Significant Transnational Criminal Organization Designation Act

Madam President, it has been a little more than 7 months since Russia launched its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the destruction that has followed is unbelievable. We have all had a chance to bear witness to the brutal reality of Russia's invasion as Ukrainian forces have recaptured territories like the city of Izyum.

Soon after the city was liberated, Ukrainian forces discovered mass graves filled with hundreds of bodies, including children. Some of the bodies had their hands tied behind their backs and their skulls crushed, and many showed signs of torture. The images that have emerged from Izyum prove what we have suspected for some time: The mountain of evidence of Russian war crimes is sky high.

These photos illustrate what the Ukrainians are finding in recaptured territory. They are sending out people to redig mass graves to find out just what happened to members of their family and neighbors and their friends.

The same thing is illustrated by this photo as well. In the shadow of this beautiful church, they are finding mass graves left behind by the Russians.

Today, I had the honor of presiding over a hearing of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, focusing on the role we must play in the United States in holding Putin and his thugs accountable for these heinous war crimes. The message was clear: Our Nation must continue the legacy we began with the Nuremburg trials by ensuring that Russian war criminals are brought to justice. And a critical step in doing that is to make sure that the perpetrators of these atrocities find no safe haven anywhere in the world, let alone in the United States.

That is why I have introduced the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act with the ranking Republican Member, Senator Grassley. It closes a shameful loophole in American law that has allowed war criminals to escape justice. Our legislation updates the War Crimes Act so foreign war criminals who try to flee to America can be prosecuted, even years after their crimes were committed. It is only a starting point, but I hope we can build on it to finally enact the law in this country prohibiting crimes against humanity. This is an opportunity to send a clear signal to war criminals, like those in Russia today who systemically attack civilians, that America is going to hold you accountable for your crimes.

Immigration

Madam President, on a related topic, at our brightest moments, America has not only held war criminals and tyrants accountable; we have also provided refuge to their victims. Many of us in Congress can attest to that fact.

In fact, it is exactly how my family arrived in this country. Back in 1911, my grandmother left Lithuania in search of freedom. She boarded a ship carrying two things in her arms: a bag with her Catholic prayer book, published a year before the Czars outlawed its printing in Lithuania, and her 2-year-old daughter, my mother, Ona.

The moment my grandmother stepped foot on American soil, her life changed. From that moment on, she

and my mother were protected by an incredible shield: the U.S. Constitution, along with the rights and protections it guarantees.

But for Lithuanians, securing those same rights has not been so easy. The country struggled under Soviet occupation for nearly 50 years. Even after the Lithuanian people proclaimed their independence in 1990, their liberty wasn't guaranteed. In January 1991, 9 months after Lithuania held its first free elections, Soviet tanks rolled into Vilnius in a ruthless, last-ditch effort to crush the country's new democracy. Thirteen Lithuanian martyrs were killed that day.

I would like to think it was the sacrifice of those 13 Lithuanians, and millions who also suffered under communism, that inspired the current Governor of Florida to establish a new holiday earlier this year. It was entitled Victims of Communism Day. In his own words, Governor DeSantis created this holiday with the goal of ``honoring the people that have fallen victim to communist regimes.'' In announcing this holiday, he asserted that ``Florida will stand for truth and remain as a beachhead for freedom.''

That is an admirable aspiration, but, sadly, it is one that the Governor of Florida has failed to live up to because, when it comes to standing up to ruthless dictators of our time, like Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro, Governor DeSantis and his allies are nowhere to be found. Instead of offering safe harbor to victims of Maduro's regime, these very same Governors have chosen to abandon and abuse their families.

This is no way to honor the victims of communism and political repression. It is a cowardly failure of leadership that violates our Nation's basic values.

When news first broke that Governors Abbott of Texas and DeSantis of Florida were using refugee families fleeing desperate conditions in Venezuela as political pawns, I couldn't help but wonder: What if it were my own family?

The families fleeing Venezuela are seeking refuge from the same menace that the victims of communists faced decades ago: political persecution and state-sanctioned violence. Under Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela has been a failed criminal state awash in human misery. It is so dangerous that the State Department warns Americans to avoid traveling to that country, and the people of Venezuela suffer every day under rampant corruption, human rights violations, hunger, and criminal mismanagement. I saw it for myself when I visited Venezuela a few years ago, just before Maduro's latest sham election.

Since then, things have grown worse. Hospitals are devoid of basic medical supplies, kids and parents are too hungry to go to school or work, and Maduro's barbaric regime is being propped up by some of the most repressive powers of the world, like Russia and Cuba.

A recent United Nations report found that Maduro and his cronies have been systemically repressing Venezuelans and gruesomely torturing their political opponents. These horrors have driven nearly 7 million Venezuelans to leave that country in desperation and fear. To put that in perspective, that is more than the number of Syrian refugees and nearly equal to the number of Ukrainian refugees fleeing active war in those countries.

Despite what some Republicans have claimed, families fleeing Venezuela are not ``illegals'' or ``invaders.'' They are victims of the same ruthless tactics that once defined the Soviet Union. Instead of helping these families, Governor DeSantis and Governor Abbott declare holidays and have chosen to exploit their fear and confusion.

I met with a few of the families who were unwittingly placed on migrant buses to Chicago by Governor Abbott of Texas a few weeks ago. One of the people I met was named Carlos. He and his wife and two little girls were sitting at a table, and we were able to talk to them for about a half hour and ask questions.

Carlos was a hard worker in Venezuela, but the country's political and economic crisis was so severe that his job couldn't keep food on the table. His family was on the brink of starvation.

So on May 15, Carlos and his wife, along with those two beautiful little girls, decided to literally flee for their lives. They embarked on a 5-month journey, much of it on foot, to the Texas-Mexico border. It was a nightmare of violence, theft, and exploitation. Carlos told me that, at one point, he thought he would die, while spending 9 nights in a Panamanian jungle. By the time they were rescued by a local military force, all of their money was gone, their cell phones had been stolen, and they were penniless.

But they pressed on and eventually made it to America. They filed their claim for asylum. We are honored that they were brought to Chicago, though the circumstances were not good.

To me, Carlos is living proof that we have more work to do in ridding the world of violent repression and totalitarianism. These evils didn't suddenly disappear with the fall of the Soviet Union.

I actually share the Florida Governor's belief that America has the responsibility to stand in contrast to dictators like Maduro and Putin by actually defending truth and freedom. But that responsibility is far bigger than declaring a holiday, because it is one thing to speak out against the evils of communism or voice opposition to Maduro, but talk is cheap. The real test for our values begins when the victims of tyrants like Maduro arrive at our doorstep in search of freedom. I am sad to say that Governor Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott have literally failed that test. To add insult to injury, these Governors not only refused to help these families fleeing Venezuela; they wasted taxpayers' dollars on a political stunt that only made the problem worse and made us, as a nation, look weak and, to some of the world, look cruel.

Here is the reality. The most powerful way to stand up against dictators like Maduro is by honoring America's legacy as a beacon of freedom. That means coming to the aid of families like Carlos's-- families who are applying for asylum the right way and seeking a fair shot in America, like our own families once did.

In fact, we need workers. We have 11 million unfilled jobs in this Nation and 5 million unemployed Americans. Let's put young, able-bodied people like Carlos to work in jobs that Americans don't want. Let's get them on the books and give them their fair shot so they can finally enjoy the security and safety for their families that was denied to them in their home countries. They will contribute to a better America.

Time and again, immigrants have shown us that they rise to the occasion, work harder than most, and achieve things unimaginable. They can do it again, and they will. Let's prove that America was and is better than the cold, iron fist of authoritarianism.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, in reserving the right to object, I worried this morning that the Senator from Arkansas was going to offer this unanimous consent request on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. I was a little bit surprised. I wasn't aware of this bill. We have been members of the same committee, the Judiciary Committee, for 21 months, and the Senator from Arkansas has not raised the bill during that period of time. But it is his right to come to the floor today and ask that it be considered. I would like to tell you why I am going to object to this.

If you serve in Congress for any period of time, you become a student of the terrible drug problems of America. I recall a period of time in the House of Representatives when we had crack cocaine appear in the United States for the first time. It scared us because it was cheap; it was deadly; addictive; and for the women who were pregnant who had taken it, it did harm to the babies they were carrying. So we decided to make sure that we were going to do the right thing in our War on Drugs.

What we said was--listen closely--the penalty for crack cocaine would be 100 times the penalty for the use of ordinary cocaine--100 times. The penalty for using cocaine in general was already serious. One hundred times, we said, for the War on Drugs. I voted for it. I thought, finally, a message will come from the Congress that, if you touch crack cocaine, you are going to be in for it. We expected that fewer people would do it because of the fear of that criminal sentencing and that the price of crack cocaine would go up because the demand was limited.

Guess what happened--exactly the opposite, exactly the opposite.

More and more people used crack cocaine, and the price on the street went down to dirt level. The result was we started filling our prisons in a way that we had never seen before in the history of the United States: 500 percent of the prison population of just 20 or 30 years ago increased in that period of time.

We learned the hard way that getting tough wasn't always the smart way to deal with drug addiction. We thought about it, and we changed the law several times. I have been party to changing it. I voted for the original version, and it failed. We had to do better.

Then something happened that was dramatic--opioids. Out of nowhere came opioids, and what used to be a problem of drug addiction and death in the inner cities of America became a problem of drug addiction and death in the suburbs of America, in the farm towns of America--all over America. Interestingly enough, America started looking at our drug laws and our drug addiction and saying: What are we doing wrong here? What is wrong with this situation?

As a consequence, a lot of attitudes changed. People got away from the old ``just say no'' routine and started asking serious questions: How do we deal with drug addiction? How do we stop this addiction? It is not easy to stop it, but God knows we need to. So we have seen a transformation with the arrival of opioids.

Now, the Senator from Arkansas is correct. People are lacing these opioids with fentanyl, and fentanyl is deadly; there is no question about it. We should take it seriously, and we do. As a matter of fact, each judge, when imposing a sentence for crimes already involving fentanyl, is pretty serious about it. I just heard the Senator from Arkansas describe a situation in which someone in Minnesota got life in prison for the sale of a fentanyl product. So it is clear that it is not being ignored, nor should it be.

Intentionally selling fentanyl is already a crime all over the United States. Representing that fentanyl is something else is exactly the kind of aggravated factor a judge takes into account in the sentencing. I don't believe this bill is a serious effort to deal with the problem in light of what we know today.

Let's start with the fact that it creates a new Federal death penalty offense.

Well, I have to tell you that I have watched a lifetime--a political lifetime--of death penalty cases and have seen the result. I have my serious doubts that that is the best way for America to go. I think the gentleman from Arkansas realizes it. I am the lead sponsor, along with 20 others, of the Federal Death Penalty Prohibition Act--to repeal it once and for all. So I am concerned about any legislation that imposes the death penalty.

It also creates mandatory minimum sentences that don't allow judges to consider the individual circumstances in a case.

That is straight out of the failed doctrine of the War on Drugs--a mandatory minimum. Tie the judge's hands. Put people in jail, and basically say there will be unlimited amounts of time that they will spend there. People were getting 20- and 30-year sentences for the sale of narcotics like crack cocaine, and we soon realized that it didn't make sense over the long haul. It was 20 years for a single drug sale, which goes up to mandatory life in prison if a defendant has any prior felony conviction, no matter if it has zero relationship to drugs or is based on a defendant's immigration status.

I don't believe that is the right way to go. It wasn't with the War on Drugs. We learned the hard way. I want to get tough on the drug sales, and I am sure the Senator from Arkansas feels the same way. We approach it differently. I have the experience of trying to take the hard position on this issue and of seeing that it failed when it came to crack cocaine.

For that reason, I object.

Reserving the right to object.

The Senator from Arkansas' views on immigration are well- known. He has been consistent in opposing immigration, but it is interesting to me that people like him who oppose immigration always, at the end, seem to go after the same people: mothers and children.

We saw it with the cages the kids were kept in. We saw it when kids were forcibly removed from their parents at the border during the Trump years. We have seen it time and again, and now we see it with the Governor of Florida and the Governor of Texas putting mothers and children on buses and busing them hundreds of miles away from where they were picked up, whether there is any contact there or not. Mothers and children are always a

focal point of anti-immigration rhetoric, and, once again, this bill does that.

I agree completely when it comes to stopping transnational criminal organizations, but to focus the bill on innocent spouses and children, including minor children, and make them the target of the bill seems to me going beyond any reasonable law enforcement.

There is a narrow exception in the bill that allows a spouse or child to be admitted to the United States if they can somehow convince the consular officer that they did not know or could not reasonably have known of their spouse's or parent's membership in a criminal organization. But there is no exception for battered spouses or children who are often victims of these organizations themselves. And the bill gives what appears to be unreviewable discretion to these consular officers to decide whether an innocent spouse or child has renounced the organization.

These transnational criminal organizations must be sanctioned and stopped, but this is not the way to do it, going after mothers and children.

I want to make a point, since the Senator concluded after my last statement that I am somehow soft on crime. Can I go through a short list here of bills that I voted for to get tough on crime?

Let's take a look at this bill, the American Rescue Plan. That American Rescue Plan passed in the U.S. Senate and provided billions-- billions--of dollars to State and local communities for police and crime protection--more money for police and crime protection from this Senate to those communities. I voted for it. The Senator from Arkansas voted against it.

Then the Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In that bill was a $430 million investment in our ports of entry, helping DHS to screen vehicles for fentanyl. You see, these drugs come through ports of entry. This idea of a backpack full of drugs being hiked over the border by someone in the middle of the night, that is not where the bulk of these drugs come from. They come through the ports of entry. So we put a $430 million investment to make those ports of entry even stronger and tougher.

I agree with that completely, helping the Department of Homeland Security to screen vehicles and stop fentanyl from coming in. I voted for that. The Senator from Arkansas voted no. Who is soft on crime?

Then we passed the March Omnibus appropriations bill--tens of millions of dollars in increased funding for hiring police officers and technology upgrades at the border to detect and seize fentanyl and other illicit cargo. I voted for that. The Senator from Arkansas voted against it. Who is soft on crime?

And when we passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the most serious bipartisan step Congress has taken to end gun violence in 30 years, I voted for it. The Senator from Arkansas voted against it. Who is soft on crime?

The American people can see which party is passing legislation and actually funds law enforcement, addresses crime and violence in a thoughtful way. And they can see, when the bills come up on the floor, one party gives the speeches; the other party gets the votes.

I am going to continue to vote to support the police and put an end to this drug crisis in America in a thoughtful and sensible way.

I object.

Madam President, passing legislation is difficult at any stage in American history. It is increasingly difficult when it is a 50-50 Senate. You have to work it. You have to be willing to sit down with someone from the other side of the aisle and find a cosponsor so that you have a bipartisan bill.

I have seen that work. In fact, I was part of it. It was Senator Chuck Grassley and I who put together the FIRST STEP Act, which was part of prison reform--significant prison reform--in this country.

Who signed the FIRST STEP Act? President Donald Trump.

Soft on crime? What we did was work out something that was bipartisan, sensible, and really makes a difference, and makes certain that people currently serving in prison will one day be released--most will--and not return to crime when that happens. I think that was time well spent, but it took a bipartisan effort.

I could have come to the floor every day of the week and offered my best idea on how to fight crime, but if you can't pass it on a bipartisan basis in the Senate, it doesn't work.

It takes a lot of hard work and a lot of patience and compromise to make a real change in the law. Even if you think you have the best idea on Earth, you have to work at it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the United States is in the midst of the deadliest drug epidemic in our Nation's history, caused by the most lethal drugs ever created.

More than 108,000 Americans died last year from drugs--more than 108,000--which is almost double the number of Americans killed in the entire Vietnam war. That is the worst slaughter of American citizens by drug dealers and traffickers on record.

The biggest killers, by far, were lab-made opioids, most notably fentanyl, which are cheap to produce and easy to mix with other street drugs. These lethal cocktails have devastated countless families and communities across our Nation. Too many parents have come home to a dead child who has mistakenly taken a prescription pill or a so-called party drug that might have been laced with fentanyl. Indeed, almost no one dies of a fentanyl overdose thinking he took fentanyl. It is laced into other drugs.

That is why, repeatedly, over the past 2 years, I and many of my colleagues have offered a measure to keep it illegal to traffic new variants of fentanyl, but, each time, a Democrat has blocked that measure. Later today, they will do so again.

Perhaps we can at least agree on one thing: We should have no tolerance for people who willingly trick addicted drug users or other innocent persons into taking deadly fentanyl by telling them it is really something else. This happens every day with heartbreaking consequences across the country.

For example, just 2 weeks ago, a drug trafficker was sentenced to life in prison for his role in distributing fentanyl to unsuspecting users in Minnesota. Eleven people died. They thought they were buying illicit Adderall. When he heard about the deaths, the dealer asked his Chinese suppliers for a discount on his next shipment.

That same week, another drug dealer was arrested just minutes from the Capitol Building, where we stand--in Silver Spring, MD--for killing a child with a fentanyl pill, which he said was Percocet. He was hiding the fentanyl-laced, fake Percocet pills inside small bags of marijuana.

Last week, a few minutes in the other direction, a trafficker was tried in Northern Virginia for distributing cocaine laced with fentanyl at a party. Six partygoers overdosed. One died.

These cases happen every day. Drug addicts are especially lulled into a false sense of safety by fake prescription pills, believing them to be medicine for which they have some past experience. That is why fake prescription drugs are on the rise. Federal law enforcement encountered as many fake prescription pills in 2021 as in the previous 2 years combined.

If Democrats refuse to help Republicans keep all fentanyl variants off the streets, hopefully, we can at least agree on keeping deceptive fentanyl traffickers behind bars. My bill would establish that any drug trafficker who knowingly misrepresents fentanyl as though it is something else would be subject to 20 years in prison. If the criminal has a prior felony criminal record or if its misrepresentation kills someone, then the criminal would be subject to life in prison or would even be eligible for the death penalty. There can simply be no leniency for people who trick unsuspecting users into taking deadly fentanyl.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4984, which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, what we heard is a lot of the same excuses that the Democrats have made for years about being soft on crime and their claims about mass incarceration or systemic racism or what have you.

I would point out that almost no one--almost no one--is in Federal prison for mere drug possession. It is a myth that there are low-level, nonviolent offenders in prison because they are addicted to drugs.

Where we are is at a 21-year low in the number of Federal inmates we have. Do you know where we are not at? A 21-year low in drug deaths-- the highest on record every single year, year after year. Almost twice as many have died as in the Vietnam war. Almost 24 times as many have died as in the entire Iraq war. Almost 35 times as many have died as on 9/11. Yet the Democrats repeatedly refuse to crack down on deceptive fentanyl dealers.

As I have mentioned, I have also offered bills in the past that would permanently add fentanyl to the Controlled Substances Act scheduling. The Democrats refuse to do so. They will do it temporarily from time to time, but they want a trade. They want to get a trade for something. They want to either reduce sentences or let prisoners out. This is whether they are Democratic Senators or Democratic Governors in places like Illinois, in their eliminating the bail system, or whether they are Democratic mayors or Democratic prosecuting attorneys in places like Chicago. As a result, we have a crimewave and a drug epidemic all across America.

Let me just reiterate. The bill I just offered, which the Senator from Illinois blocked, would simply say that you cannot sell another drug and not acknowledge that fentanyl is in it; that you cannot misrepresent what you are selling.

It is not just opioids. It is not just heroin. It is even marijuana. It is pills that are passed off as mere prescription drugs, like in some of the examples I gave--Adderall, OxyContin, Percocet--that people all across the America are dying from.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 621

Madam President, let's take another angle on this problem. Almost all of these drugs come from Mexico. Almost all of the drugs in America today come from Mexico. Almost all come from a handful of vicious, depraved cartels in Mexico--cartels that have taken on the powers of a quasi-state, cartels that the Mexican Government either cannot or will not crack down on. So let's look at it from that perspective. It is past time that we bring the full weight of the U.S. Government to bear on these cartels and to destroy them for what they are unleashing on our streets.

Imagine if ISIS or al-Qaida set up shop across our border and was responsible for more than a hundred thousand American deaths every single year. What would we do? What would you do?

I know what we wouldn't do. We wouldn't hesitate to act, and that is exactly what we should do with these Mexican cartels.

Unfortunately, President Biden has done the opposite. Since the day he took office, he has flung open our borders, created a border crisis, and made it easier than ever to smuggle massive amounts of illegal drugs into the United States.

Already this year, the Border Patrol has found over 12,000 pounds of fentanyl being smuggled over our borders--12,000 pounds. You may not be able to put that in perspective. Let me put it in perspective for you: It is enough to kill every man, woman, and child in America many, many times over.

That doesn't even include any fentanyl brought in by the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens whom the DHS calls got-aways.

President Biden could declare fentanyl-peddling cartels to be terrorist organizations, but he has refused to do so. So the bill that I am about to bring up would give him additional tools, short of labeling these cartels ``terrorists.''

My bill would create a new designation called a significant transnational criminal organization, and it would enable the Federal Government to impose many of the same sanctions and use many of the same tools against cartels that it already does against terrorist organizations like al-Qaida and ISIS. Those would include barring cartel members and their immediate families from entering the United States, freezing assets belonging to the cartels to hit their wallets and to keep them from profiting off of death and destruction, and enabling civil and criminal penalties for anyone who provides material assistance or resources to the cartels.

The Democrats are going to block a bill later today that would keep new fentanyl variants illegal. They just blocked another bill that would target drug traffickers who trick people into taking the fentanyl that kills them. I hope at least Democratic Senators would be willing to say that we should give the Biden administration more tools to use against the Mexican cartels, some of the worst and most depraved criminals on Earth.

Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of my bill, S. 621, the Significant Transnational Criminal Organization Designation Act, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I think we know who is soft on crime. It sounds like I hit a nerve. I didn't stand up here saying I am not soft on crime five or six times in a row. It is the Senator from Illinois who said that, just like Senate Democrats have been saying it for the last several months, just like their candidates all across America are saying it.

Let's look at the first bill he mentioned, the American Rescue Plan. You know what that is, right, the American Rescue Plan? That is their $2 trillion wasteful spending bill from last spring that is responsible for 13 percent inflation.

Do you know what is also included in it? A measure that would get stimulus checks to prisoners. That is right--depraved, violent felons; murderers and rapists and drug traffickers all across America. People like the Boston marathon bomber got stimulus checks last year because the Democrats believe that criminals are really, at heart, victims as well, victims of an oppressive society and system.

If I am not mistaken, when I offered my amendment to prevent prisoners from getting stimulus checks, I think it was the Senator from Illinois who stood up and blocked it. I know that he voted against it. I know that he wanted prisoners to get stimulus checks. That is what he is talking about.

What about his objection to this bill, that it is going to target mothers and kids, the poor mothers and children of drug kingpins, a very common feature of American sanctions efforts--in fact, sanctions efforts that we are doing exactly against Russian oligarchs and regime figures, which I support, by the way. I support. No, the wives and the children of Russian oligarchs and Mexican cartel kingpins should not benefit from their ill-gotten gains.

But I care more about the lives of American citizens--the hundred thousand-plus American citizens whom we lose every single year--than anyone else in the world.

The Biden administration's policy, though, is that we will use this tool against Russians, but we are not going to use it against Mexican cartel members. I think that goes to show you where their priorities are.

Again, just to recap, we tried to pass legislation that would have imposed heightened penalties on drug traffickers who misrepresent their drugs and say they don't contain fentanyl. The Senator from Illinois blocked it on behalf of the Democrats.

Just now, we tried to give the Biden administration more tools to target the cartels that are smuggling these drugs into our country, that are killing a hundred thousand of our fellow citizens. Again, on behalf of Senate Democrats, the Senator from Illinois blocked it.

I say, again, over 108,000 Americans were killed by drugs last year. Yet the Democrats continue to refuse to crack down on drug traffickers and cartel kingpins.

Some of my other colleagues are going to offer similar bills today, just like I am going to offer, yet again, my permanent fentanyl scheduling bill that would stop the annual Kabuki dance here of the Democrats demanding some pro-criminal law just so we can permanently add fentanyl to the Controlled Substance Act schedule.

Think about that. At a time when 108,000 Americans are dying every single year--that is not an aggregate number, every single year--the Democrats refuse to act if they don't get something in return on behalf of criminals, if they can't reduce drug sentences for hardened criminals, if they can't let more felons out of prison. It shows a depraved indifference to the lives of our people.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, last evening, I had the opportunity to get on the phone in a telephone townhall with citizens from Davidson and Shelby Counties in Tennessee, and crime was the No. 1 issue that people were talking about. And one of the points that came up several times was, Why is it that some of our colleagues across the aisle have stuck with this prepackaged, zero consequences crime narrative that they are still trying to sell to the American people?

Crime is an issue. And Tennesseans aren't buying the message. I don't think the American people are buying it because they are living with the real-world consequences of the Democrats' refusal to work to get crime under control.

Now, a few days ago, I was watching the news, and I could not believe what I was seeing. Young people were ransacking a convenience store. They were doing this in full view of the cameras, continuing to talk to one another, just going through ransacking that store.

Now, I know I would like to say that was an isolated incident, but we all know that this is not an isolated incident. What is happening is, this has become a trend in many of our cities. The numbers aren't working in our favor when we talk about this trend, whether you are talking about theft or vandalism or something much worse.

Here are some stats. Since 2019, homicide rates in our largest cities are up 50 percent. That is since 2019. Aggravated assaults are up 36 percent. Last year, 108,000 Americans died of a drug overdose; 4,000 of those were Tennesseans.

Now, we can continue to engage in a cable news proxy war or we can do something about this. We, as lawmakers, cannot control what the pundits and the activists say, but we can do something to help the millions of Americans who have become or are at risk of becoming victims of violence.

Back home in Tennessee, the sheriffs and other local officials whom I talk to as I have done my 95-county tour, visiting with every county, these sheriffs, these local officials, parents, principals--they are all telling me exactly why they are struggling to get this crimewave under control. Go talk to a police chief or a captain or go talk to a sheriff or a deputy, and they will tell you: lack of manpower, lack of funding, and the Democrats' soft-on-crime agenda.

We can help with the first two things right now without spending an additional dime of taxpayer money. That lack of manpower, that lack of funding--yes, this is something that we could take action on today if we chose to.

This month, Senator Hagerty and I filed a bill called the Restoring Law and Order Act that would establish a grant program to help State, local, and Tribal law enforcement officials do the work that obviously our President and the Democrats have chosen not to do.

First and foremost, here is what the bill would do. Our local law enforcement officers would be able to use these grants to hire more officers and to train them to deal with violent criminals. They will also be able to pull in more resources to combat interstate child trafficking between the open border and the ease with which criminals are using technology to target kids. This was something we could not afford to leave out of the Restoring Law and Order Act.

These grants would help communities prioritize tough sentencing for repeat offenders and use responsible bail practices and pretrial detention to keep dangerous offenders behind bars. If housing is a problem, they will be able to address it. If food items are a problem, then there would be a way to address that.

We are also going to make these grants available to departments that need help targeting drug crime and getting fentanyl off the streets. Sheriffs in Tennessee tell me that around 80 percent of the drugs that they are seizing--80 percent--contain fentanyl, which means there are a lot of people out there who are ingesting fentanyl and dying without ever knowing that they were taking something laced with fentanyl. This is also putting law enforcement at considerable risk. At least one Tennessee officer is lucky to be alive after accidentally coming into contact with fentanyl.

Last but not least, we are going to encourage law enforcement to make use of these grants to clear the investigatory backlog and get evidence processed as quickly as possible.

So much of our focus has been on urban areas because cities like Philadelphia, Washington, DC, and Memphis are struggling when it comes to controlling homicides, carjackings, and other crimes that are really frightening to people, but rural areas of my State are also seeing unprecedented levels of crime and drug overdose. So to help these communities rise to the challenge, this bill commits no less than 25 percent of its total grant allotment to rural and depressed counties.

Now, as I said, this grant program won't spend an additional dime of taxpayer money. The big IRS payday my Democratic colleagues snuck into the so-called Inflation Reduction Act will be put to better use. Here is how you do it. Instead of using that money to hire more bureaucrats to attack small businesses and independent operators, we are going to use it to keep the communities where they work safe from violent criminals.

We also found that Joe Biden and the Democrats have left a lot of their so-called emergency COVID funding lying around, so we are going to put those funds toward hiring more officers and forensic examiners and clearing the rape kit backlogs. Tennesseans are spending $616 more per month now than they were last year just to keep themselves fed and their cars running. They can't afford to maintain a slush fund for far- left priorities when that money could be put to use actually helping clean up our streets, helping keep our communities safe, and helping to apprehend drug dealers and keep them in jail. That is where these dollars should be used.

The final element of this bill would help us get to the root causes of the rape kit backlogs. In 2021, the U.S. Government spent $251,975,000 through six separate programs to help law enforcement conduct rape and sexual assault investigations. Here is that breakdown. And yes, indeed, Mr. President, $251 million is a lot of money--you are right. More than $24 million was spent on advocacy programs; almost $34 million to train forensic examiners and their staff to collect and preserve DNA evidence, analyze it, and present it in the courtroom; $4 million to train and provide resources to medical personnel who treat victims of sexual assault; almost $90 million to get first responders and forensic testing capabilities in rural areas up on par with urban areas; and $158 million just to address the backlog.

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested, and still it seems we cannot get these rape kits processed. Sometimes it takes a full year to get these results.

I want to use one grant program as a case study to demonstrate the problem that we are seeing. An audit of the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative found that between 2015 and 2021, we sent $266 million to 75 grantees in 40 States and DC to process these kits, to process and obtain this evidence. In that time, they only managed to clear a little over half of a 136,000-kit backlog.

Now, bear in mind, these kits are the kits that contain the DNA evidence of violent offenders. These are individuals who have committed violent sexual assaults. Every one of these should be processed as a rush order--but no. From 2015 to 2021, with $266 million being sent to 75 grantees in 40 different States and the District of Columbia, they managed to clear a little over half of a 136,000-case backlog. So you still have tens of thousands of kits that are gathering dust, and that is just the ones in the custody of grantees from one single program.

This represents over 50,000 violations of trust and bodily autonomy, 50,000 worst night of an innocent man or woman's life, and 50,000 times the scum of the Earth thought they committed a crime and they got away with it, but they also represent 50,000 opportunities for us to take that rapist or that violent offender and put them in jail for the rest of their life.

The Restoring Law and Order Act will give the GAO a year to conduct a study and prepare a report to explain why we haven't been able to clear the backlog. Why is it we cannot get these kits processed? They are going to look

for deficiencies in processing and also let us know where and to what extent rape kits aren't available at all.

This month, Tennesseans--especially the people of Memphis--have been stuck in a vicious cycle of grieving and asking: What more could have been done to spare the victims of two of the most notorious killers in recent memory?

We already know that at least one brutal murder could have been prevented if the crime lab had been able to reduce their processing time for rape kits. Three more may have been prevented if the people responsible for keeping criminals in jail had done their jobs and forced a repeat violent offender to serve out a full sentence. That didn't happen. Four innocent people in Memphis are dead.

The community is heartbroken, and they are grieving. Last night, on our telephone townhall, they talked a lot about this. They talked about how it has affected them and their community.

Now, the left has spent 2 years screaming at Congress to defund the police, pull law enforcement out of neighborhoods, and eliminate consequences for violent behavior, and it is just plain frightening to see so many of my colleagues continue to go along with that rhetoric.

Tennesseans agree, and I think the American people agree also. They don't want an unfair system. They don't want innocent people to be behind bars. They want a system that works. They are tired of hearing that they are the problem--at least according to the Democrats' zero- consequences narrative. That narrative has turned criminals into victims and innocent people into villains and has left true victims wondering who was there for them. There is nothing just or equitable about that.

I would ask my Democratic colleagues to abandon the echo chamber and get on the phone. Go see and visit and listen to and hear from your sheriffs and your mayors and other law enforcement officials back home. Listen to what they have to say. They need your help.

Senator Hagerty and I would love to have their help and support in passing the Restoring Law and Order Act. We need to move this legislation. We need to vote on it now before the crimewave gets even worse.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I was scheduled to come to the floor today to offer live UCs to bring up two Biden nominees--very important nominees--to assume diplomatic posts in the Western Hemisphere.

Senator Scott of Florida was scheduled to be here to oppose my UCs and have a dialogue. The hurricane in Florida has pulled him away, and so he is unable to be here. I am left with the case where there is an objection, but the objector can't come for a reason that I understand. Senator Scott's team has indicated that he will likely be here tomorrow, and we might be able to repeat this tomorrow.

What I thought I would do, having the floor, is say a little bit about these two countries and these two nominees because I hope Senator Scott might watch this or his staff might give him the transcript because I think, if he does, he will see that they are both highly qualified individuals. I want to talk about both, but I will not make the motion at the end of my comments with respect to unanimous consent.

I would say that both Michelle Kwan, who was nominated by President Biden to be our Ambassador to Belize, and Mari Carmen Aponte, who was nominated to be our Ambassador to Panama, are both highly qualified individuals, as I will describe.

But the countries are really important. Belize has not had an ambassador confirmed for more than 5 years. Panama has not had a confirmed ambassador for more than 4 years. And, sort

of, the theme for both of these is, Why punish good behavior? These are great allies of the United States, both Belize and Panama. They are both doing some really important work with us right now, and they deserve to have confirmed ambassadors.

If we won't confirm an ambassador for more than 4 years or more than 5 years, it has a way of sending a message to these countries like: Wow, we say you are great allies, but we clearly don't value you enough to have a confirmed ambassador.

Let me talk about Michelle Kwan, the nominee to be our Ambassador in Belize.

Belize is a critical partner in the Caribbean and Central America. This is a region of significant distress and instability. But Belize has been a bright spot in both relative stability and also closeness to the United States. As I mentioned, no U.S. ambassador has been confirmed there for more than 5 years. It is a stable democracy in a region facing significant threats from organized crime, irregular migration, human trafficking, as well as democratic backsliding in the region.

We worked hard to deepen our relationship with Prime Minister Briceno, and bilateral cooperation between the nations are increasing. Our ability to engage with Belize at this most senior level is crucial right now.

In particular with Belize, there is something fairly unique about this country. In this hemisphere that is very important to the United States, it is also of growing importance to China. We see Beijing active all over the Americas, often outstripping our efforts to pay attention to these countries.

Belize has been willing to be a stalwart partner of Taiwan. There are only 11 nations in the world that recognize Taiwan, and China is going after each one of them, putting pressure on them to strip away their recognition of Taiwan.

The United States is encouraging nations that have recognized Taiwan to continue to do so, but very few are able to hold out against the Chinese onslaught. Belize has been willing to do this. This is good behavior. We asked them to do it, and they have.

By leaving this position vacant, even as Beijing aggressively builds more and more momentum in the region, it is nothing less than diplomatic malpractice. Having a sitting U.S. ambassador there is of utmost importance.

Now, how about Michelle Kwan?

Exceptionally qualified to take on this challenge. She has had an incredibly distinguished career in public service and diplomacy and especially sports.

She is the most decorated figure skater in U.S. history, having won 43 championships, including 5 world championships, 9 national titles, and 2 Olympic medals.

Michelle became the first-ever U.S. Public Diplomacy Envoy in 2006, 16 years ago. For the following decade and a half, under Presidents and Secretaries of State of both parties, she has traveled extensively on behalf of the State Department all around the world to engage youth and especially young girls on social and educational issues.

She would be an extraordinary champion for the United States with this close neighbor, and her global profile will say to Belize: Hey, we value you because we are sending an accomplished and well-known athlete, inspiration, and diplomat to be our representative there.

And so I was going to ask today that she be confirmed by unanimous consent, and I will return, hopefully, to successfully see her advanced by the Senate into this position.

Now let me talk about Mari Carmen Aponte, who is President Biden's nominee to be Ambassador to Panama.

First on Panama, Panama is one of our strongest partners in the Americas. It is a critical ally on a wide range of U.S. priorities.

And, Madam President, you and I remember when we had major problems with Panama--major problems. It has been a success story of turning an adversary into a great ally and even partner, and yet Panama has now been without a U.S. ambassador for more than 4 years.

My friends across the aisle frequently cite migration as a top foreign policy concern. They have a point.

The Venezuelan refugee crisis is now the second largest displacement in the world. The size and scope of this crisis and the humanitarian impact on the region and the Venezuelan people is worsening by the day. I agree. This issue needs much more attention.

Panama is on the frontline of this crisis. Their border with Colombia--the Darien Gap on that border is the primary route by which people migrate from South America, especially Venezuela, north. They have a crucial role to play in any cohesive regional response.

Panama is also critical to narcotics interdiction efforts and in promoting democratic values that are increasingly under threat in the region.

They are also the subject of intense Chinese investment in the Panama Canal. China has a new Embassy built right on the canal.

We are not competing in a vacuum here. We are competing in a highly competitive world, where China is making more investments than we are, and yet Panama still desires to have a very close relationship with the United States.

And there is more.

Recently, Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and Ecuador noticed democratic backsliding in the Americas and announced the formation of something called the Alliance for Democracy and Development. They want to band together, four democratic nations, and be proudly pro-democracy in a region where we see too much backsliding. They can punch above their weight. They can do work not only within their own nations but be an influence throughout the region--indeed, throughout the world. This is something that the United States has celebrated and recognized.

So, again, why punish bad behavior? If they are doing these things to help us with migration, if they are stepping forward to be pro- democracy in a region that is backsliding, why wouldn't we want a confirmed U.S. ambassador?

Let me tell you about Mari Carmen Aponte. She is a Puerto Rican native. She previously served with distinction as an ambassador to El Salvador during the Obama administration. She was confirmed in this body with bipartisan support. She has been the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere.

It is hard to imagine a more qualified nominee. She will have impact from the moment she hits the ground. She was nominated for this role in October of 2021. Her Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing was in May, and she has been pending consideration by the entire Senate since June.

Let's get a proven ambassador in the field and put her to work in a nation that is critical to the United States in the region.

Finally, I will just note, Panama is the home of the Panama Canal. It is the world's second largest free-trade zone. It has a sophisticated logistics and financial operations hub. It attracts billions in direct foreign investment, and we need to be there, again, to counter the significant Chinese interest in this country.

So, again, I had planned to make a motion on behalf of Mari Carmen Aponte. In deference to my colleague from Florida and the challenge there, I will not, but his team has committed to me that they will pay attention to my description of both the importance of these nations and the qualifications of these nominees.

I will return in the hopes that we may soon be able to act as the Senate and forward these highly qualified nominees to the field where they can do their work as representatives of the United States.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise today in order to ask for unanimous consent to pass S.J. Res. 63, a resolution to terminate the COVID-19 national emergency declaration. It has been more than 2\1/2\ years since the national emergency concerning the novel

coronavirus disease outbreak was declared, and it has been extended now twice already by President Biden since the initial proclamation, most recently in February of this year.

It is this declaration, coupled with other additional emergency powers currently invoked by the President, which this administration is using to supersize government in order to continue their reckless, inflationary spending spree and enact their radical, partisan agenda. In fact, the White House uses these emergencies to justify their inflationary, out-of-control spending, their unconstitutional vaccine and mask mandates, and to forgive student loans.

This is not the first time I have come to the floor to terminate this emergency declaration. In fact, in March, I brought an identical resolution to this floor under the expedited procedures contained in the National Emergencies Act that passed this body by a vote of 48 to 47. At that time, the status of the virus in this Nation had greatly improved since the dark, early days of the pandemic. Everyone ages 12 and over was eligible for a booster shot if they wanted further inoculation. More than 550 million shots had been administered in the United States, with 215 million people being fully vaccinated. Two oral anti-virals had been made available for certain patients, and monoclonal antibody treatments were available for those at high risk of becoming seriously ill.

Fast-forward to today, 6 months later, and the status of our immunity and ability to fight the virus in the United States has improved further still. More than 660 million doses have been administered, and 225 million people are fully vaccinated--nearly 70 percent of the population. If you include natural immunity, immunity gained through natural infection, the CDC stated just last month that approximately 95 percent of Americans over the age of 16 have some acquired level of immunity. Everyone ages 12 and older can receive Omicron-specific boosters, and we have a growing roster of anti-viral drugs and monoclonal antibodies that are helping vulnerable populations avoid life-threatening infections.

Now, this is not the time to ignore the individuals still struggling with COVID or those who are tragically dying with the virus, but it does demonstrate that we have made major advances in our fight against COVID-19 and entered a less dire, more endemic phase. In fact, even President Biden recently acknowledged during a ``60 Minutes'' interview that the ``pandemic is over.''

Of course, the President's handlers immediately walked back this claim to argue that the pandemic is, in fact, not over. But why? Why would the Federal officials calling the shots in the executive branch not want to declare this pandemic over? Because it is the fearmongering and the robust authorities provided by the emergency declaration that allow this administration to justify infringing upon your rights and validates their continued expansion of inflationary government spending and social programs.

It was this government-imposed state of emergency that justified their continued lockdowns of small businesses and schools. It was this government-imposed state of emergency that justified their vaccine and mask mandates that continue to this day in too many instances. It was this government-imposed state of emergency that justified President Biden's and congressional Democrats' inflationary spending binge, starting with the $1.19 trillion American Rescue Plan last year and their curiously and inappropriately named Inflation Reduction Act this summer. Most recently, it was the national emergency declaration that allowed the President to extend the payment pause and cancel up to $10,000 in outstanding federally held student loan balances and $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients.

This rallying cry of the far left that the President is pandering to will cost the Federal Government $420 billion--$420 billion--according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Wall Street Journal called the move ``an unprecedented act of peacetime fiscal recklessness.'' And every American knows this is inflationary.

This is exactly the problem. The Biden administration is keeping Americans under the strain of the national emergency declaration as if we are not living in a time of peace, as if we are living in a time of war that requires the full force of the Federal Government--rights and fiscal responsibility be damned--in order to respond to this crisis.

In order to rein in this massive expansion of government, to slow down inflation, and restore Americans' fundamental rights, we must take the important step of terminating the COVID-19 national emergency declaration. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting doing so.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 63 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the joint resolution be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I certainly appreciate the chairman's comments and his sincere commitment. We certainly share some of the same goals.

Practicing medicine in rural Kansas for 25 years, we have been faced with physician shortages for decades, with nursing shortages for decades, and we both agree that is a problem. But the difference is, I don't think that the government is the solution to the problem; I think that the government has created the problem, that physicians and nurses are so tired of dealing with all the redtape, all the continuing burden that the ACA has put on us.

I am so proud of the doctors and nurses. When this country called for them in an emergency, we--including myself--volunteered, rushing to the frontlines of the emergency rooms to take care of patients. Now this Congress is going to reward them with a pay cut, by the way.

But this is not the solution to the doctor shortages or the nurse shortages. The solution is to respect the profession, to remove some of the redtape. Allow us to be doctors and nurses. Don't make us be tied down with issues like prior authorization, which I know your committee is seriously considering as well. We appreciate your work on that as well.

Certainly, I do have people who come to my townhalls--and, like you, we have been to 100 counties in the past 2 years. We have five left to go. And what people ask me is: Why do our kids in the Head Start Programs still need to wear a mask? Do they do any good? Why are there still vaccine mandates out there? Why is this government continuing inflationary spending?

It is my feeling that this emergency declaration allows the President and the White House to expand those powers to take our constitutional rights away from us.

You know, again, I have encouraged people to take the vaccine and do all the right things. But I still think it is time to end the emergency. Give us our God-given constitutional rights back. I think we should support ending this declaration of emergency.

I yield the floor.