Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, yesterday, the world marked Holocaust Remembrance Day, an annual reminder of mankind's horrific capacity for evil and our obligation to combat hatred toward Jews wherever it emerges.

Today, of course, anti-Semitic hate is welling up amid the lawless radicalism across our own country--in the physical blockades barring Jewish students from getting to class; in the ransacking and occupation of campus buildings; and, of course, in the torrents of noxious slurs against the Jewish people and the Jewish State.

Just last week, President Biden finally weighed in with a belated banality: ``order must prevail.'' Unfortunately--and unsurprisingly-- this glancing finger wag hasn't exactly quelled the campus chaos or steeled the spines of college administrators. The President's words haven't yet prompted local leaders in Washington to send the Metropolitan Police Department to clear out the anti-Semitic vandalism convention that continues to unfold half a mile from the White House on the campus of George Washington University.

In the absence of firm, responsible campus leadership, radicals at UCLA have once again managed to bring collective punishment on their fellow students with the cancellation of in-person classes. Harvard and MIT are still struggling to muster the resolve to clear out and punish the squatters on their campuses. And at the epicenter of the chaos, Columbia has canceled its main graduation ceremony.

So there is only one way to interpret this outcome. It is an undeserved victory for the unhinged radicals who have been disrupting campus life and forcing Jewish students to steer clear for weeks.

University administrators caving to the mob only validates the performative tactics of wannabe revolutionaries--like the scofflaws whose first order of business upon breaking into a campus building last week was to post Maoist revolutionary slogans and make a list of their comrades with vegan dietary restrictions and the doctoral student specializing in ``theories of the imagination and poetry as interpreted through a Marxian lens'' who became their spokesperson and demanded that Columbia administrators provide violent trespassers with food

and water so they could persist in lawlessness.

What deluded nonsense. It is important to acknowledge that Columbia isn't even the only hotbed of retrograde 20th century communism on the island of Manhattan. While the meatless Marxists take over Morningside Heights, a brand of Juche jihadism has emerged further downtown at NYU.

You heard that right. A teach-in quite literally praised North Korea's solidarity with the Palestinian people, specifically enumerating the ways the Kim regime has helped train and equip Palestinian terrorist groups who wage war on Israel. Take heart, comrades. Brutal totalitarians and savage terrorists have actually got and found a common cause.

The glorification of leftist revolutionaries at supposedly elite universities is actually not new. Berets emulating Che Guevara were on campus long before jihadist garb that signals solidarity with Hamas.

And as addled as any generation's radical cries may be, the American people have usually been able to trust that eventually the would-be Maoists would submit to the lessons of history, read about how the Cultural Revolution really ends, and become contributing members of society. But today, the guardrails against professional radicalism have grown vanishingly thin. Unlike in the 1960s, today's Red Guards actually have academic tenure. And more than ever before, the brain trust of the American universities sees the indoctrination of students in postmodern leftism not just as a privilege of tenure but an obligation.

From the comfortable, endowed sinecures where they count on foundation grants, these professors of the ``vanguard elite'' urge their impressionable students to engage in unlawful acts with potentially lasting repercussions--cannon fodder for the cause.

Meanwhile, to an alarming degree, campus administrators have abdicated their responsibility to treat their charges as adults capable of bearing the consequences of their actions, and in the face of a mob that increasingly represents their political base, elected leaders have shrunk from the duty to ensure that the order President Biden referenced last week actually prevails.

To borrow from one of the campus radicals' favorite fonts of wisdom, Karl Marx famously wrote that if history repeats itself, it comes ``the first time as tragedy, [and] the second time as farce.''

It is hard not to worry that, in 2024, it has arrived as a bit of both.

Mr. President, last Thursday, the Pentagon announced for the second time in as many weeks that U.S. military personnel would withdraw from years of work on security

cooperation with major nations in North Africa. America has now effectively been pushed out of Chad, Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso, making more room for Russia and China.

Here at home, appropriators are parsing President Biden's fourth straight proposal to cut defense spending in real-dollar terms, and they are discovering, among other glaring red flags, that he intends to meet China's surging spending on shipbuilding with the smallest request for Navy ships in 15 years.

The Biden administration's national security strategy and national defense strategy explicitly--explicitly--prioritize great power competition, but does it sound like America is effectively engaged in that competition? Does any of this look like the behavior of a superpower that intends to maintain its influence and defend its interests? It certainly doesn't to me. This administration behaves more like an ostrich than a superpower.

For 2 years, Russia's war in Ukraine has called urgent attention to shortcomings in Western stockpiles and production capacity for critical munitions.

For months--months--defending against attacks from Iran and its proxies has forced the United States to incur significant unplanned costs and expend major stores of cutting-edge missiles and air defense interceptors. But despite this surging demand, the President's request leaves the budget for munitions stagnant.

I have said repeatedly that growing our production capacity and munitions stockpiles in a sustainable way will require more than urgent supplemental investments; it will take building these requirements into our base budget.

We are facing growing interconnected threats from Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and a host of terrorist proxies--an axis bent on eroding American influence, dominating our friends, and killing our servicemembers. This is not news, and unfortunately neither is this sort of willful blindness from Democratic administrations when it comes to growing threats. After all, it was President Obama who decided to let a budget number dictate national security priorities rather than letting strategy inform spending. It was the Obama-Biden administration that abandoned the ``two-war'' planning construct that had long guided how we structure and resource our Armed Forces.

The risk that America and our allies will have to fight simultaneously in two regions is real, it is growing, and it is time to start taking the risk seriously.

It is absurd to pretend that we can outcompete the pacing threat from China--let alone simultaneous conflicts--when the President won't even submit defense budgets that keep up with inflation. We are spending half as much on defense as a percentage of GDP as we did through President Reagan's buildup, but we are facing even more serious threats than we did back then.

Show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.

Those are the words of President Biden.

I had hoped that the chaos of world events would lead our friends on the other side of the aisle to see the value in addressing grave and growing threats to our national security, but the President's budget request actually suggests otherwise. So does the latest suggestion from the chair of the Appropriations Committee that she would pair any increase in defense spending with more domestic spending on her party's priorities.

So the game is up. We cannot afford to pretend it is business as usual around here. We can't let partisan spending priorities hold the common defense hostage. It is time to acknowledge that the growing threats to our peace and prosperity deserve our utmost attention.

But if neither our Commander in Chief nor our Congress takes investments in American leadership and American strength seriously, how on Earth can we expect our adversaries to?

Energy

Mr. President, now on another matter, last week, the Biden administration's EPA finalized new regulations targeting producers of affordable and reliable American energy. The so-called Clean Power Plan 2.0 is just the latest front in Washington Democrats' long and disastrous War on Coal. These regulations would effectively force many powerplants to close, endanger more good-paying jobs in my home State of Kentucky, and burden working Americans around the country with higher electricity bills. They would put already steep emissions standards even further out of reach for existing producers. They would shrink the supply of baseload power as demand rises and an already strained electric grid nears the breaking point.

As an industry advocate in Kentucky put it recently, ``The Biden administration . . . has again shown it's disconnected from reality.''

Just last week, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator released its latest report on electricity costs. The report showed that capacity prices in its region had nearly tripled and that the increase was due primarily to retiring coal plants.

This scheme isn't just profoundly bad policy, it is also illegal. The Supreme Court overturned President Obama's original Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA, and the Court's decision left no room for doubt that the EPA requires clear--clear--authorization from Congress to implement such regulations once again. Needless to say, Congress has given no such authorization. In fact, the law couldn't have been clearer in saying the opposite.

Back in 2015, I introduced a CRA disapproving of the original Clean Power Plan, which passed the Senate with bipartisan support.

Last August, I joined Senator Capito and 37 of our colleagues in urging the EPA to withdraw the proposed rule.

Last week, I was very proud to join a resolution Senator Capito will introduce disapproving of the EPA's latest power grab. I am grateful for our colleague's leadership, and I will continue to stand firmly behind the Kentuckians and workers across coal country who need to keep the lights on.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I spoke yesterday about the failures of America's so-called elite universities to maintain academic rigor, student safety, and basic order as their faculty and students become more radicalized.

The most alarming aspect of this chaos on campuses is the brazen expressions of anti-Semitism, but the world's oldest form of hate isn't just driving self-appointed student commissars to intimidate Jewish students and grind campus life to a halt. Half a world away, deep and virulent hatred of the Jewish people and a refusal to even acknowledge the Jewish State of Israel's right to exist is what animates the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism and motivates its network of proxies to carry out barbaric violence like the attacks of October 7.

We are not talking about imagined sins of some postmodern, anti- colonial theory. We are talking about the intentional--intentional-- torture, hostage-taking, rape, and murder of civilians. And these same forces also loathe Israel's closest ally, the United States--the ``Great Satan.'' They attack American personnel. They threaten American interests and global commerce.

But just as college administrators fail to restore order amid anti- Semitic chaos on campus, the Biden administration is failing to compel a murderous adversary to stop spilling Israeli and American blood alike. Rather than helping Israel destroy the terrorists or impose consequences on Tehran sufficient to abandon its strategy of terror, the Commander in Chief seems to be most concerned with restraining our closest ally in the Middle East from doing everything necessary to restore its security.

At nearly every step, the Biden administration has tried to prevent, slow, or micromanage Israel's efforts to pursue Hamas terrorists. It is as if the President wants the appearance of calm and a respite from inconvenient headlines rather than a decisive victory over terrorists that can lead to a just and lasting peace.

The micromanagement is accompanied by flights of pure fantasy. It is all well and good for administration officials to express hope for the prospects of a future two-state solution, but it is about time they started dealing in the present day, where the dominant power on the Palestinian side doesn't even want one. Hamas makes no secret of its aspirations to destroy Israel ``from the river to the sea.'' And, remember, geographically, that means the entirety of the Jewish State.

Neither, sadly, do the thousands of American college students who have taken up this genocidal refrain. Whether these campus agitators even grasp its implication is really beside the point. Hamas and its backers in Tehran know the score.

Let's deal in the real world, where successive, corrupt Palestinian leaders have rejected reasonable proposals for peaceful coexistence and where cease-fire was the nominal state of affairs before savage terrorists exploited it on October 7.

To the extent that a Palestinian state is achievable or even merited, it will not be as a reward for terror. If Palestinian leaders want a state for their people, they should first demonstrate that they care more about their own people than lining their own pockets. They must rid themselves of terrorists who care more about killing Jews than building a tolerant society.

Bottom line: If the Biden administration wants to put Israelis and Palestinians back on a path toward peaceful coexistence, they ought to help Israel destroy Hamas and curb Iran's influence in the region. That would require--for one thing--the United States getting serious about the operational challenges our ally faces. Instead, the administration seems focused on virtue signaling and political theatre to appease the leftist agitators of their base.

How else should we interpret the President's decision to build a massively expensive floating pier off the coast of Gaza or his willingness to staff it with American military personnel within cruise missile and UAV range of terrorists who have specifically-- specifically--threatened to target any forces affiliated with the pier?

This isn't just an idle threat. Terrorists have already conducted mortar attacks against the marshaling area for the humanitarian pier. This isn't a cost-free State of the Union talking point; it is an avoidable catastrophe. The President's decision places American servicemembers at unnecessary risk. It is exorbitantly more expensive and inefficient than existing land crossings into Gaza. And besides, the problem isn't getting humanitarian assistance to Gaza; it is getting the assistance distributed to Palestinian civilians before Hamas fighters commandeer it.

What more evidence do we need that Hamas can play no part--no part-- in the future of the Palestinian people? What other signs do we need that Israel's fight to eliminate the terrorists deserves America's support? Let's be clear: We cannot aim for the status quo ante. October 7 was only the most recent bloody manifestation of the reach of Iran's proxy network.

America's focus--our primary objective--in support of our ally Israel and our interests in the region has to be imposing real costs on the chaos agents in Tehran, forcing them to change their violent calculus, ending their support for terror, and making it harder for them to support other violent aggression further afield, like Russia's war in Ukraine.

Of course, all of that starts with making serious investments in our own defense. U.S. operations in defense of Israel and the freedom of navigation have made the steep costs of preserving peace and prosperity abundantly clear. The past several months have illustrated the undeniable urgency of expanding production of missile defense

capabilities, long-range strike capabilities, and the full range of hard power necessary to change our adversaries' behavior.

It is time for the administration and Congress to step up and put our money where our mouth is.

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

Mr. President, for months, the most elite corners of American higher education have made headlines for all the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, they are still finding new ways to embarrass themselves with vile, anti-Semitic radicalism, beginning, of course, with yet more alarming declarations like ``Burn Tel Aviv to the ground,'' ``Freedom for Palestine means death to America,'' ``The 7th of October is going to be every day for you.''

The student radicals behind hateful chants like ``from the river to the sea'' have proven to be incoherently ecumenical. They have chanted ``Long Live Hamas''--a Sunni terrorist group--and waved flags supporting the Shia terrorist group, Hezbollah, and the secular Marxist-Leninist terrorist group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

They have been joined on the picket lines by faculty members for whom radical anti-Semitism is merely an extension of their day jobs in post- modern indoctrination.

Last week, Columbia's encampment was even visited by a Member of Congress who accused some Jewish students of being ``pro-genocide.''

It is unclear whether the student radicals or the shadowy groups organizing these disruptions are actual ``fifth columns'' for adversaries trying to corrode American society from within or just unwitting pawns. What is clear is that basic comprehension of history, theology, and geography is in very short supply in the Ivy League.

But so-called elite universities aren't just in the news for a well- documented decline in academic rigor. They are not drawing the Nation's attention just because another generation of students has decided to test the limits of the First Amendment with grotesque hate. No, no, they are in the news because weakness and inaction from campus leaders has allowed universities to become cauldrons of criminal chaos.

In recent days, an Orthodox Jewish student at Yale was assaulted by organized hate-mongers. At MIT, there is a so-called ``liberated zone'' of radicals occupying the very center of campus. At UCLA, aspiring commissars have blocked Jewish students from walking to class or even entering the library. Another California school is reporting millions of dollars in damages after radicals vandalized campus buildings.

And last night brought yet more evidence that administrators at Columbia have utterly--utterly--failed to bring order to their Manhattan campus. In the wee hours of the morning, the mob that has disrupted daily life from a tent encampment on the quad broke into a campus building with hammers and has barricaded itself inside.

Not long ago, Columbia's president was sensibly calling in the New York Police Department to disperse and arrest these disrupters. This was a responsible thing to do because the vast majority of students at Columbia want to go to class, study for exams, and lead productive lives. But, then, her resolve appeared to give out. A minority of radicals and their faculty allies have used continued threats and intimidation to maximize the disruption and extend the reach of an odious ideology. The administration caved. The campus is now closed. But law enforcement remain outside the gates, and it remains to be seen whether administrators' latest threats of expulsion will actually be carried out.

The situation at Columbia is so bad that a prominent rabbi urged Jewish students to leave campus out of fear for their physical safety. This is particularly discouraging at a university that for decades has been known as a welcoming home for Jewish students, even when the rest of the Ivy League systematically discriminated against them.

Yesterday, a member of Columbia's Jewish community filed a class action lawsuit against the university, alleging sustained harassment and incitement of violence against Jewish students. In the absence of leadership from administrators, the community has had to take protection of their basic rights on campus literally into their own hands.

Of course, today's campus radicals did not invent this brand of aggressive lawlessness. Here in the United States, they trace their roots back to the 1960s. Other countries, too, have had their own infamous histories of student intimidation and violence--most notoriously, the student Nazis of Weimar Germany.

Education never has anything to do with it. It is about dangerous, radical politics. But just as the roots of this hate are not a mystery, neither is the way forward for college administrators.

Leaders at Columbia might do well to note the approach of the administration over at Princeton, which has upheld clear prohibitions on activity like forming encampments and responded swiftly and severely to an attempt last night to occupy a campus building.

They might also take a cue from our former colleague Ben Sasse. Thus far, radicals at the University of Florida have largely heeded his prohibition against unlawful disruptions because they know he means it. And, last night, those who failed to obey repeated warnings from campus police were promptly arrested. As an official statement put it, ``The University of Florida is not a daycare, and we do not treat protesters like children--they knew the rules, they broke the rules, and they'll face the consequences.''

It is not enough for administrators to lament campus disorder. Strongly worded warnings only carry weight when they are backed up by action. The hateful ideas pouring out of campus encampments are not new to America's universities. The world's oldest form of hate has been alive and well in higher education for quite some time now. From the vile ``boycott, divest, and sanction'' movement that began over a decade ago to the establishment of outfits like the Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights, the forces of bigotry have been on the move.

And those forces have powerful friends. President Biden's nominee for the Third Circuit, Adeel Mangi, has long been a patron of the Rutgers center. In fact, as new evidence indicates, he has played a much more active and enthusiastic role than he described to our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee.

Apparently, every progressive organization in the country is furious--furious--that my colleagues and I have

dared to call attention to these disqualifying facts. So let's get it straight: Radicalism has no place in higher education or on the Federal bench.

Unfortunately, the President doesn't seem to agree. While he defends Mr. Mangi and his radical associations, he refuses to render an unqualified rejection of campus anti-Semitism. In fact, when asked about it, he seemed to say: Well, there are good people on both sides.

It is hard not to see this mealymouthed equivocation for what it is: a President prioritizing the feelings of his political supporters over moral clarity.

Anti-Semitism is not a nuanced academic theory. It is not just one of many ``difficult viewpoints,'' as the White House Press Secretary seemed to suggest yesterday in reference to campus disruptions. It is not justified by political disagreements with Israel and its government. It is not entitled to take over campuses and make life miserable for Jewish students.

Luckily, some reasonable observers are getting mugged by reality. Just as a growing number of Democrats are rejecting Mr. Mangi's nomination, a growing number of prominent Ivy League alumni are rejecting the surging radicalism of their alma maters.

But that will only go so far. Leaders must lead. Administrators must take charge of their institutions. The basic objectives here couldn't be clearer: On campus, protect Jewish community members. Clear the encampments. Let students go to class and take their exams. And allow graduations to proceed.

Here in Washington, withdraw radical nominees and force the Departments of Justice and Education to investigate civil rights violations.

If moral clarity does not prevail--in the ivory tower and in the Biden administration--this could go down as a particularly shameful moment in our history.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, to provide for the common defense is one of Congress's primary responsibilities.

I have been at this business for quite a while, and I have found that making and explaining sensible decisions about advancing our Nation's interests is easier when you start from the right set of assumptions.

Here is what I know to be true: American prosperity and security are the products of decades of American leadership. Our global interests come with global responsibilities. Healthy alliances lighten the burden of these responsibilities. And at the end of the day, the primary language of strategic competition is strength.

These are the facts that led me to urge Presidents of both parties not to abandon Afghanistan to terrorists, to fight efforts from both sides of the aisle to tie America's hands in critical parts of the world, to push consecutive administrations to equip Ukraine with lethal weapons before--before--Russia escalated, and to continue fighting for the sort of sustained investments in our military and defense industrial base necessary to meet the challenges that we face.

The responsibilities of leadership, the value of alliances, the currency of hard power--these are foundational principles. They are not driven by the fickle politics of any one moment. They are tested and proven by the workings of a dangerous world.

Today, the Senate sits for a test on behalf of the entire Nation. It is a test of American resolve, our readiness, and our willingness to lead. And the stakes of failure are abundantly clear.

Failure to help Ukraine stand against Russian aggression now means inviting escalation against our closest

treaty allies and trading partners. It means greater risk that American forces would become involved in conflict. It means more costly deployments of our military and steeper military requirements to defend against aggression.

Failure to reestablish deterrence against Iran means encouraging unchecked terrorist violence against American personnel, our ally Israel, and the international commerce that underpins our prosperity.

And failure to match the pacing threat--the People's Republic of China--means jeopardizing the entire system of alliances that preserve American interests and reinforce American leadership.

Colleagues on both sides of the aisle who dismiss the values of our allies and partners ignore what history teaches about times when we lacked such friendships. Our adversaries understand the stakes, and they are responding with a coordinated full-court press.

Iran and North Korea are literally arming Russia's war in Ukraine. China is helping Iran skirt international sanctions. A ``friendship without limits'' has blossomed between Moscow and Beijing.

The authoritarians of the world may have caught the West flatfooted. They may be betting big that American influence is in decline. But, increasingly, our friends understand the stakes too.

In Asia, nations with every excuse to be preoccupied by Chinese aggression understand that, in fact, defeating authoritarian conquest halfway around the world is actually in their interests. They know China will benefit from Russian advances, and they know Beijing is waiting for us to waver.

In Europe, allies that had long neglected the responsibilities of collective security are making historic new investments in their own defense.

Finland and Sweden, two high-tech nations, responded to Russian escalation by bringing real military capabilities to the most successful military alliance in world history. And when the House passed the supplemental last week, the Prime Minister of Sweden reiterated that our allies have even more work to do.

The holiday from history is over.

And in the Middle East, our close ally is locked in a fight for its right to literally exist. The people of Israel require no reminders of the stakes of hard-power competition or deterrence.

The remaining question is whether America does. Do our colleagues share the view of the Japanese Prime Minister that ``the leadership of the United States is indispensable''? Or would we rather abdicate both the responsibilities and the benefits of global leadership?

Will the Senate indulge the fantasy of pulling up a drawbridge? Will we persist in the 21st century with an approach that failed in the 20th? Or will we dispense with the myth of isolationism and embrace reality?

For those who insist that America cannot do what the moment requires, the facts are inconveniently clear:

First, supplemental investment in the capabilities America and our friends need to defeat Russian aggression are not a distraction from China. Without the investments we have made over the past 2 years, America's defense industrial base would be even further behind the clear requirements of long-term competition with the PRC.

You don't believe me? Just ask the former chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, who stayed in Congress long enough to support the legislation now before us.

Second, supplemental investments have expanded our capacity to produce critical munitions. This supplemental contains additional investments aimed at expanding production capacity of critical munitions and weapons systems needed in the Indo-Pacific. Higher production rates and lower unit costs of critical munitions are a no- brainer for colleagues who are actually interested in strategic competition with the PRC.

Colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say they are concerned over the defense industrial base today would have done well to have joined me--months before Russian escalation in Ukraine--in supporting a massive proposed investment under reconciliation led by our former colleagues Senator Shelby and Senator Inhofe. If some of our Republican colleagues hadn't joined the Democratic leader in opposition, we would have begun to rebuild our capacity even sooner.

And, finally, investment in American hard power and leadership isn't coddling our allies. By every objective measure, they have helped drive our allies to make historic--historic--investments of their own in collective defense.

Across Europe, the acceleration of defense spending is outpacing our own. And, right now, allies and partners from Europe to the Indo- Pacific have contracted more than $100 billion worth of cutting-edge American weapons and capabilities. That is right. Our allies across the world are buying expensive, sophisticated American weapons produced in American factories by American workers.

Do my colleagues really think that will continue if America decides that global leadership is too heavy a burden?

So much of the hesitation and shortsightedness that has delayed this moment is premised on sheer fiction, and I take no pleasure in rebutting misguided fantasies.

I wish sincerely that recognizing the responsibilities of American leadership was the price of admission for serious conversations about the future of our national security.

Make no mistake, delay in providing Ukraine the weapons to defend itself has strained the prospects of defeating Russian aggression. Dithering and hesitation have compounded the challenges we face.

Today's action is overdue, but our work does not end here. Trust in American resolve is not revealed overnight. Expanding and restocking the arsenal of democracy doesn't just happen by magic.

And even as our allies take on a greater share of the burden of collective security, our obligation to invest in our own defense is as serious as ever.

So I will continue to hold the Commander in Chief to account for allowing America's adversaries to deter us, for hesitating in the face of escalation, and for providing anything less than full support for allies like Israel as they fight to restore their security and their sovereignty. At the same time, I will not mince words when Members of my own party take the responsibilities of American leadership lightly.

Today, the Senate faces a test, and we must not fail it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

This has been an extremely important day in the history of our country and the free world. They are all watching, waiting to see what we would do.

When Putin escalated his war against Ukraine, I told our colleagues that allies and adversaries, alike, would pay very close attention to America's response. When Iran-backed terrorists invaded the Jewish State on October 7 to slaughter innocent Israelis, I warned that the world would watch closely for signs that American leadership was actually weakening.

For months, our friends have watched to see whether America still had the strength that won the Cold War or the resolve that has underpinned peace and prosperity, literally, for decades. Our enemies have tested whether the arsenal of democracy is, in fact, built to endure.

Well, tonight, the Senate will send a clear message. History will record that, even if allies and partners have worried about the depth of our resolve; even as Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran grew more convinced that our influence had run its course; and even as loud voices here at home insisted on abandoning responsibilities of leadership, America stepped up and the Senate held firm.

It is time to reaffirm some basic truths. Alliances matter. Foreign nations' respect for American interests depends on our willingness to defend them. And the peace, prosperity, and security are not accidents. They are products of American leadership and American sacrifice.

The votes we are about to cast will be among the most consequential. But the difficult work of restoring and sustaining hard power, defense, industrial capacity, and global influence must continue beyond this supplemental.

So I will just say to my colleagues: We can wish for a world where the responsibilities of leadership don't fall on

us or we can act like we understand that they do. Tonight, as in so many moments in our history, idle calls for America to lower its guard ring hollow. None of us is absolved of our duty to see the world as it actually is. None of us is excused from our obligation to equip the United States to face down those who wish us harm.

I said it before: History settles every account. And I welcome the eyes of posterity on what the Senate does tonight.

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

Mr. President, for the past 16 years, Federal law enforcement and intelligence professionals have used section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to identify and minimize foreign threats to U.S. national security. The carefully targeted authorities established back in 2008 are an essential tool for staying a step ahead of non-U.S. persons who seek to harm the American people, but unless the Senate acts today, those authorities will end tonight.

Our friends in the House understood the threat. On a bipartisan basis, they spent months working to craft sensible reforms to guard against future abuses, made changes to adapt the program to meet the demands of new technologies, and took tough votes against amendments that may sound good but would actually kill the program. The House deserves credit for reforming and reauthorizing this essential authority.

Now the Senate's choice is clear: We can pass the House's reform bill or, given the late hour and political reality, we can essentially doom the program to go dark. Pass the House's reform bill or give free rein to foreign intelligence operatives and terrorists to target America.

Over the past few days, a number of our colleagues have drawn some puzzling conclusions about the House-passed bill that would allow us to prevent section 702 from lapsing. We have heard that overdue reforms to bring this portion of the statute up to date with modern communications technology amount to a massive new dragnet to surveil innocent U.S. citizens. We have heard that if the House-passed reauthorization became law, a coffee shop's public internet would become a vector for the bulk collection of Americans' sensitive personal data.

Of course, the facts of the case are crystal clear. As I pointed out earlier this week, the Federal courts tasked with overseeing the appropriate use of section 702 authorities have already ruled that the fearmongering about new threats to U.S. citizens' privacy was completely unfounded.

Yesterday, we even heard the Democratic whip suggest that a lapse in authorities wouldn't really mean ``going dark'' even though they expire at 12 midnight. This is absurd. Big tech conglomerates do not provide these critical communications to the U.S. Government because they want to; they do so because the law compels them to. When that compulsion disappears, who are they going to listen to--their customers or the FBI, asking nicely?

Once section 702 expires, companies will stop complying. It will be up to the government to play a slow and painstaking game of Whac-a-Mole in court against an army of the most sophisticated lawyers in the country, and in the meantime, actionable intelligence will pass us right by.

This is not a hypothetical. It has actually happened before. Following a similar lapse in authority during the Bush administration, Attorney General Mukasey observed that providers ``delayed or refused compliance with our requests to initiate new surveillance of terrorist and other foreign intelligence targets under existing directives.'' He went on that this ``led directly to a degraded intelligence capability.''

China is on the march. Iran and its proxies are pushing the Middle East to the brink of war. Russian spies are reportedly plotting sabotage against U.S. military targets. Suspected terrorists are exploiting this crisis at our southern border. This is not the time to voluntarily degrade our ability to protect the American people. This is not the time for facile arguments about issues this legislation addresses head-on.

Today, power rests with the Senate. This is the end of the line. There is no one coming to relieve us of our duty. Just like the real- world consequences America will face if the House fails to pass a national security supplemental, there will be serious consequences if the Senate fails to do its job today.

The stakes of such an outcome are grave. The authorities in question today have quite literally been the only defense against would-be national security disasters. The year after section 702 was enacted, it was used to foil an active plot to bomb the subway in New York. As our colleague Senator Cornyn explained yesterday, section 702 was behind 70 percent of the intelligence community's surveillance of the cartels' synthetic narcotics operations last year.

The threats to America's security are flashing red. Our adversaries are as intent as ever on sowing chaos and violence, and a vote to send this critical legislation back to the House today is

a vote to make their job easier. The Senate must not let section 702 go dark.

SHOP Act

Mr. President, on another matter, my Democratic colleagues like to complain about judge shopping. Of course, the real complaint is that regular Americans are succeeding in opposing liberal policies in court. We know this because when it comes to real-life judge shopping, our friends on the other side of the aisle don't seem to be particularly bothered.

I recently introduced a bill, the SHOP Act, that would stop the actual practice of judge shopping--that is, improperly steering a case to a judge or trying to knock judges off assigned cases because a litigant doesn't like them. The bill's language was based on an egregious and unethical pattern of conduct undertaken by two liberal advocacy groups in Alabama.

Well, it seems the far-left Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is in on the judge-shopping game. The CFPB was recently sued in Texas over its credit card late fee rule. After a whole lot of procedural wrangling, the case ended up before the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in favor of the rule's challengers, 2 to 1. The CFPB and its allies didn't like that. Just days after losing, the Agency filed a letter with the clerk of the court, alleging to have suddenly discovered that large credit card issuers have a financial stake in the litigation.

They didn't raise this when the case began, as required under court rules. Only afterward did they decide to take umbrage with the fact that the judge who ruled against them, Don Willett, has a son whose Coverdell education savings account includes a handful of shares in Citigroup.

Urged on by an army of Arabella Advisors, the CFPB argued that even though the case before Judge Willett didn't involve Citigroup, he had to recuse himself in case it affected the value of that stock.

In other words, after a judge ruled against them, the CFPB identified vague new parties-at-interest to ensnare the judge through his son's college savings account. What a tangled web they weave at the CFPB.

To its credit, the Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct Committee didn't buy this absurd contention. They unanimously ruled that Judge Willett was not required to recuse himself.

But in case anyone is wondering, this is what judge shopping looks like: Wait for a ruling against you and then argue late for sweeping recusal rules designed to target the judge you don't like and remove him.

Under my SHOP Act, this kind of behavior could result in severe discipline for lawyers who engage in it.

If any of our Democratic colleagues are interested in actually solving the problem of judge shopping, I hope they will join me as cosponsors.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the majority leader for his acknowledgement of this historic moment.

The senior Senator from Maine, our good friend, is about to cast, as we all know, her nine-thousandth consecutive rollcall vote.

Quite literally, as the occupant of the Chair knows, Senator Collins has never failed to discharge the most fundamental duty of her office.

According to the Historical Office, only one Senator in history has managed a longer streak of consecutive votes--and let's just say, Senator Collins is closing in on that record as well.

I hope our colleague is as proud of this accomplishment as we are of her. One thing is for certain: She didn't reach the milestone by accident. Senator Collins arrived as a freshman already well aware of the obligations of public service. After all, she was raised by not one but two smalltown mayors.

And as our colleagues know, one of those distinguished mayors--her mother, Patricia--passed away earlier this year, right as the government funding she had stewarded was nearing the finish line.

It was a situation that made the tension we have all felt at times between the demands of the Senate and of family. But as always, the example of the senior Senator from Maine was instructive: poised under pressure, prepared for any outcome, and as determined as ever to do right by the people she represents.

Day after day, year after year, our senior-most appropriator has demonstrated through her dedication that if you do your homework and show up to vote, most everything else will fall in line.

So I would like to add my congratulations to my good friend Senator Collins on this tremendous milestone. The people of Maine are lucky to have her.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

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

Madam President, I would like to begin by addressing the urgent national security supplemental that is still pending over in the House of Representatives.

Opponents of this urgent investment in American strength have taken to clothing their objections in the false mantle of realism, and, at first glance, this would appear to be a rhetorically savvy move. After all, who would admit to being unrealistic? Who would willingly say that their policies and their world view don't reflect the world as it is? But, as our Nation faces the most dangerous moment in a generation, it is worth examining this claim in a bit more detail.

The concept of realism has an academic meaning that refers to a specific set of assumptions about how states interact. The realist school of thought, at its core, contends that states act alone in a perpetual competition, constantly assessing the balance of power with their adversaries and seeking to maximize their own security and relative influence.

As the ancient Athenians put it, ``the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.''

In a sense, as some of the most vocal opponents of the supplemental like to point out, realists don't have time for morality tales or sappy appeals to universal values. The world is an uncaring place, and so- called realists are concerned with cold, hard national interests. Well, as luck would have it, so am I.

None of the tenets of academic realism actually preclude our colleagues

from vigorously supporting the supplemental--quite the opposite. Consider the investments we are talking about making: rebuilding American hard power and growing our domestic industrial capacity to sustain it; in the process, helping to decimate the hard power of a major adversary at almost no risk to U.S. forces; deterring further challenges to a balance of power favorable to American interests; preserving and expanding our relative influence with other states; helping our friends and hurting our enemies; and successfully rallying these friends and allies to share the burden of balancing against competitors who seek to undermine the United States and the West.

Academic realism doesn't conflict with our efforts in the supplemental, and neither does simple reality. Being realistic and rejecting fanciful idealism means recognizing that we are facing the greatest, most coordinated security challenges since the Cold War.

In Europe, a neo-Soviet imperialist is threatening the stability of some of America's closest allies. Europe is the largest consumer of American products and the largest foreign direct investor in America. Instability in Europe is bad for business.

In the Middle East, backward theocrats are orchestrating terrorist attacks on Americans as well as our friends and racing to produce a nuclear weapon. Their vassals are disrupting the freedom of navigation--the lifeblood of our economy--with near impunity.

And in the Pacific, the People's Republic of China is pulling every lever to undermine America's power and dominate its hemisphere and beyond, from massive military expansion and predatory economic coercion to psychological manipulation, intellectual property theft, and the supply chain that pumps lethal poison across our borders.

So it would be utterly unrealistic to pretend that America can afford to delay an urgent, comprehensive investment in the hard power required to meet all these threats. The mushy moralism here is pretending to care more about brave Ukrainian war dead than the Ukrainian people do themselves.

The naive ideology is thinking that Russian revanchism is somehow connected to Christian values, in spite of clear evidence that Putin has corrupted the Russian Orthodox Church and is actively repressing Christians both at home and in conquered territories. The plain fantasy is saying that the challenges we face abroad will wait patiently while we attend to our own domestic affairs.

Here is the diplomatic reality: Putin has said publicly there is no sense negotiating with an opponent who is running out of ammunition.

Anyone who wants a negotiated end to this conflict should also want Ukraine to have as much negotiating leverage as possible.

Here is the political reality: If you think the fall of Afghanistan was bad, the fall of a European capital like Kyiv to Russian troops will be unimaginably worse. And if stalled American assistance makes that outcome possible, there is no question where the blame will land-- on us.

Neglecting threats doesn't make them go away; it just guarantees unpreparedness when they strike.

I am reminded of the late Republican from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg, a staunch anti-interventionist in the years leading up to the Second World War. As Senator Vandenberg wrote in his diary after the attack on Pearl Harbor, ``That day ended isolationism for any realist.''

Needless to say, it shouldn't take an attack on the homeland for American leaders to uphold their responsibilities and provide for the common defense. The clear and present danger is just that: It is clear; it is present; and it will grow if we do not act.

For those of us who see the world clearly, this isn't a question of realism versus idealism. Right now, what America should do also happens to be what we can do. We can grow a defense industrial base capable of sustaining both U.S. forces and our allies and partners. We can help degrade one adversary while strengthening deterrence against others. We can start investing seriously in rebuilding the hard power that a secure and prosperous nation requires--not only can we; we must.

Anti-Semitism

Madam President, now on another matter, the past 6 months have shown an uncomfortably bright light on the moral rot festering on America's university and campuses.

Just yesterday, the president of Columbia hedged when asked whether chants of ``from the river to the sea'' and ``long live the intifada'' are properly considered anti-Semitism. This comes after numerous incidents on her campus, including a student club president issuing an email that read:

White Jewish people . . . today and always have been the

oppressors of all brown people.

[And] when I say the Holocaust wasn't special, I mean that.

Of course, the light of truth doesn't discriminate, and it has uncovered much more than an alarming taste for the world's oldest form of hate.

Last month, a Federal judge found that an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School had committed plagiarism in a report submitted on behalf of plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit.

If this weren't enough, Harvard's office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging recently announced they will host racially segregated ``affinity celebrations'' during their 2024 commencement.

These are the institutions that President Biden wants working Americans to underwrite? These are the degrees that President Biden wants taxpayers to subsidize?

Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled that the President's initial attempt at student loan socialism was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Washington Democrats continue to double down.

Earlier this week, the Biden administration proposed yet another nearly $150 billion round of student loan transfers. That is on top of more than $150 billion they have already rolled out. At a most basic level, the proposal betrays a staggering disdain for working Americans--both those who have paid off their debt and those who opted not to take on the debt in the first place. It will transfer the loans of the highest earning members of Washington Democrats' base to working taxpayers. And it has already driven up tuition costs for future students.

But the Biden administration has made it pretty clear that they don't care about future students. Just look at the way they are handling the current round of FAFSA applications. Last week, the Education Department admitted that its own data and processing errors had compromised up to 30 percent of the Federal financial aid applications.

Just as prospective students and their families are facing enrollment deadlines, Washington Democrats apparently couldn't care less whether prospective students make informed decisions. Apparently, hefty tuition costs don't matter much if taxpayers will be the ones ultimately footing the bill. Well, I expect that working Americans across the country will have something to say about this in the fall.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, as I discussed earlier this week, critical national security authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are set to expire in 2 days. Today, I would like to briefly address the newest red herring being raised in opposition to reauthorizing section 702.

The reauthorization that passed the House contains scores of important reforms to the FISA process that will enhance accountability at the FBI and protect the rights of American citizens. It also included a necessary fix to the way we authorize the government to lawfully collect communications from foreigners located overseas for a specific intelligence purpose.

As part of the standard judicial oversight of the 702 process, the intelligence community has been restricted in what kinds of technology counts as ``electronic communications service providers'' under the statute. When section 702 was written, the internet was in the Dark Ages compared to how it exists today. Clearly, social media and internet communications usage has changed dramatically since the earliest days of Twitter and so have the technical mechanisms by which massive packets of data transit the internet.

As the internet evolved, the FISA Court did not allow the DOJ, on its own, to expand the definition of a provider to meet the new realities of contemporary technology. This created a critical, unintended gap in our collection ability against overseas foreign targets.

Here is the good news: The House did on a strong bipartisan basis what legislatures should do. In fact, a majority of the majority and a majority of the minority voted to change the statute to make sure that our collection ability on foreigners overseas reflects the reality of modern communication. It was a simple fix to update the law to respond to technological change.

But to listen to the Chicken Littles on the left, the sky is falling. The ACLU says this will expand warrantless surveillance and strongly implies that it will do so against Americans as they go about their daily lives.

Demand Progress--an activist arm of Arabella Advisors--says ``everyone is a spy'' under this provision.

Well, excuse me if I don't take my cues from liberal court-packers. This could not be further from the truth. The House bill's simple fix does nothing--nothing--to change who gets targeted by section 702: foreigners overseas whose communications are likely to return important intelligence.

The FISA appellate court affirmed this in a decision that predated the legislative fix, saying:

Under section 702 the Government is prohibited from

intentionally targeting any person known at the time of

acquisition to be located in the United States.

Even foreigners located in the United States. Even foreigners operating illegally in the United States.

The court went on, saying:

Customers using WiFi access provided by a cafe or library,

for example, would not be targeted under Section 702,

regardless of whether the Internet connectivity being

provided is considered an ``electronic communications

service.''

Let me say that again. They ``would not be targeted under Section 702,'' nor, contrary to the fears of some of our colleagues, would U.S. persons be at risk of drone strikes as they surfed the internet on public internet networks.

Nothing has been expanded. Section 702 still rightly only applies to foreigners overseas. All that the House did was fix a dangerous loophole that would have allowed our foreign adversaries to escape the reach of our intelligence services.

Trust but verify, right? Well, this bill helps us do precisely that. It includes significant reforms that dramatically enhance transparency into how section 702 is used by the intelligence community. It includes important reforms to prevent misuse of the authority and require accountability for any such misuse, including new civil and criminal penalties.

I would urge my colleagues to look at the facts of this latest fearmongering crusade, to soberly examine the same classified material our House colleagues read that explains this provision in detail, to reject hyperbole and lies, and to take action to secure the homeland.

Border Security

Mr. President, now on a different matter, ``[W]e do have a plan to address migration at the southern border. We're executing it . . . and we're starting to see the results.'' Well, those were the words of the Secretary of Homeland Security after the Biden administration had been in office for 8 months, but in the past 3 years, they have taken on an altogether greater significance.

The administration's ``plan to address migration''? It turns out their plan was exactly what then-Candidate Biden pledged on the debate stage: to surge migrants to the border.

How they did execute it? By slashing the previous administration's commonsense border security policies. No more ``Remain in Mexico.'' No more border wall construction.

As Secretary Mayorkas bragged back in 2021, the Biden administration had repealed so many border enforcement tools that ``it would take so much time to list them.''

How about that last part: ``[W]e're starting to see the results.'' Since this administration took office, the surge in illegal arrivals at the southern border has set and broken new alltime records several times over.

CBP personnel have worked overtime to contend with a humanitarian and security crisis. Yet, for years, the Biden administration's top concern about the border was not calling it a crisis.

Again: ``[W]e do have a plan to address migration at the southern border. We're executing it . . . and we're starting to see the results''--results, indeed, in the form of a tragic, painful, and unnecessary crisis.

Today, it falls to the Senate to determine whether and to what extent Secretary Mayorkas enabled and inflamed this crisis.

Under the Constitution and the rules of impeachment, it is the job of this body to consider the Articles of Impeachment brought before us and to render judgment.

The question right now should be how best to ensure that the charges on the table receive thorough consideration, but instead, the more pressing question is whether our Democratic colleagues intend to let the Senate work its will at all.

Tabling Articles of Impeachment would be unprecedented in the history of the Senate. It is as simple as that. Tabling would mean declining to discharge our duties as jurors. It would mean running both from our fundamental responsibility and from the glaring truth of the recordbreaking crisis at our southern border.

I, for one, intend to take my role as a juror in this case seriously, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Senate just swore an oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws of our country. We swore to discharge a duty that is quite different from our normal work. As a Court of Impeachment, we are called not to speak, not to debate, but to listen both to the case against the accused and to his defense.

At this point in any trial in the country, the prosecution presents the evidence of the case, counsel for the defense does the same, and the jury remains silent as it listens. This is what our rules require of us as well.

But the Senate has not had the opportunity to perform this duty. The Senate will not hear the House managers present the details of their case against Secretary Mayorkas; that he willingly neglected the duties of his office and that he lied to Congress about the extent of that failure. Likewise, we will not hear the Secretary's representatives present the vigorous defense to which he is entitled.

Our colleagues know that we are obligated to take these proceedings seriously. This is what our oath prescribes; it is what the history and precedent require; and I would urge each of our colleagues to consider that this is what the Framers actually envisioned.

The power of impeachment is one of the most delicate balances our constitutional system strikes with a portion of the American people's sovereign electoral authority. It purchases a safeguard against malpractice, and it gives the Senate the power and the duty to decide. This process must not be abused. It must not be short-circuited. History will not judge this moment well.

Vote on Motion

Therefore, I move to table the point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, we set a very unfortunate precedent here. This means the Senate can ignore, in effect, the House's impeachment. It doesn't make any difference whether our friends on the other side thought he should have been impeached or not. He was.

And by doing what we just did, we have, in effect, ignored the directions of the House, which were to have a trial. We had no evidence, no procedure.

This is a day that is not a proud day in the history of the Senate.

(Applause.)