Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, well, tonight, President Biden will deliver the last State of the Union Address of his term. For the past 3 years, these speeches have served as mile markers but not of any meaningful progress toward a more perfect Union. Instead, each year, the American people tuned in to see just how far the President's own version of his record is from the reality of their lives.

For 3 years, the President, who campaigned as a moderate, has governed like an activist from the furthest fringe of the Democratic Party.

The Biden administration's agenda has meant pain at home and weakness abroad. It didn't have to be this way. President Biden took office amid strong tailwinds--from an economic recovery that was already restoring the record-setting prosperity we saw before the pandemic to a historic modernization of our military that was well underway. He inherited everything he needed to point our Nation toward further security and prosperity, but he chose weakness and invited danger instead.

Today, nearly two-thirds of voters say our economy is worse than it was 4 years ago. Not even one in four thinks our country is on the right track. Barely a quarter of the country expects our economy to improve in the coming year. But that hasn't stopped President Biden from trying to convince working Americans to take his word for it and ignore their own shrinking paychecks. He has literally taken a victory tour to tout his disastrous economic record. His administration has declared Bidenomics ``the word of the year.''

Meanwhile, American consumers are shelling out a bigger portion of their income on groceries than at any point in the last 30 years. A food pantry in Northern Kentucky is reporting ``more and more demand for . . . enough food to make people's income stretch.'' Across the board, consumer prices are nearly 18 percent higher today than they were when President Biden took office. This is what ``Bidenomics in action'' really means?

At kitchen tables tonight, working families will probably wonder whether the President has any regrets, whether he wishes he hadn't ignored his party's top economists and rammed through trillions of dollars in leftwing spending, which brought on the worst inflation in 40 years, or whether he wishes he hadn't declared total war on our most affordable sources of domestic energy, along with the jobs these American industries support. On President Biden's watch, overall energy prices are up nearly a third.

Time after time, when given the choice to lead or to outsource his work to leftwing activists, President Biden has chosen the latter. He has handed his base a blank check for a wish list of social engineering and left the American people to foot the bill.

Meanwhile, he has poured gasoline on the fire of leftwing, pro- criminal, anti-police rhetoric across the country. The Biden administration has packed its Justice Department full of leftwing activists working overtime to tear serious crimes right out of the Criminal Code.

A couple years back, a district attorney in Massachusetts declared she wouldn't prosecute crimes like breaking and entering or drug possession with intent to distribute. President Biden rewarded this behavior by making Rachael Rollins one of his first U.S. attorneys. Across the country, on this President's watch, leftwing prosecutors have turned repeated offenders into the streets--repeatedly. In President Biden's America, violent criminals have learned that they won't face serious consequences, and, of course, they are acting accordingly.

At the same time, leftwing activists bent on attacking the Federal judiciary have found an ally in the Biden White House. The President has tried to give life tenure to a judicial nominee who identified himself as a ``wild-eyed leftist,'' another with a history of supporting terrorist sympathizers, and even one who had worked to undermine a teenage girl's claim of sexual assault. President Biden hasn't just tried putting the wrong people in our Nation's institutions, he spent 3 years undermining the institutions themselves. His Attorney General slow-walked urgent security measures to protect the Supreme Court Justices and their families from angry mobs, and his administration even stood up a commission to explore Court packing--a terrible idea that hasn't gotten any less terrible since it was killed back in the 1930s.

So the rule of law is less stable on President Biden's watch. The streets of our major cities are less safe. And, of course, our borders are less secure.

Mr. President, next month will mark 45 years since a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in an increasingly critical region of the world became law. The formal title of the law is worth a read in today's context:

An act to help maintain peace, security, and stability in

the Western Pacific and to promote the foreign policy of the

United States by authorizing the continuation of commercial,

cultural, and other relations between the people of the

United States and the people of Taiwan.

In the 45 years since Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, our friends on the island have continued to write an incredible story of resilience. Taiwan has established a strong democracy, a robust civil society, and a modern, innovative, high-tech economy. And its people have planted themselves squarely--squarely--on the side of free societies and free markets.

America is Taiwan's second largest trading partner. Its military is reforming and modernizing, increasingly arming itself with cutting-edge American capabilities. And the U.S.-Taiwan partnership has become an increasingly important indicator of bipartisan American resolve at a time when our allies and adversaries alike doubt--doubt--the credibility of our commitments.

After abandoning allies in Afghanistan, squandering leverage over Iran, and slow-walking assistance to Ukraine, America's relationship with Taiwan holds unique value. And, like it or not, it will be increasingly seen as a test of whether America's commitments to allies and partners hold any water.

Today, investing in our capabilities and defense industrial capacity would show our friends across the Indo-Pacific that we do--do-- recognize the significance of that region and of the strategic competition unfolding out there--a competition America cannot afford to neglect. After all, the PRC is certainly not neglecting it.

Since 2015, Beijing's publicly reported spending on its military has doubled, and, just yesterday, Communist Party leaders announced that defense investments would grow a further 7.2 percent.

Of course, that is just the figure Beijing acknowledges publicly. China's real military modernization efforts are

actually more expansive and more worrisome, and they are intended to enable the PRC to dominate its neighbors and counter America's ability to project power in the region.

By word and deed, the PRC is showing the world that it is prepared to redraw maps by force. Sound familiar? That is because the revisionists autocrats we face are operating from the very same playbook.

And Taiwan appreciates the links between the threats we face as well as any of our allies and partners. Its leaders have been outspoken in connecting the dots between an aggressive Russia in Europe and an emboldened China in the Indo-Pacific. And the people of Taiwan increasingly recognize their interests in preparing to deter and defeat aggression. In fact, they are so clear-eyed about challenges posed by revisionist powers today, they are helping a fellow democracy halfway around the world in Ukraine.

But the more pressing questions right now are whether America recognizes our own interests in maintaining a world in which our commitments are trusted, our threats are feared, and what we are prepared to do about it.

Standing by our friends, standing up to adversaries, and investing in the military capacity to do both--as Congress considers annual Defense appropriations and finishes its work on the national security supplemental, these are the fundamental tasks at hand.

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

Mr. President, last week, Congress avoided a harmful and unnecessary government shutdown, and, this week, we will take a major step forward on one of our most basic responsibilities of government.

Our colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Murray, have been working hard on the fiscal year 2024 appropriations for the better part of a year. The Appropriations Committee advanced the bills we will consider this week back in June and July of last year, working in good faith through the regular order. And in all but one case, they received unanimous support.

This first tranche of annual appropriations accounts for a serious portion of our overall discretionary funding responsibilities, and thanks to Senator Collins' leadership, the bills the Appropriations Committee cleared last summer secured important Republican priorities up front.

By all reasonable measures, the conference with our House colleagues has made the legislation we will take up this week even stronger.

The Senate has an opportunity to strengthen protections for America's farmland by tightening oversight over foreign agricultural transactions and expand support for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. We have a chance to strengthen protections for U.S. intellectual property and surge resources to State and local law enforcement agencies on the frontlines of the fight to curb violent crime and to bring the fentanyl crisis under control.

We can increase support for VA rural health and opioid treatment, protect the Second Amendment rights of America's veterans, and improve housing and facilities for Active-Duty servicemembers and their families, including thousands of Kentuckians stationed in harm's way.

We can fund urgent transportation and water infrastructure projects, support domestic enrichment of critical minerals, and invest in the long-term safety, security, and superiority of our nuclear arsenal.

We can do it all this week.

I am grateful to our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for pushing sensible annual funding legislation one step closer to the President's desk, and I would certainly urge all of our colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, as I said earlier this week, government shutdowns never produce positive outcomes. That is why Congress is going to avoid one this week. Leaders in both parties and both Houses have agreed to a plan that would keep the lights on while appropriators complete their work and put annual appropriations bills on a glide path to becoming law.

I appreciate our colleagues' commitment to see this process through and make good on this essential governing responsibility, and I expect the Senate to act swiftly on a first step this week.

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

Mr. President, it has been a month since the Biden administration announced its de facto ban on new export permits for America's abundant stores of natural gas; 1 month since the President chose to bring growth in a critical sector of our economy, with massive, global consequences, to a screeching halt.

At the risk of understating things, the condemnations of President Biden's decision were swift and full-throated, and it is not hard to understand why. With the stroke of a pen, the President threatened the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Americans, from Texas to Pennsylvania, who produce and transport natural gas.

From the outset, the administration tried to cast the freeze as an effort to look out for American consumers, but the facts tell a different story. By the Energy Department's own analysis, the United States has more than enough natural gas to meet both domestic and export demand.

In fact, if the Biden administration was really concerned about access to one of the Nation's most abundant, reliable, and affordable energy sources, they would release their stranglehold on domestic energy exploration and energy infrastructure. Millions of Americans live near massive natural gas reserves but can't reap the benefits because the President is afraid of upsetting climate activists by investing in safe and efficient energy infrastructure.

Some of the most scathing criticism of the President's decision has come from his own former Democratic colleagues. As former Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana observed last month, the administration's so- called ``pause'' on LNG export permits was like ``throwing a match in a bale of hay.''

America's allies and partners already doubt our resolve to deter common adversaries, but now the world wonders why the Biden administration just handed them a gift.

Just last week, a German state-owned energy company confirmed that it would actually keep an LNG supply contract with Putin. But it gets worse. The company had a contract in hand to begin purchasing American LNG instead until the administration announced its freeze last month. In other words, the President of the United States essentially told a NATO ally to keep on enriching the dictator responsible for the first major land war in Europe since 1945.

To make matters worse, it is increasingly clear that President Biden's decision had another adversary's fingerprints all over it. Leftwing activists have been in the driver's seat of the President's energy policy since day one. That much is not news, but his top climate advisers taking private meetings with influencers on a Chinese-owned social media platform or the campaign to ban LNG permits being driven by a private foundation invested heavily in China's funds--that is news.

LNG exports are one of the only areas of U.S.-China trade in which the PRC is reliant on the United States. Beijing would be all too happy for an excuse to buy less clean U.S. energy and more of what President Biden's Energy Secretary called ``the dirtiest form of natural gas on Earth''--Russian LNG. Well, it appears that President Biden has given our top strategic adversary precisely such an excuse.

It is hard to understand the President's decision as anything other than a compulsive, shortsighted grab for more fleeting praise from his activist base. Clearly, it makes no strategic or economic sense. As one expert analyst and Deputy National Security Advisor under the previous administration put it, ``Our partners and allies are baffled and [our] adversaries are pleased. That's never a good formula.''

Mr. President, as some of you may know, this has been a particularly difficult time for my family. We tragically lost Elaine's younger sister, Angela, just a few weeks ago.

When you lose a loved one, particularly at a young age, there is a certain introspection that accompanies the grieving process. Perhaps it is God's way of reminding you of your own life's journey to reprioritize the impact on the world that we will all inevitably leave behind.

I turned 82 last week. The end of my contributions is closer than I would prefer.

My career in the U.S. Senate began amidst the Reagan revolution. The truth is, when I got here, I was just happy if anybody remembered my

name. President Reagan called me Mitch O'Donnell. Close enough, I thought.

My wife Elaine and I got married on President Reagan's birthday, February 6. It is probably not the most romantic thing to admit, but Reagan meant a lot to both of us. For 31 years, Elaine has been the love of my life, and I am eternally grateful to have her by my side.

I think back to my first days in the Senate with deep appreciation for the time that helped shape my view of the world. I am unconflicted about the good within our country and the irreplaceable role we play as the leader of the free world. That is why I worked so hard to get the national security package passed earlier this month.

Believe me, I know the politics within my party at this particular moment in time. I have many faults. Misunderstanding politics is not one of them.

That said, I believe more strongly than ever that America's global leadership is essential to preserving the shining city on a hill that Ronald Reagan discussed. For as long as I am drawing breath on this Earth, I will defend American exceptionalism.

So, as I have been thinking about when I would deliver some news to the Senate, I always imagined a moment when I had total clarity and peace about the sunset of my work, a moment when I am certain I have helped preserve the ideals I so strongly believe. That day arrived today.

My goals when I was narrowly elected to the Senate in 1984 were fairly modest: Do a good job for the people of Kentucky and convince them that, by doing so, they might rehire me for a second term. That was it. That was the plan. If you would have told me, 40 years later, that I would stand before you as the longest serving Senate leader in American history, frankly, I would have thought you had lost your mind.

I have the honor of representing Kentucky in the Senate longer than anyone else in our State's history. I just never could have imagined-- never could have imagined--that happening when I arrived here in 1984 at 42. I am filled with heartfelt gratitude and humility for the opportunity.

But now it is 2024. I am now 82. As Ecclesiastes tells us, ``To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven.''

To serve Kentucky in the Senate has been the honor of my life. To lead my Republican colleagues has been the highest privilege. But one of life's most underappreciated talents is to know when it is time to move on to life's next chapter.

So I stand before you today, Mr. President and my colleagues, to say this will be my last term as Republican leader of the Senate. I am not going anywhere any time soon. However, I will complete the job my colleagues have given me until we select a new leader in November and they take the helm next January. I will finish the job the people of Kentucky hired me to do, as well, albeit from a different seat. And I am actually looking forward to that.

So it is time for me to think about another season.

I love the Senate. It has been my life. There may be more distinguished Members of this body throughout our history, but I doubt there were any with more admiration for the Senate. After all this time, I still get a thrill walking into the Capitol and especially on this venerable floor, knowing that we--each of us--have the honor to represent our States and do the important work of our country.

But Father Time remains undefeated. I am no longer the young man sitting in the back, hoping colleagues would remember my name. It is time for the next generation of leadership.

As Henry Clay said in this very body in 1850, ``The Constitution of the United States was not made merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity--unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity.''

So time rolls on. There will be a new custodian of this great institution next year. It won't surprise you to know I intend to turn this job over to a Republican majority leader. I have full confidence in my conference to choose my replacement and lead our country forward.

There will be other times to reminisce. I am immensely proud of the accomplishments I have played some role in obtaining for the American people. Today is not the day to discuss all of that because, as I said earlier, I am not going anywhere anytime soon.

There are many challenges we must meet to deliver for the American people, and each will have my full effort and attention.

I still have enough gas in my tank to thoroughly disappoint my critics, and I intend to do so with all the enthusiasm with which they have become accustomed.

So to my colleagues, thank you for entrusting me with our success. It has been an honor to work with each of you. There will be plenty of time to express my gratitude in greater detail as I sprint toward the finish line, which is now in sight.

I yield the floor.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. President, nearly 20 years ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin described the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union as the ``greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century,'' and, for decades, he has worked incessantly to revive the repressive empire built by Stalin, including by redrawing European borders by force.

Back in 2008, he sent the Russian military to bring Georgia, a sovereign democracy, to heel. His forces occupy parts of that country right up to today.

Precisely 10 years ago today, Putin launched a military invasion into Ukraine to seize Crimea and the Donbas region.

Of course, today isn't an anniversary of a settled event in the past; it is a mile marker in a campaign of subjugation, brutality, and conquest that remains very much alive.

Over the past 10 years, Putin's invasion has grown from an initial incursion by ``little green men'' to a massive ground campaign to seize all of Ukraine. But as Russian aggression escalated, two things remained the same: first, the incredible resolve of the Ukrainian people to defend their sovereignty, and second, the tendency of Western partners capable of supporting Ukraine's defense to hesitate instead.

Think about America's own behavior back in 2014. President Obama was 6 years removed from a promise to ``reset'' relations with Russia and a little more than a year removed from

mocking his opponent on the Presidential debate stage for warning of the threat posed by Putin. As he put it smugly to our now colleague, Senator Romney, ``The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.'' That same year, then-Vice President Biden said our colleague from Utah was ``mired in a Cold War mindset.''

Well, of course, the Obama-Biden administration didn't just scoff at realism on Russia; they assiduously avoided it. When Ukraine's pro- Western democratic leaders faced an incursion by highly trained Russian troops, they begged for lethal weapons to defend their sovereign territory, but the Obama-Biden administration worried about escalation and sent nonlethal supplies like blankets and MREs instead. The next year, the West's collective failure to support Ukraine military or impose meaningful costs on Russia resulted in cease-fire agreements that at best would have frozen the conflict in place had Putin actually respected them.

Even as the next administration moved to provide lethal assistance and training for Ukraine and began the process of rebuilding our own military strength, too few European allies were taking Russian aggression or their own pledges to increase defense spending after Putin's 2014 invasion seriously enough.

Unfortunately, President Biden compounded the problems he had helped sow back when he was Vice President--from a disastrous, credibility- shredding withdrawal from Afghanistan to his constant refusal to steer European allies away from reliance on Russia, especially Russian energy. It is not a mystery why Putin was not deterred.

The weakness and indecision that defined the Obama-Biden administration's response to Putin's 2014 invasion have actually echoed in the Biden-Harris administration's response to his 2022 escalation. For months, as Russian forces amassed on Ukraine's borders, and for months, as their brutal campaign got underway, the Biden White House mostly managed to deter itself from equipping Ukraine at the speed of relevance.

This is not to say that Western allies and partners aren't making historic investments in deterring common threats. The free world is indeed finally waking up. In the last 2 years, NATO allies have spent more than $120 billion on cutting-edge U.S. weapons and capabilities, while also making historic investments in their own defense and industrial capacity.

Just think of the lessons Russian aggression is teaching about the interconnected nature of the threats we face. Consider how unwaveringly our allies in the Indo-Pacific have supported Ukraine's fight, both in word and in deed. As Taiwan's Foreign Minister put it over the weekend, on the 2-year anniversary of the 2022 escalation--here is what he said: Ukraine's resistance was ``showing us what fighting spirit is, and passing it on to Taiwan.''

Take the encouraging news just yesterday that Sweden is now finally poised to become the newest member of the transatlantic alliance. I visited Stockholm and Helsinki in a show of solidarity last March when their Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of joining NATO. There is no question that Sweden and Finland joining the most successful military alliance in human history will further contribute advanced capabilities to our collective security and make the West and America safer.

Across the world, Americans, allies, and partners have drawn sobering lessons from the latest chapter of Russian aggression in Ukraine, but we have yet to learn some of the same lessons ourselves. It is time to recognize how passivity, half-measures, and delay brought the West to this particular moment and where they will take us if we don't reject them and chart a new course. We should reflect on the mistakes of the Obama-Biden administration, its failure to respond forcefully to aggression, and we should resolve not to make the same mistakes ourselves.

For 10 years, our adversary has shown us by his actions that Russia's appetite for conquest grows with the eating. We can no longer afford to pretend otherwise.

Madam President, as Congress returns to Washington this week, the deadline to avoid a partial lapse in government funding is fast approaching.

Without action by Friday, the country would face needless disruptions to agriculture, transportation, military construction, and essential services at the VA.

So I will say at the outset what I have said every time Congress has faced this threat: Shutting down the government is harmful to the country. And it never produces positive outcomes--on policy or politics.

What is more, a shutdown this week is entirely avoidable. The Senate passed full-year appropriations for each of these important areas 4 months ago, and our House colleagues have produced full-year legislation of their own. We have the means and just enough time this week to avoid a shutdown and to make serious headway on annual appropriations. But as always, the task at hand will require that everyone rows in the same direction: toward clean appropriations and away from poison pills.

Needless to say, millions of Americans will be watching carefully to see whether and how Congress fulfills its responsibilities this week.

American farmers and ranchers, like the Kentuckians visiting Washington this week, expect us to take the challenges they face in feeding our Nation seriously. Veterans who swore to protect and defend expect us to keep our promises to care for them when they return home. In the coming days, we will need to do just that.

Mr. President, from the earliest days of Vladimir Putin's escalation in Ukraine, America's closest allies and partners have been paying close attention.

From halfway around the world in the Indo-Pacific, our friends have made it clear that in the Ukrainian people's fight, they see their own future.

From Taiwan:

Ukraine's survival is Taiwan's survival.

From Japan:

Security in Europe and security in the Indo-Pacific are

inseparable.

From Australia:

It is absolutely in the interest of every free country that

Putin's aggression fails.

But why? Why would peaceful people dare to get involved in others' fights? Why would leaders in Asia contribute billions of dollars in weapons to help Ukraine defeat Russian aggression? Why would the Prime Minister of Japan and the President of South Korea bother with long journeys to wartime Kyiv to express solidarity with Ukraine? Why not just pull up the drawbridge and keep quiet? Because our allies and partners are not naive. Because they know that unchecked aggression begets more. Because they know that victory for Russia means a green light for China. Because they know that neglecting Ukraine's fight to restore its sovereignty raises the costs of defending their own.

Our partners don't have the luxury of pretending that the world's most dangerous aggressors are someone else's problem, and neither do we.

So, today, it is no exaggeration to say that the eyes of the world are on the U.S. Senate. Our allies and partners are hoping that the indispensable nation--the leader of the free world--has the resolve to continue, and our adversaries are hoping for something quite different. Friends and foes alike pay close attention to what we say here and to how we vote because American leadership matters, and it is in question.

But let's be absolutely clear. The United States didn't give our ``greatest generation'' to the fight against Nazi Germany or commit half a century of focus and resources to defeating Soviet communism just out of a sense of altruism, and we aren't helping partners resist authoritarian aggression today out of some warm and fuzzy sense of charity. We haven't equipped the brave people of Ukraine, Israel, or Taiwan with lethal capabilities in order to win philanthropic accolades. We are not urgently strengthening defenses in the Indo- Pacific because it feels good. We don't wield American strength frivolously. We do it because it is in our own interest. We equip our friends to face our shared adversaries so we are less likely to have to spend American lives to defeat them.

For years, I have warned about the growing threats to America's national security and the growing coordination among our adversaries.

And, for years, I have worked to steer greater investments toward the hard power needed to deter them.

The Russian despot trying to conquer Ukraine also wants to see America weakened.

The Chinese autocrat hoping to subjugate Taiwan also wants to consign American leadership to history.

The Iranian regime that equips the slaughter of Israel's Jews and a terrorist war on international commerce also wants to shatter our influence in the region and spill American blood in the process.

They tell us by their actions. Pretending not to hear them is not an option. Delaying until the costs in American lives and treasure rise immeasurably is not an option. The time to stand up to these gathering threats is right now.

Every night, millions of Americans sleep in peace because brave men and women continue to answer the call to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces. Every day, millions of Americans turn for their livelihood to an economic order built and underwritten by American leadership. And every time that peace and prosperity are threatened, we stand with allies and partners who trust in the righteousness of that leadership and the credibility of our commitments.

Today, the future of the world I have just described is in question. The endurance of an order in which American support is craved and American strength is feared is in doubt. And we, the United States of America, have the most to lose.

Ever since we came to the aid of our allies 80 years ago, America has been an inseparable partner in the security of Europe, not out of charity but because our own security and prosperity is tied to it.

Ever since we were attacked in 1941, America has helped guarantee stability and free commerce in the Indo-Pacific, not as a moral gesture but because we have core interests of our own in this critical part of the world.

Ever since the establishment of the modern Jewish State of Israel in 1948, America has stood by her, not out of generosity but because of the enduring values and interests we share: in security, in democracy, and in peace.

I know it has become quite fashionable in some circles to disregard the global interests we have as a global power, to bemoan the responsibilities of global leadership, to lament the commitment that has underpinned the longest drought of great power conflict in human history. This is idle work for idle minds, and it has no place in the U.S. Senate.

In this Chamber, we must face the world as it is. We must reject the dimmest and most shortsighted views of our obligations and grapple instead with actual problems, as they come, in the harsh light of day.

And, today, the questions facing this body are quite simple. Will we give those who wish us harm more reason to question our resolve? Or will we recommit to exercising American strength?

Will we give those who crave our leadership more reason to wonder if it is in decline? Or will we invest in the credibility that underpins our entire way of life?

I cannot answer these questions for any one of my colleagues, but none of us can afford to get them wrong.

Mr. President, when the Biden administration released its request for supplemental appropriations in October, I said the Senate would need to do its own work to meet the demonstrated needs of our national security.

The President's decisions over the past 3 years have directly contributed to the web of serious security challenges demanding the Senate's attention--from an embarrassing retreat from Afghanistan that emboldened terrorists and shredded credibility with our allies, to a halting response to Russian escalation that kept lethal capabilities off the frontlines of Ukraine's defense, to an Iran policy that tried trading deterrence for detente.

The Senate can and will continue to urge the Commander in Chief to do the right thing, but we also have a responsibility of our own to provide for the common defense and equip the next Commander in Chief with the tools to exercise American strength.

That responsibility is in front of us right now, and addressing national security challenges with serious legislation starts with recognizing some pretty basic realities about how the world works:

First, America has global interests and global responsibilities, and to the extent the President has neglected them, the Senate ignores them at the Nation's peril.

Second, alliances and partnerships are essential to advancing our interests. They lower the costs of keeping the peace, reduce the direct risks to America, and facilitate the commerce that drives our economy. But these alliances and partnerships rely on American leadership and American credibility.

Finally, there is a growing list of adversaries who wish us harm. There is growing evidence that they are working together, and there is no doubt that they are emboldened by American weakness.

These are not opinions. They are plainly observable facts borne out by history. Denying them does a disservice to the American people, and it is impossible to engage productively on decisions about U.S. national security without acknowledging them.

So a great number of our colleagues have worked diligently on legislation that confronts Russian aggression against the West, Iran- backed terror against Israel and U.S. forces, and the rise of an aggressive China head-on. The product before the Senate resolves the significant shortcomings of the President's request.

For example, thanks to Senate Republicans, it requires the Commander in Chief to submit a strategy that identifies the specific objectives, requirements, and metrics from our assistance to Ukraine. It shifts $4 billion away from direct budget support to Kyiv into security investments instead. And it fully funds the special inspector general for Ukraine created by the NDAA last year, further expanding already unprecedented visibility into how U.S. assistance is actually being used.

The legislation also designates $9 billion above the President's request for U.S. defense needs, including $2.4 billion for ongoing operations against Iran-backed terrorists in the Middle East. And, thanks to Republican efforts, it imposes strict new oversight measures on humanitarian assistance and ensures that not a single penny of U.S. taxpayer funds goes to the U.N. agency whose employees stoke hatred in Gaza and actually participated in the slaughter of Jews in Israel.

Underneath these essential provisions sit historic and urgent investments in American hard power, which is critical to our national defense.

Our allies and partners in Ukraine and Israel are fighting our shared adversaries, degrading their military capacity, and working to restore deterrence. Our friends in the Pacific are working to deter yet another one.

Together, they are facing the raw end of authoritarian aggression and terrorist savagery. Our colleagues have heard me say this before: American assistance to these efforts is not charity. It is an investment in cold, hard U.S. interests.

This is not a rhetorical device. It is not referring to some vague lines of efforts from which America expects to receive some trickle- down benefit. I mean quite literally spending tens of billions of dollars here in America, upgrading our capabilities, creating American manufacturing jobs, and expanding our defense industrial capacity to help us better compete with advanced adversaries.

Of just the funds this supplemental designates to support Ukrainian's defense, $19.85 billion of it will be spent right here in America on replenishing our own arsenal. Another $3.5 billion will be spent-- again, here in America--to expand our industrial base's capacity to produce artillery and air-defense and long-range weapons. And $15.4 billion will be spent--one more time, here in America--on weapons for Ukraine to continue degrading the military strength of a major U.S. adversary.

These investments create capacity that we, the United States, need for serious competition with our adversaries.

Of course, this doesn't even account for the massive streams of funding our allies and partners around the world are investing in American capabilities themselves, including more than $120 billion and counting from NATO allies.

Overall, even accounting for direct assistance sent to allies like Israel, more than 75 percent of this legislation is bound for investments right here in America, and more than 60 percent of it goes to the defense industrial base, where increasing capacity is a direct investment in long-term strength abroad and prosperity here at home.

This is about rebuilding the arsenal of democracy and demonstrating to our allies and adversaries alike that we are serious about exercising American strength.

I can present these facts as frequently as necessary. It is what I have been doing quite literally for years.

Every one of our colleagues is capable of understanding that security assistance appropriated in support of Ukraine is money invested right here in America. Every one of our colleagues is capable of understanding that the investments this legislation makes in expanding production capacity--from artillery rounds to rocket motors, to submarines--are investments in readiness for long-term competition with China, a competition America cannot afford to lose.

Every single one of us knows what is at stake here, and it is time for every one of us to deal with it head-on.

Mr. President, 4 months ago, Senate Republicans asked our colleague from Oklahoma Senator Lankford to take on a pretty tall order: negotiate serious border security policy with an administration that had shown no interest in actually securing the border. He put in an enormous amount of work, and I am very grateful for the persistence he has shown over many nights, weekends, and a few holidays.

The product he was able to secure earned the endorsement of the National Border Patrol Council, a sign that you are pointing in the right direction. But as our colleagues recognize, the agreement does not have a path to become law. The border crisis that President Biden invited through his rhetoric and his willful neglect will continue to challenge the brave men and women of the CPB and ICE and impact communities across the country, and its effects will follow his legacy forever.

I wish I could say that a record-setting border crisis was the only challenge that the President's failures have laid before us, but our colleagues know as well as I do that that isn't the case. There have always been aggressive forces seeking to harm America and to challenge our interests. The very existence of a Western order in which sovereign nations choose their own leaders has always been an affront to repressive and aggressive regimes around the world.

But even in the face of serious threats, for large portions of modern history, the United States has dictated the terms of engagement. For decades, the world's foremost superpower has been the one doing the deterring. Not anymore. It is no longer a settled question that America will meet aggression with overwhelming force or even that we will back our allies 100 percent.

Take this headline about President Biden's response to the attack that killed three U.S. soldiers last month:

U.S. Strikes Steer Clear of Iran's Red Lines.

Here is the subhead of another one:

U.S. officials acknowledge that the militias targeted still

retain the majority of their capability to carry out future

attacks.

Oh, here is one more:

Pentagon says it's not planning for a long-term campaign

[against Iran's proxies] in Iraq and Syria.

So, Mr. President, what can the American people--and the entire world--gather about the Biden administration's approach to the threats that we face?

First, we know that Iran is deterring America, not the other way around.

Second, we know that the Commander in Chief has not yet directed the strongest military in the world even to exercise sufficient force against expendable proxy terrorists, let alone their Iranian sponsors.

Finally, we know that the Biden administration lacks the resolve to defeat those who spill American blood.

The Pentagon conceded this week they were not aware that even a single IRGC officer had been eliminated by their response. Yet administration officials say this is what sending a message of deterrence looks like.

Let's be honest here. Do our allies see in this behavior an America that is willing to impose decisive costs on our adversaries? Do our adversaries, in turn, see any reason to start changing their calculus?

In the Middle East, we already know the answer. Since the President's telegraphed ``response'' to the deadly Tower 22 attack, Iran-backed terrorists have already launched more attacks--from Iraq and Syria to the Red Sea. Iran and its proxies are undeterred.

But beyond the region, is there any reason to expect that the President's conduct of foreign policy is causing Putin or Xi to think again? Not a chance. No doubt, the Commander in Chief's halting response to Tehran's aggression emboldens Moscow. Russian forces, like Iran and its proxies, were direct beneficiaries of President Biden's hesitation and self-deterrence as they escalated their invasion of Ukraine.

Beijing--after it watched us abandon allies in Afghanistan and second-guess Israel's response to terrorism--has a reason to doubt that the United States is well-positioned to rally allies and partners to resist aggression in the Indo-Pacific. If America fails to stand with our partners on the frontlines of Europe and the Middle East, we will shred our credibility with friends in the Indo-Pacific.

So today's strategic competition is more perilous. Support for our allies is more tenuous. And the security of U.S. personnel and interests is more questionable than it was 3 years ago.

These are the circumstances in which the Senate must consider some weighty responsibilities of our own: to invest in the hard power that the President instinctively shies away from exercising, to commit to allies that fear being abandoned, and to address the requirements of long-term competition that becomes more difficult the longer America neglects its leading role.