Floor Statements

Madam President, from coast to coast, American families are facing an explosion of violent crime on their streets and in their neighborhoods. The year 2020 saw homicides skyrocket nationwide--the sharpest 1-year increase in decades--and 2021 is already shaping up to be even worse.

Last year, Seattle saw a 61-percent increase in murders citywide. In 2020, Minneapolis saw homicides hit levels not seen since the 1990s, and, so far, 2021 is about doubling last year's pace. Here in Washington, DC, 2020 saw homicides hit a 16-year high, and, again, 2021 is already on an even worse trajectory. The situation is devolving all across the country. In my hometown of Louisville, as one report put it: ``[T]he number of slayings in 2020 dwarf[ed] anything Louisville has seen--obliterating the previous record.''

Crime and delinquency have many causes. In some ways, the pandemic likely contributed, but it is impossible to ignore that these terrible trends are coming precisely as so-called ``progressives'' have decided it is time to denounce and defund local law enforcement. Seattle, for example, cut police funding by 20 percent. Minneapolis defunded cops by millions of dollars. The District of Columbia's city council approved $15 million in cuts. These boneheaded decisions are the direct result of an anti-law enforcement fad that has swept through the political left like a wildfire.

Perhaps just as important as these funding cuts is the wave of hostile sentiment that has come with them. Harvard scholars have found that, after high-profile incidents reduce the trust that the public and politicians put in the police, the cities in question receive less active policing and, subsequently, see an increase in crime, including homicides.

In other words, in the wake of terrible incidents like we saw last summer, local leaders should look for ways to build bridges and rebuild trust between the vast majority of brave and honorable officers and their communities.

Oh, no. Instead, from city councils to the Halls of Congress, many on the far left decided to crank the knob all the way up on anti-cop rhetoric all across the board:

Not only do we need to disinvest from police but we need to

completely dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department.

Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally

racist . . . No more policing, incarceration, and

militarization.

Incredulous people asked whether this nonsense was ever meant seriously.

Helpfully, one Member of Congress clarified: ``Defunding police means defunding police.''

That is a clarifying comment.

A small set of politicians may see selfish opportunities for fame or fundraising if they defame and defund the police, but American families are paying a deadly price.

Defunding the police isn't just a terrible idea for overall public safety; it is also a uniquely awful strategy for racial justice. One study recently confirmed: ``Larger police forces save lives, and the lives saved are disproportionately Black lives.''

So, look. I am not sure exactly how the rantings of far-left Twitter about crime and policing became official Democratic Party dogma in so many places across America. What I do know is that ordinary Americans cannot bear much more of this, and that goes double for the most vulnerable neighborhoods.

Madam President, on another matter, last week, the Senate took up sweeping legislation that touches on big issues that span many committees--from economic policy to national security, to scientific research, and beyond.

Eighty-six Senators voted to proceed to this debate, me included. That wasn't because the legislation was ready to go. It happened because there is broad bipartisan agreement that America needs to upgrade our competitiveness with China. There was broad agreement that this subject deserved a robust debate and amendment process.

Since then we have voted on some amendments, but as of this moment, the Senate's bipartisan work is simply not completed.

The Democratic leader indicated that if the chairman and ranking members worked together, if committees put their heads together, their work would get consideration out here on the floor.

Well, Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo of the Finance Committee have a bipartisan provision that is ready to go. They have already done the hard work. They have reached a solution, but thus far the Democratic leader has refused to include it in his substitute and has not allowed the Senate to vote on it separately.

These are long-term issues we are considering. We need to get this right. And during the time this legislation has been on the floor, we have had entire days come and go without any votes at all on the bill.

In several instances, the Democratic leader chose to pivot away from this legislation and devote floor time to nominations.

So there is no excuse for shutting off debate prematurely before the Senate has been able to have its say.

So we will have to see how today unfolds, what additional amendments the Democratic leader lets the Senate consider, how open a process he permits.

Republicans don't want some big fight over this. We would like to see an outcome--a bipartisan outcome. Even now, discussions are continuing behind the scenes.

But the Democratic leader should not try to force a cloture vote prematurely to stifle the Senate before Members are satisfied that our work is finished.

There is nothing unusual about a minority party denying cloture to secure more amendment votes. I have been here a while. This happens all the time.

Six years ago, even after about two dozen amendment votes, Democrats blocked cloture on a Keystone Pipeline bill until the Senate took a dozen more amendment votes on top of that.

Just last year, even as the economy was tanking around us, the Democratic leader blocked cloture multiple times on the CARES Act-- emergency legislation. Why? He wanted more changes.

But I hope it doesn't come to that today. I hope the Democratic leader lets the Senate be the Senate so we can finish this important legislation.

Madam President, now one final matter. As my colleagues know, I have been clear and unflinching in my own statements about January 6. But as I have also repeated, there is no new fact about that day we need the Democrats' extraneous Commission to uncover.

The Department of Justice is deep into a massive criminal investigation. Four hundred and forty-plus people have already been arrested. Hundreds--hundreds--have been charged. Even more arrests are said to be planned. And the Attorney General indicates this investigation will remain a top focus. Multiple Senate committees are conducting their own bipartisan inquiries. And, obviously, the role of the former President has already been litigated exhaustively-- exhaustively--in the high-profile impeachment trial we had right here in the Senate several months ago.

I do not believe the additional extraneous Commission that Democratic leaders want would uncover crucial new facts or promote healing. Frankly, I do not believe it is even designed to do that.

That is why the Speaker's first draft began with a laughably rigged and partisan starting point and why the current language would still lock in significant unfairness under the hood.

So I will continue to support the real, serious work of our criminal justice system and our own Senate committees, and I will continue to urge my colleagues to oppose this extraneous layer when the time comes for the Senate to vote.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I was saddened to learn this morning that our friend and former colleague, Senator John Warner, passed away last night.

By the time I arrived in the Senate, John was already churning a long wake as one of this body's foremost voices on national defense. As a wartime veteran of the Navy and Marine Corps, he was deeply devoted to the men and women who serve in uniform.

As a proud Virginian, John took seriously his Commonwealth's role as host to massive portions of America's military might, including the largest naval base in the world.

As a former Secretary of the Navy, he brought Pentagon clout and technical chops that would help the Senate play a hugely consequential role in defense policy.

John's career was capped, of course, by years as chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. But John made an even wider impact. My predecessor as chairman of the Rules Committee was a principled patriot across the board.

He was also a truly old-school Virginia gentleman. John knew a thing or two about horseracing, for example, and that is high praise coming from a Kentuckian to a non-Kentuckian.

Members on both sides of the aisle looked to John as a trusted mentor and friend. Our thoughts today are especially with our current colleagues from Virginia. So many Senators, past and present, knew John very well.

Most of all, we are thinking today of his wife Jeanne; his children, Virginia, John, and Mary; and the entire Warner family. The Senate will keep them all in our prayers in the days ahead.

On a completely different matter, today two Senate committees will consider and vote on two very different pieces of legislation.

Over in the Russell Building, the Environment and Public Works Committee just approved a bipartisan bill, led by Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito, to invest in better roads and bridges for the American people.

This would be the first major action on surface transportation since the FAST Act 6 years ago. It would raise the baseline funding for roads and bridges to an alltime high. And, as expected, our colleagues just reported this bill out unanimously, 20 to 0. That is legislating done right. Our colleagues are modeling the approach that would let Congress build a successful, big-picture infrastructure bill later this year.

Meanwhile, in the Hart Building, the Finance Committee will spend its afternoon marking up a leftwing, partisan bill written fully within the spirit of the Green New Deal: maximum pain for working American families in exchange for minimal--minimal--environmental gain.

Under the guise of Clean Energy for America, Chairman Wyden is leading the charge against the most reliable and affordable ways to power our country.

The legislation he has drafted is full of the sort of policies that would increase the price of gas at the pump, hike the tax burden on independent American producers, of course, killing jobs, discourage the industry-led innovations that have already been reducing emissions without hurting workers, and dragging the United States away from energy independence back toward reliance on imports from places like Russia, Venezuela, and the Middle East.

In exchange, the bill would have ordinary Americans subsidize the lifestyle preferences of wealthy people in places like New York and San Francisco.

So one committee unanimously approved a smart, targeted, bipartisan approach to key infrastructure projects that America needs, and another will consider a partisan descendent of the Green New Deal that would raise taxes, probably raise gas prices, and leave us with a less and less reliable electricity grid.

Really, this contrast is a fork in the road that the Biden administration is facing writ large. Which route to take; a lonely road leading to the far left versus a mainstream, bipartisan road leading straight ahead toward practical policies that make American lives actually better?

The Senate knows how to walk that road. This last highway bill passed the Senate with 83 votes. Just last month, we passed a water infrastructure bill with 89 votes.

If President Biden wants to secure lasting solutions, build a lasting legacy, and improve the lives of Americans in practical ways, he has the map in hand. For the sake of the country, let's hope he and his party decide to follow it.

Now, Mr. President, on a related matter, the Democrats' far-left turn thus far has affected the entire U.S. economy, and it is hitting working families right where it hurts.

In January, President Biden inherited safe and effective vaccines. He inherited a reopening economy and a country that was sitting on more pent-up savings than anything economists had seen in living memory. That was the condition of the country when the President took office.

The Democrats have already dreamt up a massive, record-shattering Washington spending spree. Like one House Democrat admitted way back at the start of the pandemic, liberals saw the crisis as ``a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.''

The Democrats had already decided to run up the American people's credit cards no matter what. Their first purchase was a $1.9 trillion excuse for a COVID bill that the Democrats rammed through on a party- line vote. Even liberal economists and even former advisers to Presidents Clinton and Obama cautioned that the Democrats' bill was way larger than the remaining hole in our economy, badly tailored, and might well cause inflation.

So everyone, from Republicans to liberal economists, warned that the Democrats' bad bill could easily cause inflation that would hurt ordinary American families. Well, look where we are today. Where are we today? We just got the most dramatic monthly inflation report in over a decade. Ask any working family about gas prices, food prices, home prices, lumber prices, used car prices. One survey just found that more than 80 percent of American families are literally tightening their household budgets because of the threat of inflation.

Yet the problem with the Democrats' product wasn't just how much credit and borrowed money it flooded into the economy; the problem was also how little of substance American families got for the money. Larry Summers, former President Clinton's Treasury Secretary, put it this way--and this is the Larry Summers who also had a role in the Obama administration.

Here is what he said:

What's striking about [that bill, the COVID bill] is that

all of the trillions of dollars--all of it--does not include

a penny directed at ``building back better.''

He continued:

It transfers to state and local governments that don't have

any new budget problem. . . . It's paying people who have

been unemployed more in unemployment insurance than they

earned when they were working. It's giving checks to families

in the 90th percentile of income distribution.

That is from Larry Summers. He is a Democrat. He is a friend of the administration's.

The Democrats' hard-left turn has already hurt our economy, but they still seem to think that this massive bill should only actually just be the appetizer. The administration has proposed a total of about $7 trillion of spending in its first few months in office. That absurdly overpriced COVID package would actually be the cheapest of the three massive bills the Democrats actually want to pass.

For some perspective, about $7 trillion is considerably more money in inflation-adjusted terms than America spent in fighting and winning World War II. The Biden administration wants to tax, borrow, and print more money than America spent on World War II to finance a grab bag of miscellaneous liberal programs that would further jack up prices on the things families actually need to buy. It took less money to win a global war than these Democrats want to spend on a hodgepodge of stuff--stuff like electric cars and welfare programs. This is $7 trillion of mediocre socialism and liberal social engineering. No serious expert thinks this is what our economy actually needs. No wonder Larry Summers says he is concerned that these proposals are ``substantially excessive . . . way overdoing the requisite response.''

The sooner this administration can get the memo, the more bipartisan progress we will be able to make, and the better off working families will be.

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

Mr. President, the world is relieved that Hamas has stopped firing rockets at Israel's cities and, for the moment, the fighting has stopped.

Israel's response to Hamas's terrorism was entirely justified. It was targeted, restrained, and extraordinarily precise. So it was disappointing to see disproportionate blame heaped upon Israel, the victim, and disproportionate pressure put on Israel's democratic, coalition government to spearhead the cease-fire with the aggressors.

Israel's actions appear to have helped restore some measure of deterrence and damaged Hamas's ability to wage terror, but we have every reason to expect the terrorist commanders will seek to rebuild their arsenal with assistance from their sponsors in Tehran.

The Biden administration must not pursue Iran policies that make this process even easier. We should not lift terrorism and missile sanctions just to leap back into discussions over the flawed Obama-era nuclear deal. Already, this administration removed terrorism sanctions on Iran's Houthi proxies in Yemen, hoping to encourage negotiations. Instead, the Houthis have escalated their offensive, rejected diplomacy, and actually fired into Saudi Arabia. Likewise, giving Iran relief from sanctions will just yield more support for terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Now, I am encouraged that the President has committed to refilling Israel's Iron Dome stockpiles. I hope his budget proposal coming this Friday will make room for increased military assistance to Israel and reflect the fact that America's interests are not served by cutting our own defense budget.

Sadly, here in Congress, more and more Democrats are falling under the anti-Israel influence of the farthest left branch. From the junior Senator from Vermont, we have a resolution to block a routine sale of precision-guided munitions that would make it harder for Israel to avoid civilian casualties as it defends itself; from a Congresswoman from New York, the accusation that Israel is an ``apartheid state.''

Historically, support for Israel has been bipartisan. During the last major flare-up with Hamas back in 2014, when hundreds of rockets were fired at Israel, the Senate passed a resolution reaffirming our support for Israel and making clear Hamas's responsibility for the violence, and we did it by unanimous consent.

Back in 2019, after another rocket attack, the Democratic leader insisted, ``No government can allow its civilians to be subject to rocket attack.'' He said he stood ``shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of Israel . . . and doing what they must do to defend their homeland.''

That was true in 2019. Well, this month's attacks involved not hundreds but literally thousands of rockets. Yet, instead of vocal support for Israel, 29 Senate Democrats pressured Israel's coalition government to stop defending itself. One of our colleagues who ran for President said the United States helping our ally means ``supplying weapons to kill children.'' Their base is energized. An open letter from hundreds of former Democratic Party and campaign staffers has urged President Biden to be harder on Israel. Apparently, a lot can change in just 2 years.

Helping Israel defend itself against terrorists shouldn't be a divisive issue. The Senate should vote on Senator Sanders' resolution and reject it overwhelmingly.

Mr. President, now on a related matter, the despicable, age-old specter of anti-Semitism continues to rear its head, even here in our country.

Last week, authorities from New York to Los Angeles were investigating assaults on Jewish people. According to press reports, in New York City, one Jewish man was kicked, punched, and sprayed with chemicals by five or six men yelling anti-Sematic things. That happened, by the way, right in Times Square. A synagogue in Arizona was vandalized. So was another in Illinois. A Jewish family visiting South Florida had a car pull up next to them and multiple occupants begin screaming: ``Free Palestine . . . die, Jew.'' That is what he got for wearing his yarmulke in public.

The head of the Anti-Defamation League said:

We are tracking acts of harassment, vandalism, and violence

as well as a torrent of online abuse . . . it's happening all

around the world.

This garbage--this garbage didn't begin a few weeks ago. It isn't a response to geopolitics. This hatred long predates the recent fighting between Israel and Hamas, and it hasn't gone anywhere since the cease- fire.

This spring, in the shadow of this Capitol Building, a U.S. Capitol Police officer was killed in broad daylight by an unbalanced follower of the Nation of Islam, the extremist group led by the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.

This trash should be the easiest thing in the world for every person in a leadership position to call out. But perhaps--perhaps--because Israel has become a strangely controversial issue on the far left, the condemnations do not seem to be flowing quite as easily and unequivocally as they should.

Yesterday, a Democratic Congressman from Minnesota tweeted this:

I'll say the quiet part out loud. It's time for

``progressives'' to start condemning anti-Semitism and

violent attacks on Jewish people with the same intention and

vigor demonstrated in other areas of activism. The silence

has been deafening.

I couldn't say it better myself.

So Senator Cotton and I are introducing new legislation to fight anti-Semitism. Our bill will support State and local law enforcement and ensure the bigoted thugs who are attacking Jewish Americans face the full force of our justice system.

I am proud to be cosponsoring this legislation, although I regret that in the year of 2021, it remains, unfortunately, necessary. I hope every one of our colleagues will join Senator Cotton and myself.

Mr. President, now on one final matter, the President's decision to retreat from Afghanistan is not clear-eyed or strategic; it is dangerous, wishful thinking.

As discussions with the administration are making clear, this decision is not underpinned by a coherent plan to mitigate the geopolitical and humanitarian risks that our departure will create.

When we are gone, after we leave, there is every reason to believe al-Qaida will regroup in its historic safe haven. Giving up the high ground while the enemy is still on the battlefield isn't a strategic move. Neither is banking on conducting so-called ``over the horizon'' counterterrorism missions without presence on the ground. If we have learned anything in the fight against terrorists, it is the importance of reliable access and local partnerships. Give up the former, and we likely lose the latter.

The military currently flies both reconnaissance and strike missions against terrorists from within Afghanistan. The country is not easy to get to. Its immediate neighbors are Iran, Pakistan, and Russian- influenced Central Asian nations. They aren't exactly likely to let us base significant counterterrorism units in their countries. So where will we be basing these forces? How will we maintain sorties from thousands of miles away? How many forces will be required to secure our Embassy? If a pro-Taliban mob threatens to overrun it, what will we do to protect it? Where will a quick-reaction force be based if not in Afghanistan? Will it be quick if its response time goes from minutes to hours? We learned from Benghazi the so-called tyranny of distance. If the Taliban takes Kabul, will the Biden administration recognize it as the legitimate government of Afghanistan? Will we shutter our Embassy and our aid programs? The reality is, they don't know. They can't say. There is no plan

It is not courageous to abandon our allies. That is a view many Democrats said they held when the last President considered withdrawing from Syria and Afghanistan. But now, as Afghans, especially women and girls, face even worse dangers, many Democrats have suddenly become much less vocal. The horrific--horrific--reports of the Taliban beginning to reimpose their version of sharia law are just a taste of the catastrophes facing our friends in Afghanistan who have borne the brunt of the fight. Human rights. Women's rights. Counterterrorism refugee flows. As far as I can tell, the administration has no plan.

But the world is watching--allies and adversaries. Democrats can dress up this decision in flowery language, but the world will see it for what it is: retreating from the fight, abandoning our partners.

This is the President's decision. He chose precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Unbelievably, he even chose the anniversary of September 11 as the deadline. As his team belatedly confronts him with the risks and the consequences of this decision, I hope the President will think again and reconsider.

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

Madam President, this week, the National Guard is departing what has been a months-long presence here at the Capitol. Aspects of the Guards' presence here were not fleshed out as clearly or coherently as either Congress or the servicemembers deserved, and Members of Congress will continue to discuss and debate whether it is appropriate for uniformed military personnel to play an ongoing role in policing the U.S. Capitol going forward.

But where Senators are absolutely, 100 percent united is in our great admiration and appreciation of the individual men and women who volunteered to serve in the National Guard, who have put on the uniform, and whose orders brought them here to the Capitol Complex.

It was my particular honor to get to meet and talk with several groups of the remarkable men and women of the Kentucky National Guard during this period.

Thank you, all, from all 50 States, for your patriotism and for your service.

On a completely different matter, when President Biden's nominees have been qualified and mainstream, they received bipartisan cooperation. But the President's choice to head a key Division at the Department of Justice as an Assistant Attorney General failed to even advance out of the committee.

The Democratic leader had to reach into the Judiciary Committee and rescue the nomination of Kristen Clarke. Our colleagues on the committee did not give her a favorable recommendation. That is because of a long history of statements that placed the nominee on, frankly, the far-left fringe of the political spectrum.

If our Democratic colleagues have their way, a couple of days from now, the American people will have an Assistant Attorney General who argued publicly just last year that ``we must invest less in police.'' She used that exact phrase three times in one essay.

Violent crimes shot up dramatically in 2020. One survey of 30-plus major American cities found that the murder rate jumped 30 percent last year alone. Other estimates have found even larger increases. Experts say 2020 saw the largest 1-year rise in homicides that America has ever seen as far back as we have recorded these kinds of statistics.

Early data from this year suggests that 2021 may even be worse, but, apparently, the President's response to this violent crimewave is to have a proponent of defunding the police help run the Department of Justice.

Adequate policing is not an enemy of civil rights. Among other things, a recent study by multiple university professors confirmed that more cops lead to fewer murders:

Larger police forces save lives, and the lives saved are

disproportionately Black lives.

Police funding isn't the only important issue where the nominee's judgment has missed the mark.

Three years ago, when the then-Attorney General was standing up a task force on religious liberty, Ms. Clarke said this was designed ``to make it easier for people to use religion to mask their discriminatory goals''--an incredibly out-of-touch, far-left statement.

Finally, we are currently watching an alarming spike in anti-Semitic attacks and violence across our country. I introduced new legislation on Friday, with Senator Cotton, to confront anti-Semitism head-on, but as a Harvard undergraduate, Ms. Clarke invited, welcomed, introduced, and then defended a famously anti-Semitic guest speaker who had authored a book literally entitled--now listen to this--``The Jewish Onslaught.''

The nominee has stated recently that she regrets that decision. Goodness, I would certainly hope so.

Yet she also claims that her op-ed from just last year, which asserted three times--three times--that we must invest less in police, was not actually suggesting that we invest less in police.

This is not the right nominee for a crucial post at a crucial time so I would urge colleagues to vote no this week.

Now, Madam President, on another matter, last week, a bipartisan majority of Senators voted to proceed to floor debate about our Nation's long-term competition with China.

There is no disagreement that the People's Republic's strategic capabilities and its growing influence beyond the Indo-Pacific pose a singular challenge to American strength and security. There is robust debate about the right ways to address this challenge.

The legislation before us arrived on the floor incomplete, and it spans a number of huge issues that occupy multiple committees' jurisdictions. It is a prime example of a bill that needs a thorough, bipartisan amendment process here in the Senate. So far, we have had a few votes on important amendments. There are a lot more that need consideration, and we should not close debate on this bill until those amendments are addressed.

Unfortunately, during one important vote last week, our Democratic colleagues sent a telling signal. They voted down Ranking Member Inhofe and Vice Chairman Shelby's amendment to make sure that the real backbone of our competition with China--the resources we allocate to our Armed Forces and national defense--was not neglected.

Make no mistake, supply chains, espionage, intellectual property-- those are all important topics, but all the policy tweaks in the world would not amount to much help if we lose our military edge with respect to China. Soft power isn't much good without the hard power to back it up.

The Chinese Communist Party appears to understand this quite clearly. According to one watchdog, it has increased military investment by 76 percent over the last decade. China has increased its military spending by 76 percent over the last decade. The same data show that our own U.S. defense spending fell 10 percent over that period, thanks to the approach of the last Democratic administration, and now President Biden has signaled that he wants to cut defense spending after inflation-- exactly the wrong approach.

No serious strategy for our competition with massive foreign powers could leave the U.S. Armed Forces, their tools, and their resources out of the conversation in a meaningful way. I hope and expect we will have a number of further votes on important amendments before there would be any attempt to shut off debate on this wide-ranging measure.