Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have spoken repeatedly about the nomination of Adeel Mangi to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding his anti-Semitic affiliations, it seems every week a new law enforcement organization announces its opposition to this nominee for his record of associating with the most radical type of anti-police activists--those who support cop killers.

Apparently, some Democrats are finally listening to law enforcement and the Jewish groups sounding the alarm.

Last week, a number of Democratic Senators reportedly told the White House that they didn't think Mr. Mangi has the votes. This, of course, produced a panic on the left. This week, a New York Times columnist accused Republicans of Islamophobia for criticizing Mangi and his dalliance with anti-Semitic activists. Democrats, on the other hand, were urged to get in line and vote for him.

Who is giving this advice?

Well, the author of the piece herself had previously speculated that Israel may be engaged in genocide in Gaza. She called the Israeli war of self-defense a ``charnel house of horrors.'' She defended the anti- Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and she even got mealymouthed about the October 7 attacks, saying:

[T]wo can play the game of who started it and who is to

blame, rolling back the clock to biblical times to try to fix

ultimate responsibility for the catastrophe of Israel and

Palestine.

So, again, what has Mr. Mangi done to deserve friends like these or, indeed, to merit such a vehement, blinkered defense from the Biden administration?

Just yesterday, the White House called opposition to Mr. Mangi's nomination a "smear campaign solely because he would make history as the first Muslim to serve as a federal appellate judge.''

How insulting. What self-respecting attorney wants to hear that a President cares more about the demographic tick boxes than their life's work?

Besides, in the case of Mr. Mangi, Senate Republicans' opposition has absolutely nothing to do with his Muslim faith. Rather, it has everything to do with his longstanding sympathy for and association with some of the most radical elements in society.

I happily voted for the first Muslim article III judge at the outset of the Biden administration, also of New Jersey--so did 31 of my Republican colleagues--in one of the largest bipartisan votes for a judge in the Biden Presidency. But we didn't support this nominee because he was Muslim; it was because he had an extraordinary personal and professional background.

Mr. Mangi's associated center at Rutgers asks convicted terrorists if we overly ``exceptionalize'' 9/11. Judge Quraishi, on the other hand, thought 9/11 was exceptional and joined the Army soon after, rendering honorable service in Iraq.

Mr. Mangi spent his career making millions in defending corporate clients like foreign energy companies, massive drugmakers, and even chocolate monopolies, all while volunteering his time to support anti- police activists. Judge Quraishi, on the other hand, supported law enforcement professionally, first at Immigration and Customs Enforcement and then as an assistant U.S. attorney.

We are told that any questioning of Mr. Mangi's record is Islamophobia. On the other hand, the terrorist-adjacent Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded that Senators probe Judge Quraishi's experience in the Army and in law enforcement, saying their concerns ``must be addressed.''

According to Democrats' rhetoric, shouldn't this organization also be condemned for Islamophobia?

Two Muslim Biden nominees with records as different as night and day--Republicans happily supported the nominee who served his country and backed the blue. We have and we will continue to oppose the nominee who has repeatedly chosen, instead, to mingle with supporters of terrorists and cop killers.

I hope more Democrats will join us in opposing Mr. Mangi, and should they fall victim to spurious associations of bias, perhaps they should remind the White House of an alternative candidate, rested and ready, in the Federal courthouse in Trenton, NJ.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, more than 5 months after the butchery of October 7, Israelis are overwhelmingly united behind their government's unity war Cabinet in support of ongoing military operations against Hamas. By contrast, some prominent American Democrats are increasingly vocal in their belief that Israel's unity government and Israeli voters are wrong.

That is, after all, what we are talking about here. As much as some of our colleagues might like them to be, Democrats' egregious and hypocritical attempts to influence Israeli domestic politics aren't some simple or narrow critique of a particular Prime Minister; they are an affront to the very independence of the State of Israel--a sovereign nation, a robust democracy, and one of America's closest allies and friends; not a colony, not a vassal state, not some appendage of our own domestic politics.

As I said last week, our Democratic colleagues don't have an anti- Bibi problem; they have an anti-Israel problem. What else are we supposed to make of the way Democrats have fallen in line behind the position the Democratic leader expressed here on the floor last week? It is absurd enough for American Senators to masquerade as duly-elected members of the Knesset, as if their views should have any bearing on how Israel conducts its domestic politics. But unfortunately it now seems important to remind our President that he is America's Commander in Chief, not some supreme allied commander with authority over Israel's war operations.

I was worried to see the U.S. intelligence community opine publicly last week on the stability of the Israeli Government. It seems to me we should ask our intelligence professionals to keep their assessments of our closest partners a bit closer to their chest.

Think about just how embarrassing our colleagues would find this behavior if it was directed toward any other democratic U.S. ally. Think about how we might be received if the DNI or the CIA Director publicly commented on political tensions within Germany's coalition government or on the decision-making processes of President Macron or on the declining public support for the Trudeau government in Canada.

America is best served when our intelligence professionals refrain from public comments on politics--both our own and our allies.

The war thrust upon Israel by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad has already brought a host of profoundly embarrassing revelations to light.

It has exposed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency as irredeemably corrupt and appallingly complicit in both the violent kidnapping of Israelis and the indoctrination of Palestinians in a culture of hate, violence, and terror.

It has exposed the rank anti-Semitism that America's most elite universities have allowed to fester on their campuses and some of these institutions' weakening grasp on moral resolve.

Now it is exposing Democrats as unwilling or incapable of resisting the political pressures of their radical base. Just look how our colleagues have staked out bizarrely vocal support for policies for which even the Israeli left has said it has no time.

So membership in the U.S. Senate does not come with voting rights in the Knesset or the Bundestag. It certainly doesn't entitle colleagues who spent years decrying foreign interference in American politics to decide one day to flip the script on our allies.

Let's get one thing straight: This violence and this humanitarian crisis rest entirely on the shoulders of Hamas. This entire conflict would end if the cowardly terrorists who rule Gaza from beneath schools and hospitals released their innocent hostages.

And the people they oppress every day--the people of Gaza--have a say in the matter. They can turn on Hamas, turn in terrorist leaders like Yahya Sinwar, and turn over the hostages whose seizure by Palestinian terrorists started this conflict in the first place. Until then, the Israeli government ought to do what the overwhelming majority of Israelis expect of it: bring the innocents home; bring the terrorists to justice; and bring peace and security to its citizens.

And, I might add, pay the peanut gallery no mind.

Mr. President, on a different matter, this week the Biden administration's radical EPA is finalizing yet another regulation that will force ordinary Americans to conform their lifestyles to coastal elite sensibilities. This latest rule would use strict emissions requirements on auto manufacturers to effectively ban gas-powered vehicles.

The President's energy agenda just keeps on putting climate activists in the driver's seat and leaves American workers in the dust. From canceling new oil leases and clean energy projects like LNG to threatening to ban gas stoves, the Biden administration has made it abundantly clear that they are willing to trade working families' livelihoods for kudos from their radical base.

But this week, the House Republican majority is actually fighting back. Our colleagues have dedicated this week to considering commonsense legislation to undo some of the worst offenses of the Biden administration's regulatory state. They will take up bills to clear radical roadblocks that are preventing the completion of so many urgent energy infrastructure projects, to protect energy sector jobs against freezes on fracking and other energy development, to repeal a multibillion-dollar taxpayer slush fund for green energy projects, and to warn about the disastrous effects of a carbon tax on the U.S. economy.

The Biden administration keeps trying to sell working families on electric vehicles, but the American people aren't buying the hype. The average EV costs over $14,000 more than the average gas-powered vehicle. Auto dealers around the country have noticed that demand for electric vehicles is stagnant. And at least one rental company is selling off its stock due to a lack of interest.

Meanwhile, State utilities are growing concerned that their power grids are already straining under soaring demand for electricity. Just imagine what would happen to our fragile electrical grids if we forced people to drive electric cars. Now, that doesn't seem to concern the Biden administration; neither does the fact that the supply chains for the critical minerals in EV batteries run straight through the People's Republic of China.

The EPA's new emissions standards are so stringent that they would require electric vehicles make up two of every three vehicles on the consumer market within 8 years, regardless of whether charging infrastructure is ever available. Apparently, rolling blackouts are just one of the many costs of admission to the Biden administration's green future.

So I would like to commend our House Republican colleagues for putting serious solutions on the table, and I hope Washington Democrats will snap out of their climate daydream before it becomes a nightmare for working families.

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

Mr. President, this week, the Senate faces one more test to complete its annual appropriations process, and the stakes really couldn't be higher for Americans' security at home and abroad.

The work we have outstanding amounts to nearly 70 percent--70 percent--of the discretionary budget. Once again, I am grateful to our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their commitment to regular order. I am especially grateful to Senator Collins for fighting to advance Republican priorities throughout the process, particularly in the Defense appropriations bill.

Predictable annual allocations are essential to meeting national defense responsibilities. They allow for effective investments in modernizing our forces, developing new, cutting-edge capabilities, and expanding the industrial capacity that will drive long-term strategic competition. Needless to say, investments like these are especially critical right now as the gulf between

the threats we face and the Biden administration's willingness to address them seems to be growing wider. President Biden has just turned in his fourth straight budget request that would cut defense funding after inflation. So the work before us is gravely necessary, and I am encouraged that we are beginning this week with an agreement in hand to actually complete the process.

Congress has secured a path forward to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which will allow us to complete the fiscal year 2024 appropriations process in the coming days. As always, making headway depends on serious cooperation, and I am grateful to our appropriators and negotiators for their commitment to working in good faith. Providing for the common defense is among our most basic constitutional responsibilities, and we need to be honest with ourselves: Growing threats and increasing military requirements make fulfilling this responsibility even more critical.

The legislation in front of us will not be Congress's last word, but it represents an important down payment, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to complete the annual appropriations process very, very soon.

Mr. President, the Jewish State of Israel deserves an ally that acts like one. The people of Israel, at home and in captivity, deserve America's support; and Israel's unity government and security cabinet deserve the deference befitting a sovereign democratic country.

The primary obstacles to peace in Israel's region are genocidal terrorists, like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who slaughter innocent people and corrupt leaders of the Palestinian Authority, who have repeatedly--repeatedly--rejected peace deals from multiple Israeli Governments.

And foreign observers who cannot keep these clear distinctions straight ought to refrain from weighing in. It is grotesque and hypocritical for Americans who hyperventilate about foreign interference in our own democracy to call for the removal of a democratically elected leader of Israel. This is unprecedented. We should not treat fellow democracies this way at all.

Things that upset leftwing activists are not a Prime Minister's policies; they are Israel's policies. Make no mistake, the Democratic Party doesn't have an anti-Bibi problem; it has an anti-Israel problem. Israel is not a colony of America whose leaders serve at the pleasure of the party in power in Washington. Only Israel's citizens should have a say in who runs their government. This is the very definition of democracy and sovereignty. Either we respect their decisions or we disrespect their democracy.

Now, Mr. President, on another entirely different matter, this week, Vladimir Putin himself responded to reports of weakening Western resolve to stand with Ukraine and of ammunition shortages on the frontlines.

Here is what Putin had to say:

It would be ridiculous for us to start negotiating with

Ukraine just because it's running out of ammunition.

The chilling reality here is abundantly clear: Withholding critical weapons has not helped manage Putin's escalation--it has only emboldened him.

The administration that hesitated and wrung its hands through the early days of Russian escalation actually emboldened Putin, and it ought to be a lesson to those who insist--without firm footing in its strategy or logic--that withholding lethal assistance would somehow hasten an acceptable negotiated settlement to the conflict.

I have said too many times to count that America's adversaries only speak the language of power. But our colleagues don't have to take my word for it. Just take it straight from the dictator's mouth. Vladimir Putin is not playing for a tie. He is not headed for the negotiating table. He will not stop at Ukraine. He has told us, and he has shown us many times.

Whether or not you are willing to take the architect of the neo- Soviet Empire at his word, the facts remain the same: Equipping Ukraine for battlefield success is the surest way to help our friends resolve this war from a position of strength.

Backing Ukraine as it degrades our common adversary's military also strengthens America's interests, and investing in our own military and our own defense industrial capacity at the same time just makes common sense. It is time for the House to take up the Senate-passed national security supplemental and finish the job.

(The remarks of Mr. McConnell pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 65 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, on another matter, I would like to speak briefly on a practice in our Nation's courts that has confounded administrations of both parties with increasing frequency over the past decade. It is the issuance of nationwide injunctions.

Time after time, district judges will respond to a case challenging a Federal law by preventing its application not just to the parties before them or within their jurisdictions but nationwide.

During the last administration, Attorneys General Sessions and Barr issued policy and litigation guidance on the issue to try and pare it back. Senator Cotton introduced a bill to eliminate the practice by statute; and Chairman Graham was eager to move the Cotton bill, but Senate Democrats were not. In fact, their star witness in support of nationwide injunctions is now a Federal judge in the District of Columbia.

Rather than working with Republicans to eliminate a practice that gores the oxen of both parties, it turns out our colleagues prefer to preserve it just for themselves.

Now that nationwide injunctions are being used against the Biden administration, liberal allies in the academy and in the media have started to ``target single judge divisions,'' where they think conservative plaintiffs are likely to get favorable ratings from sympathetic judges.

The Democratic leader even wrote to the Judicial Conference demanding action against the scourge of judges who don't rule in favor of the Biden administration. In other words, he urged the Conference to keep the injunctions and just restrict the access to conservative judges.

It seems the Judicial Conference took the bait. On Tuesday, they instructed district courts to assign all cases seeking to invalidate State or Federal law randomly across the district in which they were brought. This will have no practical effect in the venues favored by liberal activists, but Democrats are salivating at the possibility of shutting down access to justice in the venues favored by conservatives.

What will this do in practice? It means the young woman challenging Texas abortion laws in Austin can now be forced, for no good reason, to have her case heard in El Paso. A veteran defending his Second Amendment rights in Youngstown can be sent to Toledo to have his day in court. In Kentucky, a coal miner challenging labor regulations in London could find his case handed to a judge in Covington--all to prevent so-called judge shopping.

But didn't Chief Justice Roberts say, ``There are not Obama judges or Trump judges''? What exactly is the problem that demands such a drastic solution?

Here is what this policy won't do: It won't solve the issues caused by nationwide injunctions. If Democrats are right about the practical effects of this policy, any remaining incentive they have to work with Republicans on this issue will vanish--``Nationwide injunctions for me, but not for thee.''

Needless to say, if Republicans see a Federal judiciary that is using its procedural independence to wade into political disputes, any incentive we may have to defend the procedural independence will vanish as well.

This was an unforced error by the Judicial Conference. I hope they will reconsider, and I hope district courts throughout the country will instead weigh what is best for their jurisdictions, not half-baked ``guidance'' that just does Washington Democrats' bidding.

Madam President, on another matter, last week, in the State of the Union Address, President Biden bragged that he was taking ``the most significant action on climate ever in the history of the world.''

What he failed to mention is that his radical climate policy almost always comes at the expense of American workers and job creators.

Just recently, the Biden administration rolled out yet another job- killing mandate that would impose more unilateral economic pain here at home. This one goes well beyond the regulatory standards of most of our European allies, let alone our top strategic competitor, China.

The EPA wants to tighten limits on fine particulates in the air, known as PM2.5, despite its own data showing that concentrations have actually gone down by over 40 percent in the last two decades. The vast majority of these emissions come from sources like wildfires and dust from agriculture and roads that are not easily contained and, in some cases, impossible to control. We are talking about a climate boogeyman conjured out of smoke and dust.

The EPA's new standard is so strict that when it takes effect, 30 percent of U.S. counties, including many in my home State, would immediately find themselves out of compliance, grounding manufacturing growth to a halt. Meanwhile, the job of actually implementing the EPA's new mandate will fall to the States that are forced to inherit all the costs of this bad policy--from offshore manufacturing jobs to greater reliance on China to higher prices when Americans can least afford it.

In order to keep up with President Biden's new mandate, American manufacturers would be forced to import raw materials, like concrete and steel, for virtually any construction project--the kind of projects that grow our economy and support good-paying jobs. In other words, the Biden administration is saying, in no uncertain terms, that they are willing to make our economy more--more--dependent on foreign supply chains just to appease the green activists in this country.

So it is no surprise that State leaders are pushing back on this ruling. Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman is leading a lawsuit with West Virginia to challenge the EPA's mandate; and so far, nearly half of our States have signed on. Unlike the Biden administration, local and State leaders understand just how damaging this new rule would be for workers and for job creators back home.

So today, I am happy to announce that Senate Republicans stand ready to do our part. Today, I am introducing a resolution under the Congressional Review Act that would prevent the EPA from plowing ahead with this senseless regulatory overkill.

I am thankful to more than 40 colleagues who have joined my resolution, so far, as cosponsors. Senate Republicans will continue to stand with American workers and job creators, especially when the Biden administration tries to make their work so much harder.

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

Madam President, on another matter, last week, in the State of the Union Address, President Biden bragged that he was taking ``the most significant action on climate ever in the history of the world.''

What he failed to mention is that his radical climate policy almost always comes at the expense of American workers and job creators.

Just recently, the Biden administration rolled out yet another job- killing mandate that would impose more unilateral economic pain here at home. This one goes well beyond the regulatory standards of most of our European allies, let alone our top strategic competitor, China.

The EPA wants to tighten limits on fine particulates in the air, known as PM2.5, despite its own data showing that concentrations have actually gone down by over 40 percent in the last two decades. The vast majority of these emissions come from sources like wildfires and dust from agriculture and roads that are not easily contained and, in some cases, impossible to control. We are talking about a climate boogeyman conjured out of smoke and dust.

The EPA's new standard is so strict that when it takes effect, 30 percent of U.S. counties, including many in my home State, would immediately find themselves out of compliance, grounding manufacturing growth to a halt. Meanwhile, the job of actually implementing the EPA's new mandate will fall to the States that are forced to inherit all the costs of this bad policy--from offshore manufacturing jobs to greater reliance on China to higher prices when Americans can least afford it.

In order to keep up with President Biden's new mandate, American manufacturers would be forced to import raw materials, like concrete and steel, for virtually any construction project--the kind of projects that grow our economy and support good-paying jobs. In other words, the Biden administration is saying, in no uncertain terms, that they are willing to make our economy more--more--dependent on foreign supply chains just to appease the green activists in this country.

So it is no surprise that State leaders are pushing back on this ruling. Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman is leading a lawsuit with West Virginia to challenge the EPA's mandate; and so far, nearly half of our States have signed on. Unlike the Biden administration, local and State leaders understand just how damaging this new rule would be for workers and for job creators back home.

So today, I am happy to announce that Senate Republicans stand ready to do our part. Today, I am introducing a resolution under the Congressional Review Act that would prevent the EPA from plowing ahead with this senseless regulatory overkill.

I am thankful to more than 40 colleagues who have joined my resolution, so far, as cosponsors. Senate Republicans will continue to stand with American workers and job creators, especially when the Biden administration tries to make their work so much harder.

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

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

Mr. President, yesterday, President Biden released his budget request for the next fiscal year. Here is the top line: He wants the American people to take on more than $16 trillion in cumulative deficits over the next decade. The President who told the Nation last week that he was cutting the deficit just put out a budget request that would do the exact opposite.

Unfortunately, this is hardly the only pledge that President Biden's request would break. After repeatedly promising not to raise taxes on households making less than $400,000 a year, the President is now selling a plan that would heap $5 trillion in new and expanded taxes on American workers and job creators.

Let's put this in perspective. The Biden administration's budget proposal would raise taxes as a share of the U.S. economy to levels our Nation hasn't seen since World War II.

Let me say that again. President Biden wants to bring taxes as a share of GDP higher than they have been since the middle of the fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Now, I have been pretty frank in my assessment that the threats America is facing today are as dangerous as we have seen since the Cold War, if not the era of the Axis Powers. But here is the rub: The President apparently only wants to tax the American people at wartime levels. By contrast, he shows no interest in the sort of defense investments that were needed to squeeze the Soviets in the 1980s, let alone to liberate Europe and Asia in the 1940s.

It is far more expensive to fight wars than to deter them. American defense spending during World War II spiked at 37 percent of GDP; during the Korean war, 14 percent of GDP; Vietnam, 9 percent of GDP. By contrast, the Reagan buildup that helped end the Cold War hit only 6 percent of GDP in 1986. But today, in a renewed era of major power competition, the Biden administration appears to lack the will even to sustain such credible deterrence.

Here lies another broken promise: After engaging in political hostage-taking over the debt limit last year, the Biden administration apparently doesn't intend to honor their own agreement on spending limits. The latest budget request uses accounting gimmicks to blow clear through agreed-upon limits for domestic discretionary spending. Yet, at the same time, administration officials insist it should ``not have been a surprise'' that the President sees spending caps on national defense as sacrosanct.

Of course, this reckless behavior follows a predictable pattern. Under this Commander in Chief, U.S. military faces the same historic inflation as everyone else in our country. As gas and groceries get more expensive, so do the capabilities our servicemembers need.

Yet this is the fourth straight time the Biden administration has turned in a defense budget request that amounts to a net cut after inflation. Apparently, the President hadn't yet learned the lessons of Bidenomics; instead, for more than 3 years, a global superpower has responded to growing coordination amongst its major adversaries, a restored haven for terrorists in Afghanistan, the first major land war in Europe since 1945, the deadliest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust on October 7 in Israel, and breakneck military spending and modernizations from our top strategic rival but cutting our own military strength.

In a budget request full of gross excess in all the wrong places, neglecting the national defense is the takeaway that history will remember as the most alarming.

Madam President, on Friday, the Senate completed its work on annual appropriations for six major areas of the Federal Government: agriculture and rural development; commerce, justice, and science; energy and water development; interior and environment; military construction, veterans' affairs; and transportation, housing, and urban development.

The Senate's vote was a major milestone in a process our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee began the better part of a year ago. Thanks to Senator Collins and Senator Murray's commitment to operating in good faith and adhering as much as possible to regular order, a significant portion of the Federal Government's discretionary budget is complete.

As I mentioned last week, the agreement before the Senate includes a number of conservative accomplishments that Vice Chair Collins fought for upfront. I am especially pleased that it will advance priorities near and dear to the hearts of my fellow Kentuckians--from rural transportation to military readiness to stopping the flow of illegal drugs.

I am proud to represent three military installations in Kentucky that are vital to America's national defense strategy. And the bill the Senate passed last week will fund critical construction projects at each of them. It green-lights the construction of top-of-the-line training and operational capabilities at Fort Knox and Fort Campbell, both home to a number of our Nation's most storied Army units. And it resurrects resources from a National Guard training range in Greenville, KY, a long-overdue project that has fallen by the wayside for nearly two decades.

Hundreds of millions of dollars will also go toward helping rural Kentuckians and the rest of Middle America: urgent funding to overhaul aging roads, bridges, and river ports that hold back Main Street; investments for clean, reliable water infrastructure; funds to continue environmental cleanup efforts in Paducah; and resources to

expand broadband access to every corner of the Commonwealth. It also empowers law enforcement with new resources to combat the opioid crisis that has devastated my home State and remains a top killer of young Kentuckians.

So I was glad the Senate finished the job on a major portion of our government funding responsibilities, and I was especially proud to deliver on some of my fellow Kentuckians' top priorities.

Madam President, on another matter, last week, I was proud to welcome the Prime Minister of Sweden to the Capitol on a historic day in his Nation's history and a great day for America and fellow members of the transatlantic alliance.

Earlier today, the flag of Sweden was raised over NATO headquarters for the first time. Sweden is our newest NATO ally, and the Prime Minister's visit to Washington marked the culmination of a process that began more than 2 years ago. As Russian forces amassed on Ukraine's border in the winter of 2022, Putin's aggressive ambitions clarified the thinking of some of Europe's strongest security partners.

From outside NATO, Sweden and Finland had already built advanced economies, capable militaries, and impressive defense industries. But in the face of an axis of revisionist powers, our Nordic friends decided it was time to cast their lot with the most successful military alliance in history.

Their path to accession is a clarifying reminder that NATO has always been a defensive alliance. Its members first undertook the responsibility of collective security to defending against growing Soviet aggression. Central and Eastern European members pursued membership after the fall of the Iron Curtain to protect their newly reclaimed sovereignty and democracy.

NATO's expansion has always been linked to the threat posed by outside forces; and today, it is no different. I have been proud to walk with our newest allies at every stop of the process. I will never forget standing with them 2 years ago in Stockholm and in Helsinki on the very day the Swedish and Finnish Parliaments voted overwhelmingly to launch their NATO axis bills.

Russia's escalation in Ukraine has unified Swedish and Finnish leaders. In both countries, strong support for NATO and a willingness to share the burden of collective defense literally transcends party lines.

Today, America's newest treaty allies are poised to make significant, immediate contributions to the transatlantic alliance. With highly trained forces equipped with cutting-edge capabilities, their commitment to NATO is a tremendous vote of confidence in the enduring importance of collective defense.

With Sweden and Finland in our ranks, the West stands even more united against autocrats with imperial designs. With two new frontline allies, America's interests are more secure.