiscal year 2026 defense budget request from OMB that would have amounted to a net cut after inflation, a continuation of the Biden approach to discretionary appropriations.

As the President's foremost national defense priorities came into focus--from homeland missile defense to shipbuilding renaissance--the inadequacy of his administration's budget request became undeniably clear.

And what about the budget reconciliation process that could have been optimized to make one-time investments in critical sectors of the defense enterprise? Administration budget officials treated it like a shell game. Much of the Defense Subcommittee's most arduous work in recent months has been helping the armed services address real, urgent operational shortfalls that were created when much of Washington decided to pretend--pretend--that the one-time infusions of cash could take the place of consistent annual appropriations.

To be clear, this was not the intention of my friend Chairman Roger Wicker, who has been a farsighted advocate for sustained increases in annual defense spending. But OMB's effort to shift major, long-term funding priorities from the base budget to reconciliation didn't just suddenly obviate the need for steady full-year appropriations. In fact, it just created additional challenges.

The full-year bill we are passing today reflects great efforts on the part of Senate appropriators to make up for growing shortfalls that are stifling the Department's ability to deliver the President's military priorities.

These aren't small, little-bitty shortfalls. The administration has acknowledged fiscal year 2026 funding gaps of at least--now, listen to this--$40 billion. The President's Golden Dome and Golden Fleet will not be built on a bronze budget. That is precisely why Senate appropriators marked a bill that would have exceeded the President's budget request by $22 billion.

The conferenced bill we are voting on today comes in at $14 billion below that top line. So the final bill is only $8.4 billion above the President's request. Clearly, that is not enough to cover an official request for $28 billion in munitions that came in while we were conferencing the bill. A request for $28 billion in munitions came in while we were conferencing the bill.

Clearly, it is not enough to cover the $40 billion in shortfalls identified by the Department, but within our limited top line, this bill makes modest but important downpayments on key priorities for the military: critical munitions, shipbuilding, sixth-generation fighter aircraft, missile defense, and more.

In any event, it was always clear that glaring challenges-- particularly to industrial capacity and defense innovation--would not be solved in a single budget cycle. This is the business of years upon years, and it will require, at the most basic level, a renewed recognition of the centrality--centrality of hard power.

Twelve months into the President's term, I am hopeful that appropriators will have more allies in our work to deliver consistent and increasing full-year resources.

The President, for his part, indicated an ambitious goal for the coming year: a 2027 defense budget of $1.5 trillion. Needless to say, building toward this target next year would be a lot easier if we had been able to make more headway this year.

Going forward, every stakeholder is going to have to acknowledge that we can't nip and tuck our way to building the military we need to meet the growing threats.

When administration officials tell the Department at the eleventh hour to finally make more room for investments in critical munitions, they ought to be ready to join us in advocating for our top line, not expect warfighters to take it out of hide.

Regardless of whether we are willing to put our money where our mouth is on national defense, we face adversaries who are. And they will continue to pose growing threats to our security and to our interests.

So, again, our work is far from over. But as we take this significant step in the right direction, I would be remiss in not acknowledging the dedicated, collaborative efforts of colleagues who recognize the importance of the task at hand, particularly Chair Susan Collins-- clearly, the most outstanding Appropriations chair in the time that I have been here--and my counterpart Chris Coons. Both have been fabulous supporters.

I am also deeply grateful to the talented professional staff who have given so many nights and weekends to pull fiscal year 2026 appropriations finally across the finish line.

On the majority side, Rachel DaPieve, Laura Forrest, Megan Handal, Cole Hodge, Alexa Lorick, Todd Phillips, Kathryn Plunkett, Kim Segura, Tom Shaffer, Elise Stebick, and, of course, the fearless leader to the left here, Robert Karem. We have been friends and collaborators for a long time, and there is nobody better on this subject.

I know my team has appreciated close collaboration with their counterparts on the minority staff, including Gabriella Armonda, Dylan Byrd, Abigail Grace, Brigid Kolish, Ryan Pettit, led by Rob Leonard.

My sincere thanks are with each of them for their devotion to such a worthy task.

But as Henry Kissinger observed, ``Each success only buys an admission ticket to a more difficult problem.''

So after taking the weekend to catch their breath, I will look forward to welcoming the team back to the appropriations salt mines next week.

The President's $1.5 trillion defense budget for next year is a worthy goal, and after Congress finishes its work on

fiscal year 2026, we will stand ready to do our part to help him achieve it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a true patriot, proud American, and good friend of mine, Sanford ``Dan'' Caudill. Sadly, Dan passed away on December 17 of last year after a private battle with cancer. His passing continues to weigh heavily on his family and friends. I was honored to have had the opportunity to personally express my condolences to the family and to celebrate his life during his visitation. Today, I would like to take a moment to recognize Dan. He never asked for any praise nor did he want it, but he constantly lived his life through his faith, always making outstanding efforts to improve the lives of others.

Dan was an incredible businessman. He spent 45 years running his family business, Caudill Seed Company, and built it from a small agricultural supply company into North America's largest supplier of seeds and beans. Dan's work allowed him to connect with people across the country and around the globe, developing impactful relationships and working to make a difference in the agriculture industry. Between his business locations in Louisville and Winchester, he became known as a trusted partner in business in Kentucky and around the world. While he was a true believer in capitalism and a titan of his industry, he was most well known for his work helping those in need.

Always willing to lend a hand and help others, Dan involved himself heavily in the philanthropic efforts of several organizations dedicated to giving people a second chance. He was a true believer in community and how it could shape the lives of those affected by substance abuse, homelessness, and criminal backgrounds who were just trying to get back up on their feet. Through it all, Dan made those around him feel loved and supported.

Without hesitation, Caudill Seed readily focused its attention on providing job opportunities to those in need. Dan was a steadfast ally to people facing significant obstacles to finding gainful employment. In addition to his company, his philanthropic work with the Healing Place, the Ice House, and the Volunteers of America have helped countless people continue in their recovery journey and find affordable housing.

This spring, the Volunteers of America plan to open an affordable housing project in Louisville called Monarch Station. Dan was the one who donated the land for this project. Where did the idea come from? It started when Dan invited a few homeless guys to have coffee with him to learn their stories. Inspiration took root. All it took was Dan's compassion to open a door and get to know a few guys over some coffee.

This is the kind of person Dan was, a real change maker who always looked to hope instead of despair and who always looked for the next tangible way

to make someone's life a little bit better. No one knew this more than his family. He was a loving husband to his wife Andrea and a devoted father to his three children: Cassandra, Corey, and Connor. Dan was a wonderful grandfather to his granddaughters Adalie and Aliya and beloved by his entire family.

Jennifer Hancock is the CEO of the Volunteers of America Mid-States, and she gave a beautiful speech at Dan's funeral. I ask unanimous consent that her remarks below be printed in the Record. Much like Jennifer, I treasure the friendship Dan and I built, and I am forever grateful for his life of faith and servitude. I ask my colleagues to please join me in honoring Dan and thinking of his family during this time.

Mr. President, for years, the most pressing concern about the future of NATO was whether and when European allies would take the obligations of collective defense more seriously.

But today, the biggest questions about the most successful military alliance in the history of the world would have to do with us, the United States: whether America still recognizes our country as an anchor of transatlantic security, an arsenal of democracy, and a global leader, not just a regional power.

I need to make a number of points here, and it would be useful to talk a little bit about its history.

The Second World War claimed tens of millions of lives, displaced tens of millions more, and left the old world crippled by food shortages and hyperinflation.

After defeating Hitler's genocidal bid for world domination, American leaders understood that our interests and those of our European allies were linked, whether we liked it or not. As George Marshall put it, back in 1947, ``the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace.''

American security and stability depended on European security and stability, not least because conflict with Nazi Germany was succeeded immediately by the threat of conflict with the Soviet Union. Millions in Eastern Europe had gone from living under Nazi tyranny to living under Soviet tyranny.

The American people understood the stakes. Back in 1947, more than three-quarters of Americans rejected the idea that the Soviet Union was merely building its defenses against future attack. Instead, they thought that Russia was bent on conquest.

In 1948, two-thirds of Americans said America and Western European friends should join together for a mutual defense pact. By 1949, with the North Atlantic Treaty in the works, the question actually got more specific: Would the American people support ``a promise of mutual aid from all the members of the alliance if any single member nation is attacked''--``if any single member is attacked''?

That was a higher bar--the commitment that would become article 5-- and yet an even bigger majority of recipients again said yes.

Of course, there was some controversy and opposition. There were still isolationists ignoring lessons of the decade. But after years of neglect for the national defense, after the folly of appeasement and the failure of deterrence, after pouring the equivalent of 37 percent of America's GDP into the ``Arsenal of Democracy'' and burying 400,000 Americans, the American people still knew the costs of war, and they knew they would rather preserve the peace.

Of course, they didn't intend to do it alone. Americans told pollsters that their early skepticism toward post-war alliance commitments stemmed from a fear that allies would rely too heavily on American leadership.

This would be a recurring theme. But, importantly, for much of NATO's history, the U.S. leaders most concerned about burden-sharing were also fierce defenders of the alliance. They criticized allies because they wanted NATO to work, not because they wanted to score political points here at home.

Let's just take, for example, our former colleague Sam Nunn. On multiple occasions, including the 1974 and 1985 NDAAs, he pushed to force allies to carry more of the costs of U.S. forward deployment.

And yet, when a majority leader of his own party tried to force a phaseout of U.S. troops from Europe, our former colleague from Georgia fought back because he understood the value of American leadership and the importance of European security to our own.

The strength of the transatlantic alliance is contingent on its leaders taking collective defense seriously--taking collective defense seriously. That is why I have always called out laggards and urged European allies to share more of the burden.

But I have also given credit where it is due, and the simple truth is that our allies have undertaken a profound--profound--transformation. This year, Poland will spend 4.8 percent of its GDP on defense. Estonia and Lithuania will spend 5 percent, and Latvia will hit that goal in 2027.

Alongside Nordic neighbors like Norway and Denmark, which have deployed to harm's way alongside their American comrades, NATO's newest members, Sweden and Finland, are each on track to meet the alliance's new spending target years ahead of schedule.

Germany has dramatically increased defense spending, and the Germans have even amended their Constitution--amended their Constitution--to allow for deficit spending on defense. Whether Europe's largest economy is serious about its defense transformation is really no longer up for debate. That debate is over.

Not every ally is making such impressive progress, but no one can claim ignorance of what is at stake. As Poland's Prime Minister put it bluntly, the choice facing Europe is this: ``money today or blood tomorrow''--``money today or blood tomorrow.''

Perhaps that is why, in addition to investing heavily in their own defenses, European allies are continuing to dwarf America's assistance to Ukraine by a factor of 10 to 1. Let me repeat that. European allies are continuing to

dwarf--dwarf--America's assistance to Ukraine by a factor of 10 to 1.

Our allies' long holiday from history is over. That is good news, and it must continue.

Well, what about us--the Americans?

European allies continue to grow their defense budgets, but ours have stayed flat across successive administrations. We are the ones leaving capacity unused and political will untapped. We are talking, but we are not doing--talking but not doing.

The President was right to call for a major increase in defense spending, but the annual defense budget request from OMB this year doesn't even keep up with inflation. The fiscal year 2026 top line won't come close--close--to covering growing costs and requirements, like the multiyear munitions contracts the Department of Defense rightly wants to actually sign.

We should keep the cost and value of America's own commitment to the transatlantic alliance actually in perspective. Take the year 1982-- right in the thick of the Reagan buildup that won the Cold War. In fiscal 1982, sustaining U.S. military operations in Europe accounted for less than 6.5 percent of defense outlays.

Now, remember: Winning World War II meant surging defense spending to 37 percent of our GDP. But at the climax of the Cold War, when we were spending only 6 percent, sustaining a deterrent military presence in Russia's backyard took up less than 6.5 percent of our annual defense budget. Now, that sounds a lot less like an entangling alliance than a smart investment in preventing catastrophic war.

Well, what did the American people say? How did they feel about that?

In 1989, with the Soviets on the ropes, 75 percent said that NATO ought to be maintained beyond victory--maintained beyond victory. Thirty years later, in 2019, an even greater majority gave the very same response, even before Putin's escalation in Ukraine.

What about now? With Russia waging a war of conquest and with China, Iran, and North Korea pitching in to help them, has NATO outlived its useful life?

Is the notion of U.S. interests in Europe just a relic from the Cold War?

Or, to paraphrase some of Moscow's most useful idiots, has NATO's existence and growth provoked Putin's aggression?

Let's get a few things straight.

For decades, America and our allies bent over backward to welcome Russian participation at NATO, including through the Partnership for Peace program, and to integrate Russia into the global economy. America sent billions of dollars in economic assistance and encouraged massive investment of private capital in the hopes that Russia would choose to live in peace with the nations it formerly enslaved and with the West.

In other words, the invitation was open to join us and be a part in what we were doing. Putin has repeatedly rejected such peaceful coexistence. Instead, what he has done is he has chosen bloody, neo- Soviet empire-building instead.

To the extent that NATO has grown, it has been in response to Russian aggression. If Putin is looking for someone to blame for Sweden's and Finland's accessions to the alliance, he can simply look in the mirror. His own brutality has validated the decisions of sovereign nations to join NATO and align with the West.

As for the utility of the alliance for our interests, America's adversaries are choosing to work together. Responding by going it alone would be strategic malpractice.

We are courting Russia and its GDP of $2.5 trillion at the expense of longstanding bonds with Europe and its GDP of--listen to this--$27 trillion? Europe collectively has a GDP of $27 trillion. Russia's is only $2.5 trillion. That doesn't even align with U.S. economic interests, let alone our values.

Last year, Europe invested $3.5 trillion directly in the United States--here. In recent years, two-thirds of our European allies' growing investments in foreign military technologies have been in American-made systems. Together, we make up nearly half of the global economy. Europe plus America make up about half of the global economy.

If we are serious about global competition with China, these are relationships worth tending. These are allies we ought to be working with, not against, which brings me to the matter of Greenland.

The President is right that Arctic security is a central concern in our strategic competition with major adversaries, and he will find similar interest in Arctic security among allies like Denmark, which is investing billions of dollars in its own capabilities in the region.

America's recognition of Denmark's political and economic interests in Greenland dates all the way back to World War I. The Danes have been close partners in the Arctic since World War II, and brave Danish soldiers fought and died in America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no ambiguity here--no ambiguity. Close ties with our northernmost allies are what make America's extensive reach in the Arctic actually possible. And I have yet to hear from this administration a single thing we need from Greenland that this sovereign people is not already willing to grant us.

Unless and until the President can demonstrate otherwise, then the proposition at hand today is very straightforward: incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies in exchange for no meaningful change in U.S. access to the Arctic.

That is the definition of ``allies''--plural--because this is about more than Greenland. It is about more than America's relationship with its highly capable Nordic allies. It is about whether the United States intends to face a constellation of strategic adversaries with capable friends or to commit an unprecedented act of strategic self-harm if we choose to go it alone.

So let's make no mistake. All of the good progress the President has made in pushing allies to spend more on defense, the increased burden- sharing, the demand for American-made capabilities--all of it would be for nothing if his administration's ill-advised threats about Greenland were to shatter the trust of our allies. Following through on this provocation would be more disastrous for the President's legacy than withdrawing from Afghanistan was for his predecessor.

The American people know this. Just 17 percent think trying to take control of Greenland is a good idea. Seventeen percent think our taking Greenland is a good idea. Instead, they understand intuitively that strong alliances make America more secure--more secure.

The Reagan National Defense Survey, conducted late last year, found that 68 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of the transatlantic alliance--68 percent--and 76 percent support article 5 and a U.S. military response in the event of an attack on a NATO ally. In just 6 months, that measure grew by 5 percent.

Here is the most interesting finding. Among Americans who initially said they would support a U.S. withdrawal from NATO, nearly one in five changed their mind when they learned how our European allies are stepping up their commitments to collective defense.

I am happy to provide these findings to anyone in Washington who still bets against the future of the transatlantic alliance, but the American people, who already understand the stakes, may not be so patient. They are telling anyone who will listen that when they say ``peace through strength''--when the American people say ``peace through strength,'' they mean what President Reagan meant: leading with moral clarity, distinguishing clearly between aggressors and victims, investing in the arsenal of democracy, equipping friends--friends--who fight for themselves, preparing to win wars, and upholding the alliances that deter them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to make just a few brief observations ahead of the vote on Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Act is not the law I would have written, and there are reasonable questions about its constitutionality. But it has been the law now for over 50 years. And it is important to remember what it was designed to prevent--and, even more importantly, what it wasn't.

Back in 1973, the goal was preventing another Vietnam. The idea was to impose guardrails against the large-scale, indefinite commitment of U.S. troops abroad. And in shutting that door, the law very intentionally reaffirmed our Founders' decision to leave another door open.

The law grants presidents clear authority for the limited use of military force. And of the many occasions over the years when colleagues on both sides of the aisle have invoked the War Powers Act to condemn such limited use of military force--by Presidents of both parties--I can't recall a single one in which Congress managed to change the facts and artificially constrain the Commander in Chief's authority.

This time is no different. The President was well within this authority in his decision to bring Nicolas Maduro to justice. How do we know? A number of ways:

First, plain statute: Notification of Congress within 48? Check. Withdrawal within 60 days? Try 60 minutes.

What is more, recent history provides clear precedent from Presidents of both parties. What authority did this operation exceed that President Obama or President Reagan did not exceed in operations in Libya? Or President Clinton in Kosovo? What makes this time different than President Biden's strikes in Syria or Yemen? Certainly, there is little daylight between the legality of this operation and the one President H.W. Bush undertook to apprehend Manuel Noriega in Panama.

You don't have to agree with a President's approach to national security policy to acknowledge his compliance with the law and his constitutional authority for the use of force, which makes the invocation of the War Powers Act such a tired and blunt instrument. For my part, I have consistently opposed resolutions like these aimed at constraining Presidents' constitutional authority. And I have done it on behalf of Presidents of both parties.

I am old enough to remember when, during President Obama's feckless dealings with Iran, no less than the future Democratic leader insisted that, ``We should never take the military option off the table''.

But every one of our colleagues remembers last summer when the frequent fliers of the War Powers Resolution reached yet again for their favorite tool after the President's decision to degrade Iran's nuclear program without putting a single American boot on the ground.

Of course, there are serious questions at hand to which the Senate and the American people should expect serious answers from the Commander in Chief.

The President's authorities to conduct military operations may be wide and well-established, but they incur a responsibility to situate decisive actions in broader, longer-term strategy.

Maduro is an authoritarian thug. He reduced a once-prosperous neighbor of America to an impoverished vassal of Cuba, Russia, Iran, and China. He profited from the flow of lethal drugs to America. He spat in the face of Venezuelan voters. And, until very recently, he slept in peace while they starved.

A Western Hemisphere without him or his ilk in power serves America's interests. But clearly, Venezuela and the hemisphere have a ways to go.

To the extent that our colleagues are concerned about the mechanisms and timeline of a transition to democratically elected Venezuelan leaders, I share their curiosity. If they want to know more about the President's longer-term strategy to stabilize Venezuela and the Western Hemisphere, so do I.

Suffice it to say that whatever the objective, whatever the strategy, America is well-served when its Presidents secure enduring bipartisan support for their foreign policies. President Obama ignored Congress in pursuing a reckless and bad nuclear deal with Iran. Unsurprisingly, that deal did not endure.

Successfully returning Venezuela to its role of stable, prosperous, democratic neighbor is a noble goal, but an ambitious one. It doesn't come without risk. And it is worth making the clear case to the country.

I appreciate the administration's willingness to brief Senators on the sensitive details of a tactical victory. But they owe it to the American people--and, frankly, the long-suffering people of Venezuela-- to lay out the path to strategic success in much greater detail.

If the aim is to reestablish American primacy in its near abroad, great. If the idea is to evict enemies who hate America from a valuable foothold in our region, onward.

A stable Venezuela, led by duly elected Venezuelans, will leave Americans safer and more secure. The administration should explain how that end goal will be achieved.

In the meantime, I will oppose the Kaine resolution and would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record the list of members entitled to admission to the Daily Press Gallery for the 119th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record the list of members entitled to admission to the Periodical Press Gallery for the 119th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record the list of members entitled to admission to the Press Photographers' Gallery for the 119th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record the list of members entitled to admission to the Radio and Television Correspondents Gallery for the 119th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record updated ``Member Protection Regulations.''

Mr. President, the language I helped secure in the Agriculture appropriations bill addresses a serious concern regarding the manufacturing and selling of unregulated, intoxicating THC products nationwide.

I led the effort to legalize industrial hemp through the 2014 pilot program and the 2018 farm bill. Unfortunately, companies have exploited a loophole in the 2018 legislation by taking legal amounts of THC from hemp and turning it into intoxicating substances and then marketing it to children in candylike packaging and selling it in easily accessible places like gas stations and convenience stores all across our country. So the children end up being the unknowing consumers of these poisonous products and being sent to the hospital at an alarming rate.

My efforts to close this loophole and stop this from happening are included in this appropriations package. It will keep these dangerous products out of the hands of children while preserving the hemp industry for farmers. Industrial hemp and CBD will remain legal for industrial applications--such as seed, stock, fiber, grain oil--or will be used in drug trials. This language merely clarifies the original intent of the 2018 farm bill, rooting out the bad actors and protecting the growing hemp industry.

While some may masquerade as advocates for hemp farmers, even sometimes threatening to hold up government funding over this issue, I will continue to work on behalf of Kentucky's farmers while protecting our children not only in my State but in yours as well. I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Vote on Motion to Table

Therefore, I move to table Senate amendment No. 3941, and I ask for the yeas and nays.