Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, in 1948, President Truman recognized the State of Israel on behalf of the United States. He clearly called for the world ``to accord the State of Israel the right of self-defense.''

In the decades since, American leaders have stood by Israel. Our support has been reliable, spanning Presidential administrations and congressional terms. It has been bipartisan. President Eisenhower continued President Truman's promise to stand with Israel, establishing a bipartisan tradition cemented by Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan, from Clinton to Trump.

In America, voters regularly select new parties to lead our country. Administrations come and go. Congresses come and go. That volatility makes it all the more profound that we have always kept our solemn promise to stand with our allies.

It has now been 75 years since President Truman made this vow. For those many decades, Israel's position has always been and will be to live peacefully in its ancestral land alongside its Arab and largely Muslim neighbors.

Slowly, often grudgingly, other nations in that region have come around to that position.

Egypt agreed to peace with Israel in 1979. Jordan has been a longtime U.S. partner and has lived in peace with Israel since 1994. Recently, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain agreed to partnership with Israel in the Abraham Accords.

One regime that has continually rejected the international consensus about Israel is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Three decades into the 21st century, Iran and its proxies continue to pursue Israel's absolute annihilation. Coexistence has never been the policy of Iran or its terrorist proxy group Hamas.

Disturbingly, we find adherents of that view here at home. Last week in Michigan, protesters chanted ``Death to Israel'' and ``Death to America,'' rejecting either country's right to even exist. This is one example of the rise of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incidents we have seen since October 7. They show us what our Jewish friends and allies fight against every day.

Of course, the protests and chants remind us of a pivotal event. Yesterday, we marked the 6-month anniversary of the October 7 attacks. Hamas, backed by Iran, demonstrated both its goal--the annihilation of Israel--and its strategy--the murder and hostage-taking of civilians.

October 7 was one of the worst attacks on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. It was a nightmare scenario that eight decades of Israeli citizens have had to guard against. In light of those atrocities, our task is clear: We need to reaffirm Israel's right to self-defense.

Since October 7, Hamas has continued to pursue its goal by the same strategies. It single-mindedly seeks to wipe Israel off the map and does not care how many innocent people are lost on the way, how many families are burned alive. Hamas's entire operation is a violation of international law. By contrast, Israel has essentially been striving to administer civilian aid while uprooting terrorists who hide behind those civilians--all in dense urban settings.

International friends and allies can and should give advice and counsel to each other on issues of mutual security and diplomacy. That has always been the practice between Israel and the United States. On the other hand, it is wrong to make demands of an ally and to suggest that vital aid to them will be withheld unless those demands are met. This is especially true when those conditions are ones which we ourselves could never accept.

War is always a tragedy. On top of that, it also carries accidental sorrows in its wake. The killing of seven World Central Kitchen aid workers was an avoidable and unmitigated tragedy. Our hearts break for their loved ones, their colleagues, and others delivering humanitarian assistance around the world.

And this is personal to me. Teams from World Central Kitchen have come to the aid of my State of Mississippi. World Central Kitchen was there on the ground during the recent Jackson water crisis. They answered the call in the wake of the 2023 tornadoes. I am an advocate and friend of Jose Andres. I have worn the ``World Central Kitchen'' cap in Poland when I spent time serving meals to refugees from the brutal Russian invasion.

I believe that Israel takes the workers' deaths seriously too. The Israeli Defense Forces assumed responsibility right away. Its leaders promptly launched an investigation. Since then, the Israeli Government has said that the military committed ``serious violations'' of protocol. They have admitted this about themselves. They fired two officers and disciplined three others for mishandling information and breaking the Israeli Defense Forces' rules of engagement.

That is more than the Biden administration can say about themselves. In the chaos of our disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, our military shelled a car in Kabul. Leaders initially feared the vehicle carried explosives destined for American servicemembers, but it turned out to be a civilian vehicle, and 10 innocent people, including 7 children, died at our hands. The Biden administration took far longer than Israel to own up to that mistake. I am glad our country did eventually acknowledge our fault.

This shows that the free world holds ourselves to exacting standards of care for the innocent caught in harm's way--including the thousands who have died in Gaza since October 7.

Time and again, Israeli combatants have published warnings before taking a building. They regularly give evacuation notices to civilians. In so protecting the innocent, they risk giving the enemy a heads-up, but they do this. Yet it has become fashionable to hold Israel to unachievable standards, benchmarks to which we do not hold ourselves or any other ally.

Hamas does not place itself under such handicaps. This Iranian proxy, Hamas, has no regard for the standards of civilian protection. For one of many examples, look no further than the hostages taken October 7 and their often brutal treatment.

Unfortunately, our President's recent call for a cease-fire plays directly into Hamas's hands. Our Commander in Chief's priority should be the release of hostages and victory for our ally. But instead of displaying American resolve, our President seems to be mollifying the left wing of his party.

Calling for a cease-fire instead of hostage release and unconditional victory creates a false equivalence between Israel and Hamas. After Pearl Harbor, no one asked us about a cease-fire. After 9/11, no one asked the United States about a cease-fire.

We need to remember that Israel is fighting terrorists bent only on the destruction of the Jewish State. Hamas's leadership has vowed to commit repeats of the October 7 massacres. If this terrorist group is not totally eradicated, it will continue killing and kidnapping.

To paraphrase former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, if Hamas put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence; if Israel put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.

Hamas started this conflict, and they could end it today. Hamas could let hostages walk out of the tunnels and into the sunshine. Its militants could stop using women and children and aid workers and healthcare workers as human shields.

We need to give our steadfast ally what it needs to win this battle. Victory has to be our position.

I believe we should keep our promises to our friends. Our Commander in Chief threatens to break that promise to Israel today.

The President's call for an immediate cease-fire is tantamount to a call for Hamas to remain in business, to reestablish itself for future atrocities. That is not something Israel will allow--nor should they-- and it is not something we should ask of Israel or any other partner or ally.

A world in which a terrorist organization can win by committing mass murder is a more dangerous world for us all. The allies who have stood by us for 7\1/2\ decades and who stood by us after 9/11 understood that then, and we should not forget that now.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I congratulate Lt. Gen. Bruce ``Orville'' Wright, USAF (Ret.), upon his retirement as president and chief executive officer of the Air and Space Forces Association, or

Mr. President, 90 years ago this month, Tupelo, MS, went electric. The city became the first to purchase power from the Tennessee Valley Authority--TVA--sparking nearly a century-long partnership. We celebrate that distinction with an iconic sign at the intersection of Gloster and Main streets, which dubs Tupelo the First T-V-A City.

In 1934, just 2 percent of rural Mississippi households were connected to electricity. Many Southern farming families had already lived in poverty before the Great Depression made their situation even worse. Congress created TVA to begin addressing these challenges. The TVA mission was to provide low-cost electricity, promote economic development, and reduce flood risk and damage.

Tupelo is a testament to TVA's success accomplishing that mission. As a resident of the First TVA City, I look back on February 1934 with gratitude. Electricity helped unleash the latent potential of rural Mississippi, and we continue to reap the rewards today.

Mr. President, would my friend from New York yield----

--just for a question about----

Mr. President, I wonder if the majority leader would yield for a question on schedule?

Well, may I say something on just this quick point, Mr. President? My question to the Democratic leader was about the way he intends to proceed.

Obviously, he has counted the votes, as we have on this side, and the package with the border provision will not pass. Then he intends to move to a package that does not contain the border provision.

My question to the distinguished leader would have been: Does he intend to negotiate an amendment process where Members from both sides of the aisle would be able to propose changes in the legislation? And how will that affect when we go forward and when we are able to deal with these important issues that he has advocated for so vigorously? Those would have been my questions, and I think the American people and the Senate deserve an answer on how we are going to proceed, and will there be an open process of amendments?

Mr. President, a major item in the news last week was that the senior Senator from Alabama, Senator Tuberville, released holds on over 400 military promotions. As usual, media reports framed the situation in much the same way as the Biden administration had. Both the President and the press focused on the holds instead of the policy the holds protested. They claimed my Senate colleague manufactured a crisis. The truth is that it is the President's political appointees who have been manufacturing the crisis from the start.

Let's go back. In the summer of 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its landmark Dobbs ruling. Almost immediately, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel claimed the decision would have ``significant implications . . . for the readiness of the force.'' The abortion decision named ``Dobbs'' would have ``significant implications . . . for the readiness of the force.'' Again, he claimed that the Supreme Court's decision, which essentially returned abortion decisions to the States, would have ``significant implications . . . for the readiness of the force.''

Let's all agree that readiness is vital to our success. Military readiness is

our No. 1 job. The United States faces the most dangerous national security situation in decades. China's military strength is growing at an alarming rate. Russia has brought war to Europe. Iran is actively attacking our troops. North Korea continues to develop dangerous weapons.

In the face of such a complicated web of threats, we must take military preparation seriously. Our precarious situation makes it irresponsible for anyone to fearmonger about readiness in order to advance a political agenda. Yet that is what we must conclude the President's appointees at DOJ have done.

They contend that the Dobbs decision hurts readiness, so, in response, Republicans have repeatedly asked for proof that Dobbs harms readiness. I have personally, as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, asked for proof that Dobbs harms readiness, and the administration has refused to provide that evidence. In truth, that is because the evidence does not exist. At this point, it is pretty clear that Biden officials are avoiding the question because they do not like the answer.

It is difficult not to see that the President, and not my colleague from Alabama, is the one who precipitated the crisis.

To solve this imaginary emergency, the administration released what they called the reproductive health policy. The creative title failed to disguise what is a clear attempt to use taxpayer dollars illegally for abortion, contrary to the Hyde amendment. Under the rule, servicemembers are granted compensated time off, as well as monetary reimbursement for travel costs incurred, to receive an abortion. This policy violates popular opinion, and it violates the law.

Most Americans oppose late-term abortions, but a DOD official begrudgingly admitted to me in testimony that the policy would facilitate abortion at the very latest stages of pregnancy, in the eighth or ninth month. The provision spends tax dollars to facilitate abortions conducted mere days before a child's due date. That is just a fact.

Again, the administration claims this policy is necessary to solve a readiness problem created by Dobbs, but if Dobbs is such a threat, we could have reasonably expected wide usage of the travel policy. Despite the administration's stonewalling, I have obtained information indicating that just 12 women during this entire time have taken advantage of the reimbursement--just 12. Over 1 million Americans serve in our Armed Forces, but 12--not 12,000, not 1,200, but 12--have so far used this abortion travel reimbursement program. So the Biden administration cannot provide proof that Dobbs created a crisis for national defense.

We do have evidence that other administration priorities are harming our Armed Forces. The U.S. military faces a recruiting challenge, but the Biden administration is making it worse. The President has instituted a woke diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracy at the DOD which is souring servicemembers' views of the military. A survey of Active Duty troops found that 7 in 10 are concerned about the politicization of the military. That same percent said that politicization would affect whether or not they would encourage their children to enlist. We know that family ties are the No. 1 way we recruit new servicemembers. When the Biden administration injects politics into the Armed Forces, it weakens that recruiting channel, and we see the results of that weakening.

In this year's national defense legislation, Republicans successfully included a number of important provisions curbing that woke agenda; but, regrettably, Democrats ended up blocking our efforts to end the DOD's illegal abortion travel policy. We will continue in future Congresses to resist that travel policy.

Last year's Dobbs decision was a monumental victory for the Constitution, our country, and, most importantly, for the unborn. It was the culmination of decades of dedicated work by pro-life groups, and I salute them. These groups understood how the Framers built our political process, and they patiently used their voices to advocate for the unborn in our democratic system. They were rewarded for their faithfulness that they exhibited during nearly 50 years under Roe.

During this time, the Biden administration has refused to play by the rules, and they grasp at ways to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling. We intend to promote, in the next phase of our effort, a culture of life and to refocus the Pentagon on its national defense mission. The pro-life movement has always been a coalition of energetic volunteers, resilient advocates, and elected officials, and we will continue to work together to fight for the unborn.

And one final bit of very good news: Since the Dobbs decision was announced in 2022, approximately 30,000 babies have been born who would, otherwise, not have had an opportunity to experience life. That, in essence, is what this fight has been about and what it will continue to be about.

Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join my colleague from Rhode Island, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, in urging adoption of this important step in getting our National Defense Authorization Act passed and signed into law.

It is routine now and profound at the same time. It is routine because, as the chair said, this is the 63rd time that this House and this Senate will have come together on a bipartisan basis to join hands and try to move our national defense forward.

It is profound because it has become routine, because no matter what other things we are discussing and differing about and expressing our deeply held views, this is something that we feel must be done every year, regardless of the other things that divide us. So the fact that it has become routine does make this a profound step, and I am honored to be part of that great list of persons who have been part of this.

Senator Reed is absolutely correct to thank our counterparts in the House, Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith, and our staff.

Let me also give a shout-out to the ranking members of the subcommittees, who took this from subcommittee to subcommittee to the full committee and helped us get started in a very meaningful way: Senator Cotton, ranking member of Airland; Senator Mike Rounds, Cybersecurity; Senator Joni Ernst, Emerging Threats and Capabilities; Senator Rick Scott, Personnel Subcommittee; Senator Dan Sullivan, Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee; Senator Kevin Cramer, Seapower, a committee that I served on as ranking member and as chair; and Senator Deb Fischer, who has worked so diligently in a very technical and important area, Strategic Forces.

And then, as the chair mentioned, I will try not to leave out any of the staff--the experts who took our concepts and who were able to put them into words that became statutory language. Of course, there is John Keast, the staff director on our side, who has been a great partner of Elizabeth King; and then other talented, just absolutely brilliant and diligent and hard-working American public servants who helped get it right: Rick Berger, Brendan Gavin, James Mazol, Greg Lilly, Adam Barker, Zach Barnett, Kristina Belcourt, Jack Beyrer, Travis Brundrett, Isaac Jalkanen, Kevin Kim, Eric Lofgren, Katie Magnus, Jonathan Moore, Sean O'Keefe, Brad Patout, Katie Romaine, Pat Thompson, Eric Trager, Adam Trull, Olivia Trusty, and Phillip Waller.

And I wouldn't be surprised if I have left somebody out, even so, Mr. President.

It does contain some very high hopes and dreams, and I hope this legislation builds on an opportunity for further expansion of our defense industrial base, because so many of the things that we need to do cannot be done unless we have got the resources in place to actually put Americans to work making our country stronger.

It does contain one of the largest pay raises in decades.

There will perhaps be more said on final passage, but I am grateful to my colleague and friend and fellow veteran, Senator Reed, and I urge the passage of this vote.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this is a difficult topic for me to discuss because it is so serious and because the United States has so much catching up to do. Two years ago, Congress created the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. We gave it the job of examining the strengths and weaknesses of our national security position.

The Commission report was released just last month. The report comments on an array of military issues, but its findings can be distilled to a single alarming fact: China and Russia are increasingly able to match our military might. And if we do not act now, the consequences will be seismic. Not only could we fail to deter a war, we might actually lose the next war.

The report finds that we are not prepared for what is coming. And here is what is coming: For the first time, we must stand up to the ambitions of two nuclear-armed peer adversaries in multiple regions of the world at the same time. That stunning conclusion means this report should be required reading for each of my colleagues.

And so I directed my staff to deliver a copy of this bipartisan report personally to every Senator, and I hope we take its message to heart.

The American military, in particular, our nuclear deterrent, has been one of the principal guarantors of global security--not just American security but global security--since the late 1940s. Our power crested at the end of the 20th century when the Berlin Wall crumbled, and we emerged as the world's sole superpower. But regrettably, instead of maintaining that competitive edge, we have allowed it to slip away in both conventional and strategic deterrents.

China and Russia watched as we shuttered our shipyards and ammunition plants, as we let our ships rust, and as we neglected to replace our aging Cold War nuclear arsenal. Then, as successive Presidential administrations let defense assets deteriorate, China and Russia poured more funds into their weapons stores. They built the kind of weapons needed to take us on in a conventional fight and keep us at bay in a strategic one.

This is not one Senator saying this; this is the bipartisan Commission that we tasked with investigating this thoroughly. The autocrats who ruled China and Russia began paying attention to more than our guns and ships. When our satellites and next-generation communications capabilities gave us an unbeatable edge in the Gulf war, these enemies, adversaries of ours, took notice.

We could see, communicate, and shoot from farther away than anyone else. When we deployed these tools, we inaugurated new ways to protect ourselves, cutting-edge technology, not mere masses of metal, would win the final argument of nations. But the leaders of Russia and China soon came to recognize this also. They began to meet our advances and ensure we could never do to them what we had done to Saddam Hussein's military in 1991.

Among the bipartisan Commission's direst findings is the fact that China and Russia have largely succeeded. China has built strike complexes of their own that make the prospect of war increasingly perilous. Their fleet of anti-satellite weapons and cyber warfare capabilities could render our military blind, deaf, and mute in a potential conflict over Taiwan.

U.S. victory, and, therefore, deterrence, was once a fait accompli, but today we risk war that would shake the foundations of everyday American life and the foundations of global peace.

The consequences of our negligence, together with the Chinese and Russian investment, are most acute when it comes to our nuclear position, which has been the foundation of our deterrence capability. Russian submarines are becoming much more advanced, and China is rapidly bringing missile silos online. Meanwhile, our Air Force personnel are still using floppy disks to operate missiles that are older than their parents, and they are flying bombers that are older than their grandparents.

Our nuclear submarines--the crown jewels of U.S. military power--are having to remain at sea longer as our fleet shrinks. Workforce problems and maintenance delays hold the fleet back from its potential. The AUKUS agreement is a tremendous diplomatic achievement that can be a game changer, but it must be implemented correctly. And right now, we are short of the attack submarines needed.

China and Russia now clearly realize that, by joining forces, they can help each other reach their goals. China wants to occupy Taiwan, and their leader has said they need to be ready to do that as soon as 2027. Russia wants to puncture NATO's iron wall, and they want to help each other to do both. Their sinister intent and increasing capabilities make this the most dangerous national security moment we have faced in 75 years.

Paul Nitze, the Pentagon official whose strategic wisdom helped us win the Cold War, once said:

Our fundamental purpose is more likely to be defeated from

lack of the will to maintain it, than from any mistakes we

may make.

In other words, the future is ours to lose, but the future is still ours. This report recommends several policies that can help us end the damaging defense cuts of the past three decades and begin making investments we need.

The Commission's first recommendation is that we rebuild and expand the defense industrial base, including the National Nuclear Security Administration's nuclear weapons production infrastructure. In particular, Congress should partner with the administration and the Navy to establish a third public shipyard to conduct submarine maintenance. Again, this is the recommendation of a completely bipartisan Commission of experts.

The second proposal builds on the first. We need educational institutions and a talent pipeline to bring skilled tradesmen to this industrial base. These high-paying, stable, and long-term jobs do not require master's or bachelor's degrees. They can advance both national security and expand economic opportunity.

Finally, the report recommends a series of products we should prioritize. We need more conventional forces, and we should increase procurement of strategic nuclear capabilities like the B-21 and the Columbia-class submarine. We need improved missile defenses and rapidly deployable theater nuclear forces like the sea-launched cruise missile. Delivering these products would put our adversaries on notice and reassure our allies at the same time.

Of course, these actions come with a pricetag, but we have always found our defense investments to be both expensive and priceless. It will cost money to deter China and Russia and Iran from threatening us, but it will cost much, much more--in money and in lives--if we do not. In the words of former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, ``America can afford survival.''

The good news is that we have done this before. In the late 1970s, the Pentagon sowed the seeds of our defense technological revival, even as the Carter administration shrank from the world stage. But then in 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. That attack was a wake-up call. It taught Washington there is no substitute for superior military might.

Again, Paul Nitze helped form an organization that educated Congress, the Carter administration, and the American people about the Soviet Union's threat. The result was the Reagan defense buildup that won the Cold War.

We can do that again, but we must abandon the status quo and start thinking big again. The shocking warnings in this report should spur us to abandon our inertia and take bold actions that will lead us into the next American century.

I thank the members of this Commission for their years of hard work, and I urge my colleagues in both the House and Senate to take note.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I congratulate the leadership, faculty, staff, and students of my alma

mater, the University of Mississippi. Military Times, a publication that provides news and resources related to our military services, recently highlighted the ways Ole Miss honors our Nation's veterans. It placed Ole Miss in prominent positions on its ``Best for Vets'' lists, ranking it as the top Southeastern Conference--SEC--school and fifth- best university in the Nation. The Best for Vets list is the largest and most comprehensive ranking of schools for military servicemembers and veterans. It is compiled from a survey of 325 higher education institutions around the Nation, gathering information on their resources, opportunities, and success rates for veteran students.

The University of Mississippi is committed to student veterans and our Nation's military. The university established its first student veteran organization in 1920, following World War I. Over 1,900 Ole Miss students--more than 10 percent of the student body--have military service connections or are veterans. Ole Miss provides focused and dedicated support resources for veterans on campus, including the Office of Veteran and Military Services, which sits in the George Street House at the heart of campus. This office was opened in 2013 to support Global War on Terror veterans, and it has become a critical stop for student veterans. It helps them access G.I. Bill and Veterans Affairs benefits, study resources, and scholarship applications.

Ole Miss has set the standard for veteran healthcare support. It created the Veteran Treatment Team to allow student veterans to access healthcare directly on campus. Now, these students do not have to commute to full-scale Veterans Affairs clinics and medical centers for routine treatments. Professionals at the university's mental health clinics are trained in specific military-related mental health issues and lead peer support group meetings and workshops for veterans. This reduces the load on the Veterans Affairs system and supports deeper veteran integration into the student body. The university even added a staff counselor focused on veterans and active military issues, bringing mental health resources directly to student veterans.

I commend the Military Times for recognizing and honoring Ole Miss' good work. I am certain that the university will continue these efforts in the years to come, seeing and supporting the needs of student veterans from this new generation of military servicemembers.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Rubio, I call up his motion to instruct the conferees.

I know of no further debate on the motion.

Vote on Motion to Instruct

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Blackburn, I call up her motion to instruct the conferees.

I know of no further debate on the motion.

Vote on Motion to Instruct

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lankford, I call up his motion to instruct the conferees.

I know of no further debate on the motion.

Vote on Motion to Instruct

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cramer, I call up his motion to instruct the conferees.

I know of no further debate on the motion.

Vote on Motion to Instruct

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Moran, I call up his motion to instruct the conferees.

I know of no further debate on the motion.

Vote on Motion to Instruct

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Ernst, I call up her motion to instruct the conferees.

I know of no further debate on the motion.

Vote on Motion to Instruct

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hagerty, I call up his motion to instruct the conferees.

I know of no further debate on the motion.

Vote on Motion to Instruct

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Braun, I call up his motion to instruct the conferees.

I know of no further debate on the motion.

Vote on Motion to Instruct

Madam President, let me say that I associate myself with the remarks that were just made by the previous two speakers--the senior Senator from the State of North Dakota and the distinguished Senator from Alaska.

I rise today to follow on with the importance of national defense and, in that regard, to speak specifically about the historic Australia, United Kingdom, United States agreement known as AUKUS.

This pact, AUKUS, builds upon a bond forged during the First World War between the United States and Australia and made unshakable in the second. That bond remains strong today as we face the greatest challenge of our lifetime--the Chinese Communist Party.

The Senator from Alaska just spoke about the importance of building our defenses in the Indo-Pacific, and that is exactly what the AUKUS agreement is designed to address.

Our military leadership has made the stakes clear. The Secretary of the Air Force, Frank Kendall, recently said:

The intelligence couldn't be clearer. . . . China is

preparing for a war and specifically for a war with the

United States.

Now is the time for free nations across the Pacific to prepare for this sobering possibility. The AUKUS deal will help prevent that war from happening. Indeed, the AUKUS agreement is vital, but there is more work to do beyond that. We have yet to take the actions necessary to ensure that our industrial base can support both the United States and Australia.

The basic fact is this: Our defense industrial base is not where it needs to be. Workforce shortages, a shrinking base of contractors, and insufficient resources have damaged our military readiness. Year after year, we have deferred maintenance on our surface ships, even as these ships are spending more days deployed and the fleet continues to shrink. Our capabilities are stalling as we hurtle toward a window of maximum danger with the Chinese Communist Party.

The story for our submarines is no better. We are not prepared to fulfill our Navy's submarine construction and maintenance needs, let alone fulfill the prospective commitments in the critical AUKUS agreement.

Our Navy's requirement is to have 66 attack submarines at 80 percent readiness. We currently have 49 attack submarines at 67 percent readiness. Let me say that again. We need 66 attack submarines. We have only 49. They need to be at 80 percent readiness. They are only at 67 percent.

We should be building two attack submarines per year, but we are really building 1.2 attack submarines per year. The demands of the AUKUS agreement would push this requirement higher to above 2.3 attack submarines per year. We should do that, but we can't meet that challenge right now. To meet this challenge, our defense industry will need to handle more demand than ever before.

To handle this demand, our defense industry will need to reverse its current trajectory. Since the so-called peace dividend of the 1990s, we have closed two nuclear submarine repair yards and one construction yard. COVID-19 took a sledgehammer to an already declining workforce, and our government is expecting that same inexperienced workforce to meet deadlines not just on our Virginia-class submarines but also the critically important, nuclear-armed Columbia-class.

Our submarine fleet, just like our surface fleet, is still living off the Reagan-era defense buildup. Many vessels are in a deteriorating state and will soon need to be retired, but replacements are not waiting in the wings. The remaining ships will face longer deployments and fewer opportunities for maintenance. This is not a blueprint for American command of the seas, nor does it put us in a position to provide our Australian friends the submarines which they need.

These cascading problems create what some have called a debt spiral of submarine construction and readiness. This spiral keeps us from hitting our shipbuilding targets. Moreover, today's threats mean the current targets are actually too small. China's navy is now the world's largest navy. Russia is increasing its nuclear submarine activity in the Atlantic. Keeping up with these challenges means raising our shipbuilding goals in the first place, then expanding our industrial capacity to meet them.

According to our Acting Chief of Naval Operations, Virginia-class construction needs to nearly double. This is the man whom we have put in charge and confirmed to let us know about the readiness of our Navy.

I am grateful for past congressional and executive branch efforts to fund this work; otherwise, we would construct fewer than one Virginia- class submarine each year. But even those funding increases have not matched our need. At the current rate, we will be at least nine submarines short by 2030.

Our defense policy cannot continue to hinge upon a hope and a prayer. To make good on AUKUS and stand by our friends in Australia, the administration and Congress need to make the investments necessary to improve submarine construction.

Our first step is clear. We must enact into law the nearly $3.4 billion in submarine funding, including in the defense supplemental Congress is considering. We need every bit of this funding increased and more.

These funds will be spread throughout our industrial base in the United States--inside the United States, employing American workers. It will modernize our shipyards, accelerate maintenance on our existing submarine fleet, and put capital investments in place for future submarine components to be built in our country. They will put Americans to work, showing that economic development and national security go hand in hand.

This additional funding is a welcome first step, but we must do more to show our allies and the U.S. industry and our adversaries that we can meet the obligations of the AUKUS agreement without putting our own submarine fleet in jeopardy. We should sustain investments in our shipbuilders, public shipyards, and the nearly 16,000 suppliers across the Nation, many of them--most of them--small businesses around the Nation. This industry network supports American undersea supremacy and prevents conflicts on the seas, but it needs more long-term investment to stay afloat.

We already have some sense of what this investment should look like. I want to emphasize this. The Biden administration commissioned the ``Submarine Industrial Base 2025'' study to examine the best way to execute

AUKUS. From what I understand, the study will document what we already know: We need significant additional funding to fulfill Australia's needs alongside those of our fleet. But here is the problem: We commissioned the study. Inexplicably, the Biden administration has yet to let Congress actually see the specifics of the study--not Members of the Democratic leadership, not Members of the Republican leadership. Until the elected Members of the U.S. Senate and the House see this study, Congress cannot make its strongest argument for submarine investment.

I led a letter, signed by a bipartisan group of defense leaders, asking the administration to send us the study without delay. This was a bipartisan letter. Friends from both sides of the aisle joined me on that. We are an equal part of the government. We have authorized this study, and, for heaven's sake, the elected Senators and Representatives of the people need to see this.

If the President desires the same success for the AUKUS deal that many of us in Congress desire--and I believe he does, given the funding request included in the supplemental--then the administration ought to release the study promptly. They ought to release the study to us today.

This study is just one element of strengthening AUKUS. Of course, the most crucial element is increasing overall American sea power. For years, I have cast a vision for restoring American maritime supremacy, following President Reagan's own defense buildup. Again, this is not something that sprung from the brow of Senator Wicker. These are requirements given to us by the top military Navy and Marine leadership, in particular, across the Nation. AUKUS ought to be part of that buildup.

This vision will require historic investment to ensure we have the necessary shipbuilding capacity. It is not an easy task, but history suggests it would underwrite and protect American security for decades.

It will also include strengthening the U.S.-Australian alliance throughout the 21st century. This alliance is symbolized by Australian Prime Minister Albanese's travel to Washington last week. I was honored to meet with him and his team several times during that visit.

The bond between our two nations is deep and abiding. It stood the test of World War II, and it will continue to stand as we confront the challenge of Xi Jinping's communist Chinese fleet.

I can think of no action more emblematic of our bond than the AUKUS agreement, which, again, I fully support. I know the Australians do. They told me last week. They show this also by committing $3 billion to our industrial base. The best way to honor our special relationship would be to back AUKUS with funds of our own. Australia's economy is a tenth the size of ours, and the United States should commit a proportional investment. The current plan doesn't get us there.

We have never pursued a defense technology partnership at this scale and level of sophistication, but we have moments in our history to draw upon that inform our path forward. Since its invention in the American midcentury, our nuclear Navy has been second to none because we have never accepted anything less.

Our adversaries knew this. When Admiral Rickover, the founding father of our nuclear Navy, traveled to discuss nuclear submarines with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and his aides, Admiral Rickover boasted:

Although the United States is a democracy, it can act fast.

. . . Can't Russia act as fast as the United States?

The answer was that Russia could not act as fast as we could. The strength of our free enterprise system, the clarity of our mission set by our Federal leaders, and our collective appreciation of the Soviet threat gave us a focus, a singular focus, and it allowed the American system to unleash our arsenal of democracy, and we prevented war with the Soviet Union by maintaining our naval supremacy. We need to unleash that arsenal again.

In the words of Admiral Rickover, ``We shall let nothing deter us from building a nuclear Navy in the shortest possible time.''

Once more, we cannot let anything deter our skilled shipbuilders from cutting the steel and constructing the fleet that will safeguard America for a generation to come.

We have submarines to build. Let's get to work.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Caroline Newsom, a valued intern from my office, be granted floor privileges until November 17 of this year.

Madam President, I join with my overwhelming bipartisan majority of Senators and House colleagues in delivering a message of unwavering support for our friends in Israel. And I want to congratulate my friend, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, for his very fine speech just now and to associate myself with every single remark that he made, and I congratulate him on making it so eloquently.

We have all seen the devastation from Hamas's brutal attacks. We need to send this clear signal from both sides of the aisle and both ends of this building: Israel has the right to self-defense, just as we in America deserve a right to self-defense, and Israel is entitled to our full support. The weeks ahead will require decisive action from Congress and decisive action from the White House. We must ensure our allies are armed to the teeth as they enter what amounts to a Hamas fortress across the border in Gaza.

They must also receive the tools they need to keep Hezbollah in the north and the Palestinian-Islamic jihad at bay. And we must stand united against Hamas's patron, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Israel needs more Tamir interceptor missiles for the Iron Dome system. They need them immediately. We have several hundred in inventory, and the administration should use its drawdown authority immediately to send these missiles without delay. We need to pass a supplemental appropriations bill to accelerate Tamir production in Israel, even as the United States builds our own Tamir manufacturing capability here in the United States by 2025.

Congress should also support the delivery and production of more precision-guided munitions and ammunition for Israeli ground forces, as well as expansive intelligence sharing. And there are many questions about intelligence failures and shortcomings leading up to this terrorist attack.

This episode, again, highlights that our national defense is far behind where it should be. Some of us have been raising this point for a long time. I have been making this point long before I was able to become ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

The administration needs to send Congress a funding request that fully resources the U.S. military for a rapidly worsening threat environment in Israel and the Middle East and Ukraine and Europe and in the Western Pacific.

For over seven-and-a-half decades, Israel has made every effort simply to be a peaceful democracy in a dangerous area of the world. Hamas wants to end the nation of Israel. That is part of their charter. It is in writing. That is their goal.

And, you know, our fellow American citizens are also victims of the Hamas violence. We have lost more than 20 fellow Americans to these terrorists, and, of course, we know that some are being held captive. Millions of Americans are praying today that they come home.

The people of Israel know that there can be no return to the pre-war status quo. The pre-war status quo, the pre-October 7 status quo is over. Israel must now destroy Hamas, no matter how long it takes.

As it pursues this goal, no nation should give Hamas terrorists safe haven. Iran should not give Hamas terrorists safe haven. Tehran's support for this war makes one thing clear: We successfully deter bad actors only through unmistakable signals of American strength. We need to return to the maximum pressure policies of the previous Trump administration, and we can match that financial pressure with a heightened defense posture in the region.

We must also examine why Iran and its proxies believe they can get away with this heinous massacre. We know, for example, that the Biden administration's Iran policy--and this pains me to say, Madam President--the Iran policy was led by individuals who were actually part of an Iranian Government information operation. One of those individuals has been relieved. Another of those individuals, Dr. Ariane Tabatabai, inexplicably remains in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Thirty Senators have joined me in a letter asking for answers on this. We need answers now on why this is still allowed to happen and what steps the administration will take to remediate it.

We should support the continued Arab-Israeli peace efforts, which President Trump initiated through the Abraham Accords. While I disagree with many of the Biden administration's Middle East policies, I strongly support the recent Saudi-Israeli peace initiative. Hamas clearly hopes their terrorist attacks will grind this process to a halt.

I am grateful that many of our Arab partners, in the face of extreme pressure and hardship, still see the true nature of Hamas today. They understand that Hamas is an Iranian-backed terrorist organization who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Many of our Arab partners have fought and defeated similar organizations like Hamas within their own borders.

So I urge the Biden administration today to emphasize the shared Arab-Israeli interest in Hamas's defeat so that Arab-Israeli peace efforts can continue to progress.

Finally, let me say this. I can state with confidence that the people of my State are with Israel. My office has received a remarkable outpouring of support for Israel from the people across Mississippi. We express that support in word and deed.

The three flagship Navy corvettes of the Israeli battle fleet were built by the skilled craftsmen of our Mississippi shipyards. Think about that. Mississippi-made hulls, carrying the flag of the Star of David, are being used to protect the Israeli people from further attack. It is just one example of our common cause.

With the people of Mississippi and with the overwhelming majority of Senators on both sides of the aisle, I call upon all of us to stand united in support of an Israeli victory.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to address the crisis on our southern border and to say that we have a good opportunity with the Senate-approved National Defense Authorization Act. It is a remarkable opportunity for this body to strengthen homeland security by increasing border security.

Bad actors continue to exploit our porous southern border and to funnel criminals, fentanyl, and even suspected terrorists into our country.

Just this week, Customs and Border Patrol released staggering figures. In this fiscal year, Border Patrol has handled nearly 3 million border encounters--nearly 3 million border encounters.

Of urgent concern is the fact that more and more of those who cross our borders are terror threats. In this fiscal year, 160 migrants were found to be on the terror watch list, up from 100 in 2022. A smuggler with ties to ISIS shepherded a dozen migrants from Uzbekistan across the border. This alarming incident raises questions about terrorists gaining access to our country. It also highlights the increasing number of asylum seekers from Central Asia.

The situation is clearly out of control.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has received testimony suggesting that our adversaries see our broken border as a strategic advantage. Russia certainly does. The former Northern Command chief reports that there are more Kremlin agents in Mexico than in any other country. They are there because of the open border policies of this administration. The Chinese Communist Party is also aware of this vulnerability, constantly looking the other way as Chinese criminal elements sell fentanyl components to cartels, helping fuel our national drug crisis.

President Biden refuses to act, but Congress will. The good news is that we have already taken steps to do so. This summer, the Senate passed our version of the NDAA. We did so on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. In my role as the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I led my colleagues as we crafted a defense bill that aligns with our current national defense needs.

The bill supports our troops and enhances our warfighting capabilities. The bill also recognizes the border crisis as the national security challenge it

is, and I note that more and more people in the mainstream media on network news on television--not just the cable shows--our newscasters are calling this what it is, a border crisis.

In an impressive display of bipartisanship earlier this year, we passed our legislation with an overwhelming margin of 86 to 11. This sweeping endorsement puts the Senate in a strong negotiating position as the House and Senate reconcile the two Defense bills in conference. I certainly hope we can do that and get that to the President soon.

As we move through the conference process, we must retain the border provisions we fought so hard to include. One such measure is the FINISH IT Act. When we say ``finish it,'' I mean the border wall. The legislation which I authored and which is in the bill would continue construction of the border wall.

The previous administration purchased high-quality steel wall panels, but when President Biden took office, he chose to spend $130,000 per day to store these materials rather than using them to secure the border. High-quality steel panels are there. Our President is spending money to store them rather than using them for the intended purpose. Taxpayers already paid for them. That amounts to tens of millions of dollars spent to do absolutely nothing all the while cartels continue to traffic drugs to people from across our southwest border.

The fact that we are spending taxpayer money to store these sections of the border wall rather than erect them is uncontested. That is admitted, and it is a fact. And it is one of the reasons Senators visit the border, to find out things like this.

We on the Armed Services Committee inquired about this waste. We found the administration to be hastily auctioning off panels and doing so for pennies on the dollar. This is quite obviously an effort to circumvent congressional intent. The administration sees this legislation coming; they see the overwhelming 86-to-11 vote; and they want to get as many of these sections of the wall auctioned off as government surplus before the legislation takes effect.

In one instance, the government sold $4.4 million worth of materials for a mere $156,000--$4.4 million worth of border wall segments sold for a mere $156,000. Again, this is uncontested. This is a fact that no one disputes. The administration is still unable to account for $255 million worth of materials.

The FINISH IT Act, which is in the NDAA, passed by the Senate, would compel the Biden administration either to use the existing border panels or sell them to States capable of building the wall themselves. Border states grasp the severity of this crisis in ways that the President somehow ignores.

Senate Republicans successfully shepherded this provision through the Democrat-led committee and secured wide bipartisan support from the Senate. Again, the bill passed by a final vote of 86 to 11.

It is not difficult to discern why, under this administration, really every State is a border State. Just ask the mayor of New York City, which used to like to be called a sanctuary city. The mayor of New York suddenly sounds almost as concerned about the border crisis as the Governor of Texas.

The FINISH IT Act represents just the first of several border security provisions in this year's defense legislation. Other measures address the threat posed by cartels. These criminal gangs bribe law enforcement officials and terrorize the innocent. These cartels have military-grade tools, and they use them. Our bill unlocks resources that empower the Department of Defense to take the fight to these dangerous organizations. We passed a provision which would help strengthen Mexican security forces. It would establish a pilot program designed to provide top-tier U.S. military training to law enforcement in Mexico. This would enhance bilateral cooperation against threats, including cartels.

Another provision helps confront cartels in cyberspace, and another improves coordination between defense, intelligence, and Homeland Security officials. These proposals harness the full array of U.S. technological and logistical capabilities to target work we can do from our side of the border.

The border crisis shows no sign of abatement. Illegal crossings continue to surge and fentanyl's devastating effects reach into more and more American neighborhoods and into every State. What affects the border, affects us all.

I am sure there will be strong discussion as the House and Senate move to a conference. There will, of course, be disagreements, and yet I remain hopeful that the integrity of our borders can be an area of agreement. We must take this opportunity to protect the homeland. We must pass this year's National Defense Authorization Act with these hard-won border security measures.

Mr. President, before I yield the floor, on a personal note, let me say that the Presiding Officer is looking particularly good this afternoon, and I appreciate his courtesy.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, there is widespread bipartisan support for this amendment. I am going to vote for it, and a number of Republicans have cosponsored it. Although we are going to have to call the roll, perhaps this could be the moment when a 10-minute vote actually means that.

I yield.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 1065