Floor Statements

Madam President, I want to join the Senator from Connecticut in thanking Senator Murphy for his leadership, not only in bringing this group together today but also of this very important bill and effort to take on the issues on the border.

As we face global and domestic threats, including a surge at the border, securing our borders and points of entry could not be more important. We had this opportunity to move forward in a bipartisan manner on a broad reform bill that Senators Murphy, Lankford, and Sinema spent months negotiating. For those of us who had bills that were part of that effort, including the Afghan Adjustment Act, I saw firsthand the detailed work they did, the work that they did--that hard work of coming together for what is best for our country.

We have seen these efforts before with immigration every time we have gotten so close. When I first got to the Senate, Senator Graham and Senator Kennedy invited me to be in the group that negotiated legislation supported by President Bush.

We came so close to getting that done in comprehensive reform which, of course, included funding for order at the border.

After that failed, we moved into President Obama's time. Again, this time, it was the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I served, that came together with Senator Grassley's support and Senator Leahy's, and reached an agreement, passed it through the Senate, and then it failed over in the House of Representatives.

Time three was when Senator Rounds, Senator Kaine, and many of us came together. I remember Senator Collins' office was the place of the meeting. I believe the Presiding Officer

was part of that, too, and we reached an agreement. We had enough votes. And then, unfortunately, President Trump gut punched the people in his own party and came out against the bill--again, significant funding for order at the border, significant work that would have been done to allow people to seek citizenship who had been here for years, many of whom know no other country, like the Dreamers.

This bill that was negotiated came with incredible headwinds that they were up against. It would have fixed the asylum system. It would have given the President emergency powers to shut the border down when needed. It also would have invested in hiring more Border Patrol agents and immigration judges, while giving law enforcement the tools and technology they need to secure our borders.

As the Presiding Officer knows, strengthening our border security means investing in both our southern and our northern borders, and I note that Senator Stabenow of Michigan also touched on this very important issue.

America shares the longest border in the world with the country of Canada. It stretches over 5,500 miles, and more than 400,000 people and $2 billion in goods and services cross it every day. A strong northern border is critical for maintaining our trade relationships with Canada and the world.

As I like to say, in Minnesota, we can see Canada from our porch, and they are our closest trading partner. I just met with a number of leaders from the Canadian Parliament today. But that border is also critical for our national security.

We know that more people on the Terrorist Screening Database attempt to enter the United States from Canada than through Mexico, and we have witnessed terrible instances of drug smuggling and human trafficking across this border.

Like so many others, I was horrified and heartbroken when a family of four froze to death in a blizzard at the Minnesota-Canada border, just 2 years ago, in an incident related to human smuggling. That is why we must ensure that Federal, State, and local officials have the information and resources they need to protect our northern border.

And when there are issues at the southern border, they often rely on Customs, as the Presiding Officer knows, and others to come down from northern border offices, and that creates its own set of issues.

That is why these negotiations that Senators Murphy and Lankford and Senator Sinema, with strong support from Senator Schumer, engaged in and this product of a bill were so important, and that is why I supported it.

Beyond addressing the situations at both the northern and southern border, the Border Act would expand legal pathways by including 250,000 new family and employment visas over the next 5 years. These visas would go a long way toward filling worker shortages in my State--and I know in the Presiding Officer's State--that are impacting businesses in my home State, impacting farmers, hospitality, hospitals, clinics, and the like.

This bill also included the Afghan Adjustment Act, with some changes that had been suggested by a number of Republican Senators, which we included. That bill would have been a savior. There are 80,000 Afghans here, so many of whom helped our troops--a major priority for the American Legion, a major priority for the VFW--and they now have a trapdoor under them. They don't know whenever they could be sent back to the Taliban. Yet these are people we made a covenant to. And just like after the Vietnam war, we kept that covenant--we kept that covenant with those that stood with us--we must keep that covenant again.

That is why Senators like Senator Graham was the lead sponsor of that bill with me, along with Senator Moran, the ranking member of Veterans' Affairs. Senator Risch is on the bill from Foreign Relations. We have support from Senator Mullin on that bill. Senator Wicker is on that bill. It is an incredible group of Republican and Democratic cosponsors, and I thank Senator Murphy, Senator Lankford, and Senator Sinema for their work to incorporate it into the bill. It is strongly supported by the Chamber of Commerce as well.

So the bill not only included the work that I just mentioned on the border and on some of these other very important issues; the bill also would have made a major effort in taking on fentanyl by strengthening our borders.

We did make progress on border security legislation that was signed into law last month as part of the national security package, the FEND Off Fentanyl Act. This critical legislation, championed by our colleagues Senators Sherrod Brown and Tim Scott, declares fentanyl trafficking a national emergency and imposes tough new sanctions on fentanyl traffickers, from the chemical suppliers in China to the Mexican cartels that traffic the drugs into our country.

We also recently provided funding for Customs and Border Protection to detect and seize fentanyl and other narcotics at our ports of entry.

These are important steps in the right direction, but there is so much more to do. Law enforcement officers across my State and our country must be very concerned about this every day. One seizure, actually, of fentanyl was enough to kill every single person in Hennepin County, our most populous county.

In Minnesota alone, fentanyl is involved in 92 percent of opioid deaths. Just last month, police in my husband's hometown of Mankato arrested six suspected drug dealers and seized almost 6,000 pills laced with fentanyl. And earlier this year, Minnesota's U.S. attorney, Andy Luger, announced that law enforcement busted a Twin Cities drug ring and seized over 30,000 grams of fentanyl pills. That is enough to kill everyone in our State with over 5 million people more than two times over.

These aren't just numbers. Each of those pills could kill one of our friends and neighbors, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters.

I am thinking about Devin Norring from Hastings, MN. Devin was struggling with dental pain and migraines. So he bought what he thought was Percocet over Snapchat to deal with the pain. But it wasn't really Percocet. It was laced with fentanyl, and it immediately killed him. He was only 19. One pill can kill, and every pill we keep out of our country represents a potential life saved.

That is why we have to pass this legislation. But I join my colleagues and will continue to advocate for the bipartisan Border Act. Why? More funding for cutting-edge technology to intercept fentanyl, more secured border, more order at the border. We need this at the southern border, as well as the northern border.

Next week, I hope we will have an opportunity to take action on this bill. We have worked on this bill for months, making changes from multiple Senators from both parties. At this point, there shouldn't be any controversy about what is in the bill. People have had plenty of time to read it. They have had plenty of time to see the support from groups like the conservative union of the border agents at the border. They have had plenty of time to see the support that the bill has from so many groups across the country.

They have had plenty of time to hear about the horror stories, like the one I just mentioned on fentanyl, and they have had plenty of time to get to the place: That is enough about politics, enough about finger pointing. Let us pass this bipartisan border bill to make our country safer.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Stabenow be permitted to speak for 5 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the urgent need to support the people of Baltimore in the wake of the tragic Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse.

This is near and dear to my heart because of the 35W bridge collapse, and I am well-aware of the response of Congress at that moment many years ago, and I think it is relevant to some of the discussions that have come out of the Baltimore bridge collapse. I thought I would share them with my colleagues today.

First, my heart is with the entire city of Baltimore, especially the families and loved ones of the six workers who died and the workers still trapped on the boat that struck the bridge. I know our colleagues Senator Cardin and Senator Van Hollen are working around the clock to support the victims' families. President Biden was just at the bridge and has pledged his support to get this rebuilt and to open the port and to do everything necessary. And we must stand with them.

I thank the heroic first responders, the Coast Guard, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Maryland officials, including, of course, Governor Moore, who acted swiftly and made sure that lives were saved. Yes, you think about the story of the immediate response to the mayday and the first responders in the middle of the night who made sure other cars didn't get on that bridge. You also think of the Governor there the next day making sure people knew what had happened and what their plans were.

I am thankful for the efforts of brave workers leading the cleanup process, which we know poses serious risks to their safety. The Key Bridge wasn't just a way to get from Hawkins Point to Sparrows Point. It was a unifying force for the people of Baltimore from all walks of life. As one longtime resident, a doctor and son of immigrants, put it:

Every single Baltimorean felt that bridge fall down. That's

our London Bridge. That's our Golden Gate Bridge. It was like

a friend constantly saying hello to me in the morning . . .

The bridge was a lifeline to schools and work . . . It was a

bridge to the American Dream.

In addition to the devastating human tragedy of the collapse, the lack of a bridge that carried over 31,000 vehicles across the river every day will have economic repercussions, and we know it now. It is a major artery for the city and critical point of access for the Port of Baltimore, which handles more cars and trucks than any other port in our country, supporting more than 15,000 jobs and indirectly supporting 140,000 more. Every day that port is closed could cost our economy up to $15 million. That is why we have no time to waste. Baltimore's recovery and our entire economy depend on us stepping up and working together.

Here is our story in Minnesota and why it is relevant. On August 1, 2007, in the middle of the most beautiful day both here in Washington and in Minnesota, the eight-lane I-35W bridge collapsed into the Mississippi River. It took the lives of 13 people and injured many more. Just like in Baltimore, it would have been so much worse if those first responders had fled away from danger but fled to it. They literally didn't know in Minnesota what had happened.

In Baltimore, you could see a ship had hit it. But in Minnesota, we didn't know what had happened. But they ran into those waters of the Mississippi River and got survivors out and helped people. Our bridge actually carried more traffic than Baltimore--over 140,000 vehicles a day. It was eight blocks from my house. It was a bridge that I would take all of the time to bring our daughter to visit her friend. As I said that day when it happened, a bridge just shouldn't fall down in the middle of America; but when it does, we rebuild it.

Here are the heroes very similar to what you see in Baltimore: Shannon Hanson, the off-duty Mississippi firefighter diving in and out of the water searching for survivors up and down the river; Paul Eickstadt, the Taystee truck driver who veered off the bridge to save a schoolbus full of kids and then burned to death in his truck, which caught fire because of how he avoided that schoolbus; Jeremy Hernandez, the worker on that schoolbus. It was a bus of kids that were at a summer program. That bus, which they call the ``miracle bus,'' was just hanging on the edge of the bridge. Instead of running off that bridge, he got every single kid off that bridge to safety by kicking open the emergency door and, one by one, getting those 52 kids off the bus.

Our job in Washington was, yes, to go there and stand with our first responders. And the minute we got there, the next morning, former Senator Coleman, Republican Senator, and I saw the emergency work. We had big billboards up everywhere within 12 hours telling people where to drive and how the traffic was diverted. But our job was to rebuild the bridge, to get the funding immediately to get it done. We worked together.

And within 2 days after that bridge collapsed, I came here and got a waiver of the cap of how much money could be spent on a bridge like that. It was a record. We got the waiver done. Everyone joined with us in the Senate. As I look at what was my chair over there as a freshman Senator, I remember the procedural hiccups involved in all of this, and I remember deciding my best bet was sit in my chair and say I wouldn't leave until it got done. And when the Senate started one morning, Senator Durbin came over to me and said as they were saying the prayer: Somehow, I think you are here to do more than pray. And I said: Yes, I am not going to get up from this chair until we get this done.

He helped me to get that bridge done and include it in a major bill we had pending at the time, which was fortunate. So we got the funding immediately.

President Bush went back to the bridge several times. We were able to get it done. Not one Senator in this Chamber or one House member in this Congress played a blame game. Everyone saw it as the tragedy it was. They knew there would be investigations. They didn't mess around just because it was in a purple State--our State--or a blue State or a red State. We all came together to get it done.

And that bridge got built in record time--339 days from start to finish. Thirteen months later, an eight-lane highway, a humongous bridge--the most traveled-on bridge in the State of Minnesota--got done.

Rebuilding and recovering from the Key Bridge collapse demands that same bipartisan collaboration. The day of the collapse, President Biden said he would ``move Heaven and Earth'' to reopen the port and rebuild the bridge as soon as humanly possible. It is on Congress to help.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to get to the bottom of what caused this collapse, but I also stand ready to support Senators Cardin and Van Hollen as they work to secure the funding to rebuild the bridge. I call on all of our colleagues to join us and not mess around.

In Minnesota, we stand with the people in Maryland, where the lights on our own I-35W bridge were lit in Maryland State colors of red, white, yellow, and black immediately after the collapse.

There is plenty of time for investigations and what went wrong with that large, large ship. That is happening right now. But the immediate focus of our country, because of the economic repercussions not only on Baltimore but on the entire country, is to get this rebuilt and to call people out when they are just trying to play politics with it and say things that are completely inappropriate when six people died on the bridge.

It wasn't that long ago that the I-35W bridge collapsed and our colleagues joined with us. Many of the people in this Chamber are still here. We need to do the same now.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Senator Shaheen. I am pleased to be here with my colleague from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, as I said when I came to the floor earlier this week, I appreciate the tough negotiations that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, including Senator Shaheen with her very important subcommittee, had to go through in crafting this bill. There are many good things in it; and, crucially, it keeps the Federal Government open and working for the American people.

However, as I noted last week, the technical language released by the Appropriations Committee on Sunday restricts the Antitrust Division from using funds generated from merger filing fees that exceed the appropriated amount collected in fiscal year 2024 to enforce our competition laws without a separate act of Congress.

So the reason this has become a major deal for many of us that are simply interested in allowing the Department of Justice to do its work on some very important cases, which are well-publicized that are pending now, is that it conflicts with the intent of Senator Grassley's and my bill that passed last Congress by an 88-to-8 vote. This law provides enforcers with the resources necessary to take on the anticompetitive practices by the biggest companies the world has ever known, an acknowledgment that the world has changed.

Prior to Sunday, appropriators had, for decades, allowed the Antitrust Division to retain and use all merger filing fees it collected without limit. This makes sense. If the fees collected are high, that means the mergers are rampant; and if mergers are rampant, the Antitrust Division needs additional funding to review and challenge anticompetitive mergers when they are anticompetitive, while simultaneously maintaining its non-fee-generating work of prosecuting price-fixing conspiracies and opposing monopolistic behavior.

Unfortunately, the language in the current appropriations bill could divert fees away from the Antitrust Division in fiscal year 2024 if those fees exceeded

$233 million, potentially eroding the intent of the bill that Senator Grassley and I passed, along with Senator Lee, with overwhelming bipartisan support a little over a year ago.

Yesterday, Senator Grassley and I, along with a bipartisan group that led the bill in the House, made clear that the bill's unambiguous intent was to allow the Antitrust Division to retain and use all fees generated from the new fee structure.

Just to clarify with my friend from the great State of New Hampshire, I ask her if she shares the understanding that it is the intent of the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act to provide additional resources to the Antitrust Division by increasing merger filing fees.

Well, thank you, Senator Shaheen.

I also understand that this year's appropriations bill, as I noted, was a product of negotiations in especially difficult circumstances. Given this situation, I thank you and Senator Murray for successfully fighting to secure an increase in funds compared to last year for the Antitrust Division.

But as we have noted, this year's compromise would restrict the Antitrust Division's access to merger filing fees in years when those filing fees exceed the appropriated amount should not and cannot set a precedent for future appropriations bills. This language is limited to this bill and this bill only. Moving forward, we must include language that allows the Antitrust Division to retain and use the additional fees it collects under our bill--the bill that was passed with 88 votes in this Chamber, signed into law by the President, and, of course, passed by the House, and was consistent with decades of precedent to empower the Antitrust Division to enforce our competition laws.

One last question of the Senator from New Hampshire, and that is: Will you commit to prioritizing and doing everything in your power to include language that will allow the Antitrust Division to retain and use all the fees it collects above the appropriated amount in future budgets consistent with the law's intent?

Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen. And as we know, there are major, major investigations--some suits already have been filed. Actually, from the prior administration going forward into this administration, they have been bipartisan in that way, as well as ongoing investigations.

So I do thank you for your commitment and look forward to working closely with you and the Democratic and Republican Members of the Appropriations Committee on the fiscal year 2025 budget process to uphold this commitment.

Thank you, Senator Shaheen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record updated United States Senate Fellowship Regulations.

Madam President, I rise today to join Senator Durbin and Senator Graham--thank you for organizing this--Senator Cornyn and Senator Hawley and others who believe it is long past time to update and change our laws in this digital world.

As my colleagues know, I have been trying to do this in the area of competition policy. We had a setback this week with losing the increased antitrust fees that were supposed to go to the Justice Department. But we carry on and hope that won't be the same next year and then join our colleagues across the aisle to try to change the law. If we are not going to give the resources, we better change the laws.

For too long social media companies have turned a blind eye when children joined their platforms and built algorithms that pushed harmful content out to kids. Despite hollow apologies and empty promises, these companies haven't fixed the problem.

The problem has gotten worse and every single parent knows it and every single person in this room. You don't even have to have a kid or grandkid to know it. You heard it from your friends, and we certainly heard it in testimony before our Judiciary Committee.

That is why I support Chair Durbin's bill, the STOP CSAM Act--I am a cosponsor--the EARN IT Act that Senator Blumenthal and Senator Graham have, and that is why I am working with Senator Cornyn to pass the SHIELD Act.

I am going to focus on the SHIELD Act because that is my bill, but I support these other bills.

In 2016, 1 in 25 Americans reported being threatened with or being a victim of so-called ``revenge porn.'' Now, just 8 years later, studies show that 1 in 12 people report being a victim. Yet there is no current statute addressing these serious privacy violations, violations which have enormous social, emotional, and even financial impacts on victims.

According to one survey, 93 percent of victims report suffering significant emotional distress due to having intimate images shared against their will; 13 percent report difficulty getting a job or getting into school because these images are on the internet; and more than half experienced suicidal thoughts as a result of the violation.

FBI Director Wray--if you don't want to believe us--FBI Director Wray testified that the Bureau has recently reported an increase in sextortion scams, which in 2022 alone resulted in at least 20 victims committing suicide--20 victims committing suicide--including Jordan DeMay, a high school senior and straight A student who took his life after he was blackmailed with the threat of distributing nude photos over Instagram.

What happens is these kids think they have met a girlfriend or a boyfriend. They give them a photo, and it turns out to be a scam. And then they threaten them that they are going to put the pictures online, and these kids don't know who to turn to. They are just dumb kids--and they commit suicide. It is that straightforward. The Washington Post has done a review of a number of these cases.

So are we just going to sit there and let this get worse and worse and worse? I just don't think that is the answer. The Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and Limiting Distribution, or, as it is known, the SHIELD Act, gives law enforcement the tools it needs to stand up for victims of serious privacy violations.

Our bill establishes Federal criminal liability for people who distribute or threaten to distribute others' explicit images online without consent. It also fills in gaps in existing Federal law so that prosecutors can hold all those who share these images intentionally of these kids accountable.

Let me make clear that we have--of course, as a former prosecutor and as the Presiding Officer is from the great State of Nevada--we understand that you have to narrowly define these bills and these laws. That is what we have done, and we made many changes after the markup of this bill. We listened, and we made changes to the bill. I have worked to refine the bill to address the concerns, and I continue to work with my colleagues to do so. But at some point--this was last May, and we are still sitting here. So that is why I join my colleagues in asking to get these bills through now, not tomorrow, not a month from now-- now.

When that Boeing plane lost a door midflight in January, nobody questioned the decision to ground the planes to see what was wrong. No one thought that it was the mom who should have done something and checked out those bolts ahead of time or that it was the kid who should have been able to figure out that something was going wrong here.

We have laws on the books. As Senator Durbin said, we have the ability to sue. We have laws on the books. These companies are no longer little companies that started in a garage and that should be shielded from all liability and that should have no rules applied to them. If we just want to leave the status quo and leave it to parents and see how it works out for these kids, I am not going to go that path. That is why I am joining my colleagues across the aisle to get these bills done, and when they do their unanimous consent, I will join in that as well.

Mr. President, I am here to talk about a provision in the appropriations bills that was unveiled just yesterday. I thank my colleagues for their work on these bills--it has been incredible--and the bipartisan effort in the Senate and the

House. I know how tough these negotiations can be. There are so many good things in it that I am sure I will be talking about myself over the next few weeks.

But I want to focus on one thing that I hope we can still clarify and change. I don't think it was the outcome that people thought when they voted on the floor a little over a year ago on something. This sort of seemingly technical language that was included in this appropriations bill on our Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice basically upends the work that Senator Grassley and I have done--many others joining us--to update the merger fees after I think it is over 20 years. We worked very hard on this over a 5-year period and got buy-in from the Judiciary Committee. We worked with Senator Lee and had a combination amendment that got significant support in this body--well over 80 votes--that focused on Senator Lee's venue amendment that he and I had to make sure that cases in the tech arena stayed in the States, antitrust cases stayed in the States where they were brought; then, secondly, that we actually funded a division that has been underfunded by many measures with 300-plus less employees than they had in 1979. That is the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department.

It may not be the first thing on everyone's mind, but if you are someone wondering why does something cost so much or why don't I have a choice, you have got to look at the consolidation going on in this country. If you wonder why do I have to pay this much for a concert ticket, you might want to look at the fact that Ticketmaster has got a 90-percent monopoly on big events, an 80-percent monopoly on pro events--pro sports events--and a 70-percent monopoly on all events. So it is an issue that matters to people.

This Chamber, unfortunately--I see Senator Kennedy here who has worked with me diligently on a bill about the news organizations and the monopoly tech companies. We have many good ideas here, some of which--including the bill I have with Senator Kennedy--that have come through the Judiciary Committee, but we haven't been able to get the political support on both sides of the aisle to actually pass these bills. So that leaves us with one shiny light when it comes to consolidation, and that is the work that has been going on in bringing these cases.

For the tech cases, could I say, several of them were initiated during the Trump's Justice Department and have continued into the Biden administration's Justice Department. But to do that, to take on the biggest companies the world has ever known, to take on Google, with the 90 percent market share, you have to have resources. You can't have a Justice Department Antitrust Division that has, say, one-fourth or one- third of the staff of just one of these companies. That just isn't really going to work. And guess what. They know it.

That is why Senator Grassley and I put together this merger fee bill. Today, he and I are sending a letter to the Appropriations Committee leaders asking them to take out some of this language that actually upends the bill that we not only worked on but we passed in this Chamber. It wasn't one of those things tucked in the bill. We actually had to have an amendment vote in this Chamber. Over 80 of our colleagues voted on it, and now it is being implemented.

There is less money that they have to pay for smaller mergers--which a lot of smaller companies like--and bigger fees for mergers over $500 million. Let's just say for them it is a drop in the bucket; well, not for the Justice Department Antitrust Division. We have now seen about 46 million more dollars come in, and somehow, through the magical Appropriations Committee process, that money has now vanished.

I have faith that the people on the Appropriations Committee did not mean to upend an act of Congress and take the money away from the antitrust enforcers. So this is what I came here to talk about today.

Monopoly companies are starting to reign over our economic and family lives, particularly in the tech area. And, of course, we have passed no updated competition laws since the invention of the internet, while other countries, of course, have, other countries, including--as I see Senator Kennedy over there--in the area of news organizations.

Singapore just passed a law. Canada just passed a law. Australia has passed a law. Hundreds of millions of dollars are now being paid to actually pay for news content.

The provisions released this weekend are in direct contradiction to the work that was done in this Chamber. The bipartisan Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act passed less than 15 months ago. It passed in the Senate on an 88-to-8 vote, and then the bill passed the full Senate-- the other provisions included, unrelated to this--on a vote of 68 to 29. It was signed into law December 29, 2022.

The Congressional Budget Office found that this would generate about $1.4 billion in revenue over 5 years, split between the FTC and the Department of Justice. That is an average of a more than $140 million increase in fee collections per year for each Agency.

For fiscal year 2024, the CBO estimated that the Department of Justice Antitrust Division would earn $278 million under the bill--an increase of $88 million from a year prior. Yet the budget released this week appropriated only $233 million to the Antitrust Division. That is an estimated $45 million in fees that were diverted away from antitrust enforcers.

But that is not all. The appropriation reverses decades of precedent--25 years it said the overage of fees would go to the Antitrust Division. So if they generate the fees, then they get to have those fees to help hire the lawyers to take on the big companies. That is how it has always worked. One pen, and they changed it. We weren't able to see it ahead of time. We worked with them after some language came out in July. Unbeknownst to us, they just took the money and ran. They took the money, and they put it in other parts of the government budget. This appropriation, as I said, reverses how this has been done.

So let's just get this straight. Senator Grassley and I changed the law with 88 votes to get more money into that Division. Instead, going forward, they are not going to get any of the money. So it almost makes it ridiculous that we tried to help by passing the law, because if we hadn't done anything, then maybe no one would have noticed it, and then the Appropriations Committee wouldn't have taken the money.

When Congress acts to increase merger fees or makes a policy decision, I think the Appropriations Committee's job is then to follow that policy decision.

The CBO predicts an $88 million year-over-year increase in the fees, but enforcers at the DOJ only get to see $13 million of that increase, with no opportunity to collect more fees if merger and acquisition activity exceeds what appropriators predict.

On top of this, unlike in previous years, the budget fails to fund the Antitrust Division's non-fee-generating work, like criminal price- fixing and monopolization cases. Last year, appropriators gave the Antitrust Division $35 million to fund these efforts. This year, they gave zero. This may put the Antitrust Division in the untenable position of deciding whether to block an anti-competitive merger or sue an anti-competitive monopolist. They should have the resources to do both. They actually bring money into the government.

I understand the difficult choices that Appropriations Committee members face every year. There are always difficult tradeoffs in funding, especially when budgets are constrained. I have even been told that the reduction in the appropriations was driven by lower-than- expected fee collections in the first quarter, but this doesn't justify diverting fees away from the Antitrust Division if that purported shortfall is made up later in the year. As currently drafted, the Antitrust Division will not have the resources to do its job if merger activity increases later this year, as we have already observed during the second quarter.

This is not an appropriations decision; it is a policy against antitrust enforcement that undermines a bipartisan law. The clear intent of our legislation that received 88 votes out of 100 in the U.S. Senate--actual votes--was to provide antitrust enforcers with more resources. No one, when voting for this bill, believed the goal was to pay for anything but increased antitrust enforcement. It says it right in

the preamble to the bill. The act's purpose is ``to promote antitrust enforcement and protect competition through adjusting premerger filing fees, and increasing enforcement resources.''

The administration said the law would support its critical mission to ``enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony.''

Senator Grassley said--and I am so pleased he joined me in an effort today--in a letter to say: Please, please clarify this. Maybe you didn't understand that it upended the law that we passed in this Chamber when you did it. You have a lot going on. You try to make compromises. I get it. You do all this stuff. But it is one thing to reduce someone's underlying budget, which happens from time to time; it is another to actually take the fees that we as a Chamber decided to go into a purpose and then decide that, well, we are just going to take away their merger fees that they have generated.

Grassley said this:

It's important that these government agencies have the

resources needed to protect consumers and taxpayers. I'm

proud to co-author this bipartisan bill, which will improve

fairness in the fee schedules for proposed mergers and

strengthen the ability of these agencies to challenge

anticompetitive transactions.

Now is not the time to kneecap the ability to enforce our antitrust laws. Over 75 percent of U.S. industries have become more concentrated since the late 1990s. Since 2008, American firms have engaged in more than $10 trillion in acquisitions--that is ``trillion'' with a ``t''-- and the 5 most powerful tech companies have completed more than 700 acquisitions, combined, since 1987.

Some of those are great. Some of that is good. But we all know now, when you have Google with a market share of 90 percent in the search market and you have anti-competitive behavior where these companies are putting their own products at the top of the search engines and pushing down small businesses--which is why the National Federation of Independent Business has made one of their top priorities passing another bill that Senator Grassley and I have to put some rules of the road in place--you know we are seeing an issue. And we are not just seeing it in tech. We see it in everything from agriculture to ticketing, from cat food to caskets. This is why the administration put forward the Executive order. This is why we repeatedly see bipartisan support to do something about monopolies.

As Adam Smith, the godfather of capitalism, said--he didn't just talk about the ``invisible hand,'' someone who influenced our Founding Fathers. As he said, beware the unbridled power of monopolies.

Today, antitrust enforcers--the cops on the beat--are being asked to do more with way too little. Between 2008 and 2020, the economy grew twice as fast as antitrust appropriations increased. For example, in 2010, the Antitrust Division received $163 million. In 2020, the number had increased only $3 million. At the same time, merger filings increased 80 percent, with 3,152 reportable mergers in 2022 alone. Yet, as of the fall of 2022, the Antitrust Division, as I noted, had 352 fewer employees than it did in 1979.

Think about the power we see out there with these companies. Do we not, as Americans, want some even playing field for small businesses and some rules of the road? That is why some of my most conservative colleagues have joined me--and some of our liberal colleagues and some people who are in the middle--in saying we need rules of the road. But if we are not going to do that, at least let our antitrust enforcers do their job.

It is no wonder we have this competition problem. Our competition enforcers don't have enough resources to effectively take on multibillion-dollar, much less multitrillion-dollar, companies.

Monopolies are spending millions to hold on to their power. Last Congress, I got to see up close how hard big tech companies are willing to fight to maintain their dominance.

I love these products. I have an iPhone. I have a Fitbit. I look at the platforms all the time. I get it. But I also believe in competition. You can still have these strong companies and make sure we have competition in these areas.

After an unprecedented lobbying effort by the dominant platforms, critical antitrust bills did not get a vote on the Senate floor, including ones that had come through the Judiciary Committee. It was reported that tech-funded groups spent more than $120 million in advertising against these bills and $90 million on lobbying over an 18- month period. That is more than $200 million, really, on one bill, the bill that Senator Grassley and I have--not the merger fee bill, which was nearly unanimously supported until it was upended mysteriously this week, but on our other bill about self-preferencing.

While that one sector spent that much--that is one sector of our economy, $200 million on one bill--the appropriators just took $45 million in potential fees and hid them under a rock somewhere in the Federal Government. And in just 1 week last May, a single industry group spent $22 million on TV ads against the legislation I just mentioned--$22 million against one bill in 1 week on TV ads all over the country. That is more than four times the amount allocated to the Antitrust Division per week.

I remember scrolling through the news and seeing internet popup ads that displayed in Washington, DC, from industry groups. They would say things like: Senator Klobuchar could break Google Maps. The lawyers made them put in the ``could,'' but you could hardly read it. Senator Klobuchar could destroy FaceTime. Senator Klobuchar could break up Amazon Basics and take away Amazon Basics. They just put that ``could'' in the smallest font possible, but the lawyers made them do it because they knew it wasn't true. That is what we are up against.

Now, I know it is hard to get these bills done now, but I thought, well, at least the Antitrust Division has brought very significant actions involving Google's dominance with ads and other platforms. Those are big-deal things. And the FTC has brought a case that started during the Trump administration against Facebook. These cases are big deals if we want to do something about it because it doesn't look like we are going to get anything done here.

It takes time, it takes talent, and it takes money to even the playing field. For example, the DOJ's case seeking to break up Google's search monopoly started in 2020, and closing arguments won't be heard until May of this year. And that case only confronts one of the monopolies.

The Antitrust Division is trying these cases while simultaneously reviewing and challenging anti-competitive mergers.

Just Monday, JetBlue abandoned its merger with Spirit after the DOJ prevailed at trial. Anyone who travels knows you want to have choices. You want to be able to look at different air fees. I am looking at the pages. They know what I mean. You look, and you try to find the cheapest airfare you can find. Well, you are not going to be able to do that if there are no low-cost carriers and you aren't able to choose.

In the last 3 years, the Antitrust Division has also successfully protected consumers by investigating and challenging mergers between Penguin and Random House, Adobe and Figma, and Visa and Plaid, among many others. Recent reports indicate that the DOJ is wrapping up investigations that could lead to monopolization cases involving Apple, involving Live Nation and Ticketmaster.

While public information about these potential cases is obviously not out there--it shouldn't be--one thing we absolutely know is that litigating against these companies will take significant resources. That is what this is about. Will I agree with every case they bring? No. But I believe in the principle of competition, and I just believe also in the principle that when the Senate takes a vote on something and decides that we are going to actually put more resources into an Agency generated by merger fees that we have designated to go to that Agency, we mean it. A little group in a committee behind closed doors can't change that decision. They shouldn't be allowed to change that decision even if they don't like some of the cases that are brought.

The next time someone complains to you about a Taylor Swift ticket and

how much it costs or a Bad Bunny ticket and wondering why things got screwed up and why it never got investigated the way they thought it should, I guess we will have to say: Well, there was this little group of a committee that made a decision, even though the whole Senate voted to put the funding into a Division of the Justice Department to be able to do its job. Then, over a few months, a group of us just decided: We don't really want to do that. We want to actually take that money and maybe help someone else.

I am sure it may be a good cause. We don't know where the money went.

But it is against and upends the intent of the U.S. Senate to do something that was woefully underfunded for years and decades. And Senator Grassley knows this. That is why he did the bill with me. That is why today we joined together in a letter to the appropriators asking them--this just can't abandon your intent. I just don't believe it was their intent to--when we actually passed a law to add funding through these merger fees, their intent can't have been to say: We are actually going to take away any upside for you; if you do more work and get more fees in, we are going to take away the upside that you always had for 25 years.

Yes, did they increase the budget by 8, 10 million, whatever it was? Yes. Yes, is it a hard budget year to make decisions? It is. But the point is, sometimes--like we did with semiconductor chips or we do with other things--that Congress makes a decision through the committee process--a long, tenuous process--that we are going to take one area of the government and actually not just put bandaids on, not just increase the budget a little bit, that we are going to do a game-changing thing.

That is what we did with the merger fee change. That is why Senator Grassley and I worked on it for so long and got it through the Judiciary Committee. We were tired of the 3 million, 4 million that would hire the lawyers and still be one-fourth the size of the legal department. We were tired of having 350 less employees in that division than they had in 1979.

We made a decision as a Senate to vote for that and do that. And I just don't think we should be upending that decision through an appropriations process.

I got involved in this a long time ago when I was in the private sector. I represented MCI. I did a lot of work in telecom. And I saw firsthand what happened when you actually got competition, when you actually took a part of monopoly. What happened? Long distance rates went way down. What happened? We had burgeoning cell phone industry.

But before that, it was like the cell phones were the size of a Gordon Gekko's phone in that movie ``Wall Street.'' They were like a brick.

Competition brought us that. Capitalism brought us that. But capitalism in America has always had the guardrails put around it, which is antitrust enforcement, as unsexy as it may sound.

It has made a difference in this country, and it is one of the reasons why we have this economy that can thrive, because we say at some point: Whoa, that is a monopoly, so we have to make sure there is some competition.

We can't do that here anymore. The Senate is not going to sit there and start deciding to break up this and break up that. Our antitrust enforcers do it. Our antitrust enforcers--maybe they don't break it up, but they say: Hey, you have to divest these areas of the country where you two companies that want to merge will become one and you will be the only game in town. That is not going to work for competition. It is incredibly complex.

So it isn't always a sympathetic case to make for having lawyers so they can take on the case against these companies, but it is a sympathetic case to make that we have too much consolidation, that we have to bring prices down, that you shouldn't have to pay all this money for concert tickets and all these hidden fees, that you shouldn't have to pay this much when there is so much consolidation in the grocery area and the like or in agriculture and things like that. That is what the antitrust division does.

I am hopeful. I see Senator Murray, who is such an incredible leader, here on the floor and hope we will be able to do something--a technical change to this bill--either this week, or we have another bill next week. So we can, at least, just bring back this part of the bill to the original intent of Congress.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass the national security legislation that is in front of us. It reaffirms our commitment to our partners across the globe.

Now, earlier this week, we had an opportunity to move forward with this bill, plus provisions--important provisions--that have been negotiated by Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, Senator Murphy, Senator Sinema, and many others, that would have focused on border security--an issue that Senator Lee has been raising in his objections today.

I think it is important that people understand the many opportunities we have had to move on border security, but this was a gleaming opportunity because it was negotiated by a conservative Republican from Oklahoma who had been designated by his caucus, someone many in this Chamber have deep respect for. And, unlike other pieces of legislation that I strongly supported, this actually wasn't comprehensive reform.

We have had many opportunities in the past, including passing a bill through this Senate that would have created legal paths to citizenship while strengthening our border, and I hope we continue to have those opportunities.

The provision that was voted down by our Republican colleagues would have strengthened the border security in a major way, giving the President emergency powers that he could have exercised at the border. It also would have done something about fentanyl.

A sheriff in my State, in our biggest county, in the last year, seized enough fentanyl to kill every single person in that county. This legislation would have actually provided the resources for technology-- cutting-edge technology--to detect the fentanyl coming over to our country from ports of entry--whether they be right on the border, whether they be on the Canadian border, something of concern to the Presiding Officer and myself, or whether they be in airports and the like. Sadly, our colleagues voted that down. So originally, this combined piece of legislation was about standing with our allies around the world, but it was also about our own security--border security, economic security. It actually contained a number of visas and work permits for those who come to this country legally and would like to work. And sadly, that was turned down.

I know that in the rural areas of my State, where we don't have enough workers in our nursing homes and in our hospitals, where we don't have enough doctors in those hospitals, where we don't have enough people to work in manufacturing and in our agricultural communities, that actually would have been a big game changer for us, as I know it would have been in a lot of the Northern States, but that was turned down by our colleagues.

So we have the package in front of us, and the package in front of us is about national security. As we work to try to get them to join us and strengthen border security, at least we must stand by our allies around the world.

There is one ally that I especially want to focus on, and that is what is happening in Ukraine. I have been to Ukraine twice in the last few years, also to the border right after the invasion, in Poland, standing there with Senator Wicker and Senator Blumenthal, meeting with our troops and the NATO troops that were stationed in Poland. But seeing people fleeing from Ukraine, when that invasion began, always indelibly marked in my mind would be the grandma who was 90, in a wheelchair, being pushed over the border from the only country that she had ever known, into Poland; and the little kids with nothing but backpacks with their stuffed animals. They had to leave so fast because there had been a bombing of a training facility. And we happened to be there that day, only weeks after the war started.

And since then, Vladimir Putin's unprovoked, unlawful, unjustifiable invasion, the largest land war in Europe since World War II rages on.

This is not only a battle for Ukrainian sovereignty, it is a battle for democracy itself. And just as Vladimir Putin has shown his true colors, razing cities to the ground, slaughtering innocents, abducting children, the Ukrainian people have shown theirs, defending their democracy in brilliant blue and yellow. They have succeeded, even taken back some territory because of their unbreakable resolve, but also because countries across the globe as far away as Japan and South Korea, their neighbors in Europe, the United States, Canada, have stood with them. And now is not the time to give up.

Over 100,000 Ukrainians have been wounded and 70,000 have been killed. In the words of the NATO Secretary-General, the war has become a battle for ammunition. Russia is firing nearly 10,000 rounds a day, while Ukraine is only managing 2,000.

It is not just the U.S. that has stood up to this challenge with not only military aid and expertise but also, of course, humanitarian aid. And the humanitarian aid in this agreement, of course, will give much- needed humanitarian assistance to those innocents in Gaza. And we all mourn what is happening there right now. It will help people throughout the world.

But it is important to note that it isn't just the U.S. standing up. Our European allies are standing up to this challenge. The British Prime Minister visited Ukraine in January and promised to increase funding to over $3 billion by next year. Latvia, a tiny Baltic State of less than 2 million people, is providing military support to Ukraine that is equivalent to more than 1 percent of its GDP. They have also trained 3,000 Ukrainian troops and plan to train more as the fighting continues. And Finland, which shares more than an 800-mile border with Russia, has given Ukraine over $2 billion in aid since the fight began.

These countries know that freedom is at stake. These border countries that I once visited with Senator McCain during the first invasion--and I have heard the stories of Estonia, where, when Russia was mad at them for moving a statue, they turned off their Wi-Fi. Or in Latvia and Lithuania, when people would stand up for democracy, they would hack into their phones--or the kinds of false advertising and interference on the internet with misinformation that we first saw in those border countries, in places like Finland and places like Sweden, as we now know, the Russians have tried and are trying it over here.

The Ukrainian people, though--they are on the frontline. While we deal with this over the internet, as hard as that is, they are dealing with it on the frontlines--shedding blood, killing hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers, standing up for their homeland; the chef cooking meals for the troops on the frontline; the nurse who traded in her scrubs for camo and now serves as a field medic; the martial arts teacher leading an 11-man recon unit to keep his village safe. These are the lives at stake.

As President Zelenskyy said in September, ``There is not a soul in Ukraine that does not feel gratitude to you, America.'' I saw this firsthand when I was there with Senator Portman in the middle of the war. We were the first ones to go over officially after some of the leaders in the Senate and House had gone there. The U.S. Embassy officials in Kyiv told us that one evening when they picked up a take- out order, a restaurant employee had written ``Thank you for the HIMARS'' on the back. They didn't even know they worked at the Embassy.

U.S. aid has empowered Ukraine to take back half of its country and saved lives. It has given families hope that there will be a future. When you think of the numbers, today, more than 6 million Ukrainians have been forced to flee their homeland--6 million Ukrainians. Just as our Polish allies and other countries in the region have taken in refugees, America has, too, especially in my home State of Minnesota that has always had a proud Ukrainian-American population. I have met a number of refugees. Sometimes, it is flower farms, where the Ukrainians would come to work in the summers and bring back that money home. Now, they are staying there and bringing their families, and the farmers have taken in their families.

Sometimes, it is people who simply had no place to go; and the relatives, the distant relatives, took them in. I met them at the Ukrainian churches, and I have met them in their workplaces. It is a very hard situation. And to a tee, every single one of them says, ``I just want to go home.''

Throughout our history, America has never failed to defend our friends in this manner. If we were just to simply withdraw, just like that--just because of the dysfunction in this place? How could we ever explain that and hold our heads high with the rest of the world?

The question is, as Vladimir Putin seeks to wipe Ukraine off the map and march right in and could easily march right into a NATO country and put America and our military right in the middle of a major war, the question is, Will America answer the call of the Ukrainian people?

To me, it is not a question, it is a must. We must be here for Ukraine, for the moms, dads, grandmas, grandpas, kids, and grandkids who are counting on us. We must say as President Zelenskyy said on the first day of the invasion when he went down to the street corner and said three simple words: ``We are here.'' It is now our moment to say, ``We are here.''

Afghan Adjustment Act

Madam President, one other topic, that I wanted to discuss today is the work we are doing on the Afghan Adjustment Act amendment. We don't know if there are going to be amendments, but if there are, I hope, with the strong bipartisan support that we have for this measure, that we will be able to have a vote which we know will pass on this important measure.

This is an obligation--a security obligation. Just as I talk about the border and our obligation to do something on the border and to make sure we have a strong legal immigration system, just as I talked about Ukraine and the importance of standing with that ally, just as I talked about the importance of humanitarian aid to Gaza and places around the world, we also have an obligation to stand with those who stood with us. That is about keeping promises. That is about keeping our covenant.

So yesterday, I filed a bipartisan amendment based on the Afghan bill that Senator Graham and I have long put forward. This is an amendment that Senator Jerry Moran--the highest ranking Republican on the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the U.S. Senate--and I have put forward.

Senator Graham is also a cosponsor of this amendment. Our cosponsors include Senator Wicker, who is the highest ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee; Senator Cassidy, Senator Mullin, Senator Tillis, Senator Murkowski, Senator Crapo--I note that Senator Graham is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee for the Republicans-- Senator Rounds, Senator Capito; of course, many Democrats, including Senator Coons, Senator Shaheen, Senator King, Senator Blumenthal. This is about doing right by those who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our troops. This amendment is supported by so many of the groups that stand with our veterans.

And I know when I--and I am sure the Presiding Officer and Senator Kaine who is with us today in the Chamber--when we go and talk to our veterans and meet them wherever they are, they talk to us about things like exposure to burn pits. Oftentimes, it is not those who are exposed to the burn pits, but they know someone that was or someone's husband that was or someone's wife that was, and they are looking out for them. And all the times when they talk to me about benefits, it will be about someone they know that has PTSD or someone who has mental health issues. It is very rarely about their own problem.

That is the same thing going on here. This is legislation, and I have never seen so many vets come up to me about something where they get so emotional, because it is about the people that stood with them on the frontline, the translators, the people who gather intel, the people that were willing to take a bullet.

That is why this bill--this amendment we put forth--has the strong and never-ending support of groups like With Honor, No One Left Behind, Operation Recovery, the American Legion, the VFW, I would add the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; as well as many of our Nation's most revered military leaders, including Admirals Mike Mullen, William McRaven, Generals Richard Myers of the Air Force, Joseph Dunford from the Marine Corps, Stan McChrystal from the Army, and the list goes on and on.

I literally have hundreds of generals who have commanded troops all over the world in many different conflicts who say this is a fight worth having because, when the Vietnamese and the Hmong stood with our troops in Vietnam and when we were through and so many of them fled to our country, we didn't just leave them in legal limbo. We didn't just leave them as what happened to, as Senator Kaine is aware, one of the Afghan interpreters who was working double shifts as a driver with Lyft and Uber and ends up getting murdered. We didn't leave them back then in legal limbo. We made sure they had a path to permanent residence. We made sure they were able to live in this country with dignity.

And what did we get out of it, besides the obvious national security implications that others will want to stand with us because they know we keep our promises? What did we get out of it? A thriving Hmong and Vietnamese community in this country, just as we have with others who have stood with us. They are now nurses and doctors and firefighters. They are teachers. My daughter went to elementary school. Half of her class were Hmong.

That was what we did for those communities, and now, they are a part of America because, in America, we know that immigrants don't diminish America, they are America. This covenant, for so many reasons, with our Afghans must be kept.

So what am I talking about here?

Well, I am talking about nearly 80,000 Afghans who sought refuge in our country after the withdrawal. They are here in our country. So let's think about this. They are actually in our country.

What our bill does, which was negotiated with many conservative Senators--it actually has strong provisions for vetting, to go back and to see what the people who are here have done while they were here. Many of you can imagine that there are work permits, that they are finding ways to work. They are trying to raise their families. They have more people who will vouch for them. Over half the people have a letter from the head of mission in Afghanistan. They have letters from our own military about what they did and how they saved their lives. In addition, there are those who are still in hiding who stood with our troops in places around the world--brave translators, humanitarian workers, courageous members of the Afghan military. That is what is in the bill.

What are we talking about here?

Well, we are talking about the female tactical teams of Afghanistan I got to meet within the last few months. They had our troops' backs as they pursued missions hunting down ISIS combatants on unforgiving terrain and freeing prisoners from the grips of the Taliban. The entire purpose of the programs that we have in place and that we are working to expand and extend to the Afghans is to provide residency to those who have supported the United States abroad, not just to be here with a trapdoor under them, not knowing when someone is going to take away their residencies and send them back to a certain death, but actually make a place for them in our country when we need them.

Let me just give you some examples of the people I have met.

Mahnaz--and they don't want their last names mentioned. Why don't they want their last names mentioned? Because they still have family back in Afghanistan. Mahnaz is a commander of the Afghan National Army's female tactical platoon who worked closely with our military support team to facilitate discussions between our soldiers and the Afghan women when they crossed their paths in the field.

Ahmad is a pilot whose helicopter was shot down, not once but twice. In speaking of his work with our troops, he said:

In the face of danger, we were united. We were relentless.

We were resilient.

Another pilot, who didn't even want his first name mentioned and who spent 10 years helping American soldiers identify Taliban positions in the mountains of Afghanistan, said his job was to capture the bad guys.

Nangialy, an Afghan interpreter, put his life on the line to support our troops. Why? To use his words:

Same goals. Same target. Same achievement.

The next is a helicopter fighter pilot who worked with our troops to combat the Taliban in remote areas of Afghanistan for 8 years and survived being shot in the face by a flying bullet. So we are going to tell this guy: Well, we are having fights, and even though we have enough votes for this, eh, it is kind of inconvenient to vote for this right now.

Reggie is another Afghan interpreter. Now, remember, in Afghanistan, being an interpreter wasn't a desk job. They weren't like when you see the diplomatic meetings and they have got the things on in the U.N. and they are interpreting meetings and you wait and you stand, as all of us have done, where you talk and they interpret from a stage. No. They-- and if you haven't seen the movie ``The Covenant,'' I suggest you see it. It explains one story--a true story--of one translator and what he did for an American soldier. They worked soldier to soldier with our troops while they were on foreign soil. Where the troops went, the interpreter went. If the troops got ambushed by bullets, the interpreter got ambushed by bullets. If the troops got bombed, the interpreter got bombed. This was a risk that Reggie took every day.

On August 8, 2012, Reggie was working on patrol with a group of servicemembers, including Army CPT Florent Groberg. Suddenly, a suicide bomber approached. Groberg acted fast and protected other members of his unit by shoving the bomber aside, but the vest still detonated, leaving Groberg and Reggie--the Afghan interpreter--bloodied and fighting for every breath. The explosion left Reggie, the Afghan, with 23 pieces of shrapnel lodged in his own body; but even still, he used the energy he had to go to Groberg's aid and help him stop the bleeding.

To this day, as a result of that attack, Reggie has problems with his left ear, and he sometimes can't control his body. That is what he sacrificed for our troops. That is the depth of his commitment and covenant.

Reggie and the captain survived that attack; but, tragically, several men did not. One of the men we lost that day was U.S. Air Force Maj. Walter David Gray. He left behind his kids and his wife Heather.

In August 2021, 9 years after the attack, Heather learned from an NPR reporter that Reggie was being targeted by the Taliban in Afghanistan. She wrote about that experience in an essay for the Dallas Morning News. I will share her words with you now, and I want you to think about the bill that is before us, supported by multiple Republicans and Democrats, supported by commanders and generals across the country, supported by every major veterans group.

Listen to what she said:

Turmoil is a good way to describe the emotions I felt when

I listened to that radio interview. It was ``Reggie'' in

Afghanistan on the NPR broadcast describing his service as a

linguist for our military and the danger his family was in if

they didn't get out.

Reggie served with my husband, Maj. Walter David Gray, in

the Air Force, and was with him when David and three others

were killed by suicide bombers in Kunar Province on August 8,

2012.

After listening, I called my friend CPT Florent Groberg,

who . . . confirmed that the man we were hearing on the

radio--

That is Reggie telling about how scared he is for his family--

was indeed ``our guy.''

With that confirmation, my family spun into action, working

with others, both stateside and in Afghanistan, to get

Reggie, his wife, and their four young children through the

gauntlet outside Kabul's airport and onto a military plane.

It would be nearly November before Reggie's family was

resettled in Fort Worth where his brother lives.

Heather's story continues. She wrote:

My family traveled four hours to Fort Worth to meet them.

As we worked alongside each other assembling furniture,

Reggie showed me scars from the battle that killed my

husband. As he recounted stories of the many battles in which

he fought alongside our servicemembers, a car backfired

outside, and he instinctively lowered to the floor. He still

struggles with traumatic brain injury and PTSD.

A few weeks later, I brought my new husband and kids up to

spend Thanksgiving with Reggie's family. Despite the language

barrier . . . we celebrated as one big family because that is

what we are.

Reggie is now gainfully employed. His children are in

school and their English gets better every day. He is among

the Afghan allies who needs Congress to pass the Afghan

Adjustment Act.

Heather shared one more detail that stuck with me. She said:

Every time we see Reggie, he reminds my children that their

father died a hero.

I'm certain [that my husband] would say he was just doing

his job and that Reggie was the real hero for risking his

life to serve alongside our military.

In honor of these heroes, our U.S. military but also those who served with them, we must pass this amendment.

Maj. Walter David Gray died on the battlefield. Captain Groberg flung his body at a suicide bomber; but after the explosion, a bloody Reggie focused his energy on taking care of the captain.

That is why we have this broad support of people who are not going to let this go--the American Legion, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America--as they wrote in a letter:

America's veterans served with Afghans for two decades in

Afghanistan. We fought side by side with them, and we saw

firsthand their courage and dedication. They risked their

lives to help us and made significant contributions to our

mission.

This is about the original bill, which has been slightly modified, actually, by our Republican colleagues, but it still has the same purpose and will have the same effect.

We urge you to support the Afghan Adjustment Act as soon as

possible. We promise to stand by our allies who often, at

risk to themselves and their families, served in uniform or

publicly defended women's and democratic rights. The U.S.

Government made a similar promise; keeping it assures that

the American commitments will be honored.

Or listen to national security experts from Republican and Democratic Presidents.

They wrote this:

The bipartisan Afghan Adjustment Act honors our nation's

commitment to its wartime allies by providing a path to

permanent status for Afghan evacuees. It also ensures these

evacuees are properly and scrupulously vetted--

And, by the way, they are in the country already--

prior to considering them for such status.

The status quo leaves tens of thousands of evacuees in

legal limbo while failing to put to rest security concerns

raised in the OIG reports. No action is not an option--we

urge you to act to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act.

``No action,'' say our security experts, ``is not an option.''

It is not just military groups and national security experts. Eight former U.S. Ambassadors to Afghanistan called on us to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act. Those Ambassadors served under President George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden, and each has an intimate understanding of the diplomatic stakes of getting this right.

They said this:

We are a group of retired Ambassadors, all of whom served

as Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan, who

have dedicated our professional lives to furthering America's

interests in the world. We are writing today because we are

convinced that the Afghan Adjustment Act furthers those

interests. The need is urgent and time is short.

Let me list some of the military leaders: Gen. Dunford, ADM Mike Mullen, who support this bill, who have made this a major priority, who have made calls about this bill.

Maybe, just maybe, it is worth listening to them and simply getting a vote on this piece of legislation that has been vetted itself through multiple Republican Senators. It is not the original bill, which was good enough to get the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee; but it is actually the bill that was negotiated with Senator Lankford that was included in the original package.

Why am I calling on an amendment here? Because this is a national security package, and this is a national security issue to keep our covenant.

Dunford, Mullen, Myers, Stavridis, GEN Peter Chiarelli, GEN Stan McChrystal, GEN David McKiernan, ADM William McRaven, GEN Austin Miller, GEN John Nicholson, GEN M. David Rodriguez, GEN Curtis Scaparrotti, GEN Raymond Thomas, GEN Joseph Votel, Gen. Mark Welsh. The list goes on.

What did their letter say?

If Congress fails to enact the Afghan Adjustment Act, the

United States will be less secure. Potential allies will

remember what happens now with our Afghan allies. If we claim

to support the troops and want to enable their success in

wartime, we must keep our commitments today.

To conclude, we have Republicans, Democrats, military and veterans groups, national security leaders, retired leading U.S. Ambassadors to Afghanistan, and flag officers all on the same page. We have worked on this bill and made changes for multiple Senators over the years. There is actually not that much controversy about the language of the bill. And we have the

votes to get it passed. I don't believe there are any more excuses.

The way I see it, this is about our national security--that is what this package is--a moral example for the world, and showing people everywhere in every corner of the Earth that when America makes a promise, when America makes a covenant, it will be kept.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass the important national security package that is in front of us. This will reaffirm our Nation's commitment to our partners across the globe.

Earlier this week, many of us felt very strongly that we should move forward on the combination of bills that Senator Lankford, Senator Murphy, and Senator Sinema had negotiated. I strongly supported that bipartisan compromise and worked with them on a portion of the bill regarding our Afghan allies who had served with our troops, and I was really impressed by the thorough nature of their negotiations.

We know how important that bill was for our own national security. It would have given the President emergency authority to shut down the border when our border agents are overwhelmed. It would have made changes to our asylum system. It would have addressed processing issues and backlogs. It would have actually expanded legal immigration for things like work permits and visas.

I am grateful that the package we are considering today does include the bipartisan bill that I am part of to declare fentanyl trafficking a national emergency and allow us to impose tough sanctions on criminal organizations and fentanyl supply chain hubs, but I will note that this bill--because the other piece of this regarding fentanyl was not actually included yet in this bill, that would be the resources that we need to crack down on fentanyl trafficking at our border and ports of entry.

So not only was the bill that our colleagues sadly voted down good on giving the emergency authority to the President on the border to protect our own Nation's security--something they had been asking for-- but it also did a very important thing when it came to fentanyl.

Why is this such a problem? In Hennepin County alone in the State of Minnesota, the sheriff recently seized enough fentanyl to kill every single person in that county--the biggest county in my State--and we are seeing similar things to that across our Nation.

So what this bill would have done--the original bill would have done--with the negotiation is that it would have actually given modern- day technology, cutting-edge technology to our ports of entry--all ports of entry, including airports and the like, including help we may need on the northern border, the Canadian border, when it comes to things like fentanyl. So that is why I hope that someday our colleagues will reconsider and join us in advocating for strong border security as well as for the work that needs to be done on the fentanyl epidemic.

The original package, as we know, is not being considered, but we also know how important it is to go forward when it comes to our leadership around the world, whether that means standing with our allies after the terrorist attack in Israel, whether it means making sure that humanitarian aid gets to innocent people in Gaza and across the world, or whether it comes to Ukraine.

I did want to spend some time talking about Ukraine, as I have been there a number of times in the last few

years. The first time I went was actually with Senator McCain and Senator Graham during the first invasion back in January 2017. In fact, I spent New Year's Eve of 2016 on the border with Senator Graham and Senator McCain and the former President of Ukraine. It was there that I learned so much about the Ukrainian troops. Even back then, there were snipers killing the troops at unbelievable rates, but they kept going back to protect their own homeland.

Fast-forward, of course, and we see an even more significant invasion by Vladimir Putin and Russia once again. Just as Vladimir Putin has shown his true colors, the Ukrainian people have shown theirs, defending their democracy in brilliant blue and yellow. They have succeeded in taking back a number of lands that the Russians have seized, and that is because of their unbreakable resolve, yes, but it is also because America took the lead, joined by dozens and dozens of allies across the world, from Japan to South Korea to Europe.

Now is not the time to give up. In the words of the NATO Secretary General, the war has become a ``battle for ammunition.'' Russia is firing nearly 10,000 rounds a day, while Ukraine is only managing 2,000. Our friends need our support more than ever.

In my last visit to Ukraine, with Senator Portman in the middle of the war, we visited Irpin. We saw the bombed-out maternity wards and the apartment buildings reduced to rubble. We saw the mass graves. Those atrocities have been met, of course, with the resilience of the Ukrainian people: the chef cooking meals for the troops on the frontlines; the nurse who traded in scrubs for camo and now serves as a field medic; the martial arts teacher leading an 11-man recon unit to keep his village safe. Those are people who stood up, and our country must stand with that democracy.

We must never forget President Zelenskyy's words on that worst evening in September, when everyone had counted them out, when all the pundits thought Russia would just roll over their country with their tanks and with their planes. What did President Zelenskyy do? He went down to the street corner and he said this. He said, ``We are here.'' Those simple words--``We are here.'' Well, that is our job now. We have to say the same thing--that we are here for them.

U.S. aid has empowered the Ukrainian people to take back the territory that is rightfully theirs. It has saved lives. It has given families hope that there will be a future--but not if we turn our backs on them right now.

Throughout our Nation's history, we have been there for free nations across the globe, and we must be there again. That gets to something that is not in the bill right now. It was in the original compromise agreement, and just like Ukraine, just like the Pacific, just like the help to Central Command and the help we must give given that our own troops are being attacked in the Middle East--it is the covenants we make.

I am here talking about the Afghan refugees, 80,000 of them approximately in the United States. They served alongside our troops. They served as interpreters. They served as intel gatherers. They put their own lives and their families' lives at risk. And they have been here. They have been in the United States.

That is why a bipartisan group of Senators have for now, sadly, years been working on a simple bill to make it clear that they are no longer in limbo. Many conservatives are supporting this bill.

I am filing a bipartisan amendment--that was just filed--with Senator Moran. I thank him for his leadership as the ranking Republican on the Veterans' Committee and for joining me on this bill, along with Senator Graham, who is a longtime lead author of our base bill on the Afghan refugees. Again, Senator Graham, ranking member on the Judiciary Committee; Senator Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, ranking lead Republican on the Armed Services Committee, is filing this amendment with me; Senator Cassidy; Senator Mullin; Senator Tillis; Senator Murkowski; Senator Crapo; Senator Rounds; Senator Capito; Senators Coons and Blumenthal and many other Democrats as well.

We have that magic number to get over what we call our 60-vote threshold. We will win this vote, but we will win more than a vote if we are allowed to advance this amendment by both sides as they negotiate which amendments go forward. We will be more than just getting a vote; we will be standing up for keeping our covenants.

I am thinking of the people I have met, the Afghans, over the last year, the women I met with who served in the Afghan national army's Female Tactical Platoon. Our troops relied heavily on this platoon during the war. As our soldiers pursued missions hunting down ISIS combatants in unforgiving terrain and freeing prisoners from the grip of the Taliban, these women had their backs. They worked with our military's support team and facilitated discussions between our soldiers and the Afghan women whom they crossed paths with in the field.

After the war, they and so many others fled Afghanistan to build a safer, brighter future in America. One of the platoon's commanders even said that once she gets her green card, her plan is to join the U.S. Army. That is right. Even knowing everything she sacrificed for our country, leaving her family behind, putting herself in peril, she would do it all over again if we gave her the chance. I am in awe of her grit and her patriotism. Unfortunately--and this is a big ``unfortunately''--she and countless others like her are living in limbo, and it is our turn to do right by the people who stood with us.

When the Hmong and the Vietnamese came to this country--I know this well because my State has a very large Hmong population--we didn't leave them in limbo and tell them: Well, you are standing here on the ground in the United States of America after helping us out, but there is a trapdoor under you because every year you have to reapply, and you don't know what is really going to happen if you have to go back.

Are we going to send these people who stood with our troops back to the arms of the Taliban or are we going to do what is right?

This bill, which I have worked on with numerous Republican leaders, has a heavy-duty vetting--vetting--process. And I remind my colleagues that the vast majority of these people are here already. They are on our soil. We already know what they have been doing. In fact, we know that one of them, sadly, was murdered--an interpreter who was working as a driver late at night in the State of Virginia. I don't know if that is what he would have been doing if he wasn't in limbo. But that happened on our soil.

So all we are saying is that they be vetted and that they be able to get out of this legal limbo and treated with the respect they deserve.

Time and time again, our Nation's history has shown us that people who stand with us in combat don't diminish America; they strengthen America.

Our effort has earned the support of more than 60 organizations, including With Honor Action; including No One Left Behind; including Operation Recovery; the American Legion--was just with them yesterday as Senator Moran and I and Coons and Blumenthal and others discussed this bill; the VFW--this is a major priority for the VFW; as well as some of the Nation's most revered military leaders who have lent their names.

At one point earlier last year, I went through hundreds of names of generals, retired generals who led our troops in times of war who support this bill, but today I mention Mike Mullen, ADM Mike Mullen, William McRaven, and Generals Richard Myers of the Air Force, Joseph Dunford from the Marine Corps, and Stanley McChrystal from the Army.

Maybe we should listen to them when we think about how we treat those who saved the lives of our troops, how we must keep our covenants because in the next conflict when we are standing up for democracies or standing up for American interests, what do you think people are going to say if they think they help our country, and our troops make literal, individual promises to them, and then they come back, and they don't know what is going to happen to them? Some of them are in hiding right now across the world because they know that they or their families will be killed if this continues.

We have built such a broad coalition of support because Americans from

across the political spectrum agree that it is our moral obligation.

When I am at home, vets come up to me--as I know they do to you, Madam President--they come up to me about all kinds of things; they always have: about their service, about their benefits, about what is happening with healthcare and burn pits. And we have advanced so many things to help them. But I have never seen anything more emotional for our soldiers that have served in Afghanistan than this, because they know the people that saved their lives and stood with them deserve better than this.

What we are asking for is a vote on this bipartisan amendment, and we know we can pass this amendment because we have enough sponsors on it to pass this amendment. This is the perfect bill. Why? Because it is a national security package. It is about our national security. It is about that; it is about standing with our partners; and, most of all, it is about showing the world when the United States of America makes a promise, makes a covenant, we keep it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record updated United States Senate Chamber and Galleries Regulations.

Madam President, I would like to thank our colleague from Wisconsin for her beautiful words, her heartfelt memories.

And, mostly, I know personally how proud Senator Kohl was that you, Senator Baldwin, got elected and serve your State so well. You are truly a tribute to your State but also to Herb's memory.

I am here as the neighbor, the Senator next door, the one who got to know Herb Kohl, because Minnesota and Wisconsin, despite our rivalries--as the Presiding Officer knows, when it comes to the Vikings and the Packers and the Badgers and the Gophers--we actually have a lot more in common than what divides us.

In fact, my mom grew up in Milwaukee. I talked to her many times. She also was the daughter of immigrant parents. In her case, her dad worked at the Porth Pie Company, which Herb was aware of, and came from humble roots.

Senator Kohl's life was really as American as they come. He was born, as we noted, in Milwaukee to immigrant parents. He learned the value of hard work, as Senator Baldwin discussed, as a bag boy at his dad's market. He attended public high school and the University of Wisconsin before earning his MBA. From there, he and his brother worked to build their family's business into an iconic department store chain, Kohl's, of course. I can't tell you how many times, visiting my grandma in Milwaukee, we would be like: We can get that at Kohl's. We can go to Kohl's.

They were so proud of the work that he did.

Later, when his beloved Milwaukee Bucks almost left Wisconsin, it was Herb who bought the team just so he could keep them there. I know that Senator Baldwin is proud of the Bucks' 2021 final win, and we all know it would never have been the Milwaukee Bucks without Herb Kohl.

After working his way up from a bag boy to a basketball team owner, Herb didn't have to seek public office, but he loved his State and its people too much to rest on his laurels. To him, running for office was not in any way a path to personal gain. It was a moral obligation.

After winning election to the Senate in 1988, he got to work right away for the people of Wisconsin, and, as Senator Baldwin noted, he worked to expand the supply of affordable housing for elderly Americans, crack down on corporate espionage, expand safe and affordable childcare, and secure critical medical training investments in the Affordable Care Act. How proud I know he was of Senator Baldwin's--then-Representative Baldwin's--important role in making sure that older kids were able to be covered under their parents' policies under the Affordable Care Act.

But he took as much pride in making sure of the big things, as how a single dairy farmer could stay afloat in a low-producing season.

On a personal note, I was lucky to call Herb a mentor and a friend. We worked together during my early years in the Senate, including on ending 30 years of delay so that the construction of the St. Croix River bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin could move forward. Senator Baldwin and I were there for the completion of that historic bridge, what we consider one of the most beautiful bridges in our State--maybe the most beautiful bridge, but I can never say that. Herb was there from the beginning on that project.

When Herb cared about something, he would work to get it done, and he

would work, as Senator Baldwin has said, in a humble way. He was never one to seek the spotlight, and, in a Chamber full of egos and big speeches, that certainly made him stand out.

I remember that even though he was a multimillionaire, he always used to eat his lunch in the cafeteria, often buying lunch for staffers that he encountered in line.

One time, he brought me to eat there because I was taking over from him as the head of the antitrust subcommittee. He gave me advice from a business perspective. People don't always think of antitrust in that way, but Herb Kohl was a true entrepreneur. He was a competitor. He believed that competition was a big part of capitalism, and that is why he cherished his work on that subcommittee and gave me all kinds of advice about how to talk about it in a way that, from the very beginning of America's roots and our economy, from the Founding Fathers on, competition was what made us successful. And he certainly believed that when he built that department store chain up and didn't just kowtow to whoever was there from the beginning. That really dictated a lot about how I thought about antitrust.

He also told me to hire his staff, like Caroline, and gave me such good advice on doing that. I think it was also a great example of Herb Kohl because he was looking out for his staff, not just while he was in the Senate but long after he left.

He didn't have to do any of that. There is no rule in the Senate that subcommittee chairs have to impart their wisdom at a formal lunch in the Senate cafeteria--maybe not that formal--to the next generation, and there is no rule that Senators have to keep looking out for their staff years and years after they retire. But that is just who Herb was. He embodied midwestern compassion--generous with his spirit, generous with his time, and generous with his resources.

He spent his early career working hard to build wealth, and he spent the rest of his life using it to make a difference in the world.

As a product of the public schools, he knew firsthand that a quality education was a pathway to success, and that is why he made it his mission, later in life, to give back and to invest in public education, advocating for breakfast and lunch for low-income students, championing Wisconsin's Teacher of the Year Program, and on multiple occasions paid for entire slates of teachers' back-to-school supply wish lists, something that deeply resonated with me, as my mom would always complain about having to buy her own supplies for her classroom as a second grade teacher because she wanted them to have the best.

Today, thanks to his charitable giving, scholarships, and educational foundation--and even though from Wisconsin, I must acknowledge--the Badgers' hockey and basketball arena bear his name. Herb's philanthropy was motivated not by glory but by an unwavering devotion to his State.

So I will end with this. I think what best captures Herb may have been that slogan when he first ran for Senate, and it was this: ``Nobody's Senator but yours.'' In a field where what is noble is often sacrificed for what is expedient, that might seem naive or unrealistic--not for Herb. Throughout his 24 years in the Senate, he never broke that promise.

Anyone who has driven from Stillwater, MN, over to the Wisconsin side of the St. Croix River, they can thank Herb Kohl. And anyone who went to school on a Kohl Student Excellence Scholarship can thank him. And anyone who roots for the Milwaukee Bucks, which, once upon a time, almost became the Minnesota Bucks--but we are not going to go into that story because we have our own team now that is doing pretty well. No, this is not the time to do that. We can thank Herb Kohl.

The Senate is better off, the State of Wisconsin is better off because of Herb, and, certainly, our country is better off.

My thoughts are with his friends, his family, his former staff, and, of course, the intrepid and wonderful Senator Baldwin.

Again, he couldn't be prouder that you got elected, Senator Baldwin.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I also am here to talk about gun violence, but before I get to that, I want to address some of the comments we heard from Senator Tuberville.

I think the people of this country and the people who are visiting our Chamber today need to understand that, for 10 months, Senator Tuberville has been playing politics. He has literally held the entire--entire--military chain of command hostage. He was offered a vote on his policy; he turned it down. He was the subject of a rules exception passed through my committee on a 9-7 vote that would have put all of the nominations together. Even then, he kept standing his ground.

Finally, when he realized that a number of his Republican colleagues who came to the floor repeatedly were going to vote for that change, he finally relented. But it was the words of the military families and the veterans' families that made the biggest difference--the spouses who had put their own jobs on hold, who had left their jobs teaching school because they thought they were going to move, and the people who didn't even know where to put their parents in assisted living because they didn't know. These are military families who are serving our country.

And national security? He held up numerous key personnel at a time when there are conflicts all over the world.

Still, it is important to note, which he admitted on the floor today, he is holding up 11 four-star officers, including the head of CYBERCOM, at a time when Vladimir Putin and other tyrants see that cyber as a weapon of war. He is holding up the commander--the commander--of the Pacific Air command. So he continues his hold.

And, yes, we will not go home for Christmas until we finish our work and get through these 11 additional officers being held.

Let me just end this moment by quoting him from the hallways yesterday from a reporter. He was asked about this.

He said:

I have loved to have five downs in football instead of

four, but you can't do it. It's got to be fair for everybody.

He was asked if he had regrets.

It was pretty much a draw. I mean, they didn't get what

they wanted.

Really? Who is ``they''? I guess the ``they'' are the military members, the servicemembers, who serve our country.

And my last message on this front is that this is not a game, Senator Tuberville. This is not a game. This is not a football game. These are real people's lives and the security of our country, and I am pleased that we have gotten through these 425 nominees, but there are clearly more to go.

Madam President, I first want to say that, as we proceed on the initial vote today--and I support the President's package, including the work on border security--I do appreciate the Senator from Oklahoma's work in trying to reach an agreement. So many of us want to see an agreement on border security.

I rise today to highlight another part of that agreement that is very important, and that is the importance of the critical humanitarian aid in the supplemental funding request, and to urge my colleagues to include it in a final bill.

Throughout history, the United States has been a leader. When Hitler sought to conquer Europe, American's Lend-Lease Program ensured democracy triumphed over fascism, and it was our Marshall Plan that gave our European partners the resources they needed to rebuild after the war. When the Iron Curtain fell, American aid kept communism at bay. And, to this day, Agencies like USAID give nations across the globe the support they need to alleviate poverty, become stronger trading partners with our country, and recover from disasters.

We know that humanitarian aid, yes, saves lives in such a big way, but it is also important for our own country. It is our own security that we make friends. It actually helps us to spend

less on military when we spend more on humanitarian aid.

Today, armed conflict is tearing apart families and neighborhoods in the Middle East, and the largest land war in Europe since World War II rages on. Ripples from these conflicts are felt around the world. We are at a pivotal moment in not just American history but the history of humanity.

Israelis, innocent Palestinians, and Ukrainians are looking to us for support, and the whole world is watching. It is during moments like these that leaders are called to step up. So the question before us today that so many of those who came before us in this Chamber-- Democrats and Republicans--have grappled with is, Will we step up? Will America step up? My answer: We must, just as we have time and time again throughout history.

That, of course, includes providing swift humanitarian aid to people across the world, including innocent civilians in Gaza.

Like so many in this Chamber, including the Presiding Officer, I strongly condemned Hamas's terrorist attack immediately, in the strongest terms. It was a massacre of innocent Israelis, and I am heartbroken by the devastation and the loss of life. But we must remember that the violence of this terrorist group Hamas does not represent the will of all of the people of Gaza, not by any means.

That is why I joined my colleagues in calling for a short-term cessation of hostilities in order to allow for the Hamas-held hostages to be released and to ensure that humanitarian assistance could reach innocent civilians in Gaza. I welcomed, as so many did, the announcement almost 2 weeks ago that Israel and Hamas had agreed to release more than 100 hostages during the cessation that would also allow, of course, for increased aid for food and the like into Gaza. Tragically, late last week, a continued agreement could not be reached, and the hostages, including, as we now know, so many young women--with very troubling and concerning reports coming out on their conditions-- are still being held hostage by the terrorists. The fighting has begun again.

The United States has provided significant aid to both Israel and the Palestinian people, now and in years past, but we know we cannot shirk from our duties. We cannot turn our backs on what is happening.

In discussing the need for foreign aid, we must not forget the continued importance, as we will discuss later today, of standing with Ukraine as Ukrainians fight back against Vladimir Putin's inhuman barbarism. For almost 2 years, in bright blue and yellow, the Ukrainians have shown the world what it truly means to fight for freedom, and America has been with them, as have so many of our allies. Beyond critical military aid, the United States has continued to support Ukraine through humanitarian assistance for both internally displaced Ukrainians and those who have been forced to flee their home country.

And we know that while we have taken in some of these refugees, including in my home State of Minnesota, which has a major Ukrainian population, many of whom are now working--I was just with a number of them who work in our Ukrainian restaurant that we are so proud of, Kramarczuk's in Minneapolis. We also have European countries taking in these refugees in unprecedented numbers--millions and millions of people.

When I visited Poland with a group of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis, just weeks after Vladimir Putin launched his brutal invasion, there were more than 2 million Ukrainian refugees. Today, that number is more than 6 million. I will never forget talking to those refugees-- women, children, seniors, kids with nothing but a backpack on their back with a stuffed animal in it. We heard their horror stories about homes lost, families ripped apart, and lives destroyed.

We know that Polish people don't have to imagine what it is like to live through a full-scale invasion. Their history is marked by invasions by Prussia, the Hapsburgs, the Nazi, and, yes, Russia. As our Ambassador to Poland, Mark Brzezinski told us, the Poles are achieving the dreams their grandparents never could realize.

Poland is able to say to their Ukrainian neighbors: We value freedom and respect your democracy. We value you so much that we will take you into our homes and into our hearts. We will open our doors and not shut you out.

Just as our Polish allies and those small countries that I met with yesterday--the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania--they are there for Ukraine on the ground and taking in their people and being on the frontline and putting in an extraordinary percentage of their own resources, of their spending, into defense, into NATO. America must be there for Ukraine by providing, yes, topnotch military assistance, as we have to enable Ukraine to retake half of the territory that Vladimir Putin took in his initial invasion, but we also must be there for them with critical humanitarian aid. Our Ukrainian friends continue to persevere against all odds, against one of the largest armies in the world, and this aid is critical to that effort.

As we all know, the consequences of Putin's unprovoked, unlawful, unjustifiable war extend beyond Ukraine's border. Ukraine is one of the world's top suppliers of grain, and Russia's illegal blockade of Ukrainian ports has put millions of people across the globe, in places like Africa, at risk of starvation. By providing critical support for the State Department's refugee aid program, including food assistance, the administration funding request will support displaced people around the world.

Our Nation has earned its reputation as the leader of the free world due to its unwavering commitment to democracy and helping nations when they need it--knowing they come out of it; knowing they become major trading partners and friends of ours on the security front, on the democracy front, and on the economic front. So now it is on us to decide if we want to keep that reputation, if we want to keep that leadership.

As we negotiate this bill, the supplemental, I am reminded of what President Zelenskyy said just hours after Vladimir Putin launched his barbaric invasion. Everyone counted him out. Everyone thought he was going to run. Instead, he stood on the streets of Kyiv, with just a few people, and looked straight into the camera and delivered a simple message that was, all at once, a rallying cry to his people, but a statement of defiance in the face of evil and a call to action for democracies across the globe. Three words: We are here.

So that is our decision over the next 2 weeks. Are we going to be here for democracy? Are we going to be here for our ally in the Mideast and our allies around the world? Are we going to continue to feed the world? Are we going to continue to stand up against terrorism and barbarism and help innocent people, like those in Gaza, those in Ukraine, and those around the world who depend on us?

Moms, dads, grandmas, grandpas, kids, and grandkids are depending on us. We must be there. We must say: We are here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise today alongside my colleagues, Senators Murray, Reed, Shaheen, Schatz, and Heinrich to discuss the need to pass this supplemental funding package.

I spoke earlier today about the importance of humanitarian aid-- humanitarian aid for the innocent civilians, Palestinian civilians in Gaza; humanitarian aid for people throughout the world. It is one major way that America has led through World War II and after, through the Cold War. Yes, we have led with our military strength, but we have also led by making friends and making sure people have what they need so they don't starve. And so many of those countries have gone on to do great things, to be great countries, to be democracies, to work with us to be trading partners.

But, today, I am here to focus on Ukraine. We are at a pivotal point not just in American history but in the history of humanity. It is during moments like these that nations across the globe look to America for leadership. They expect our leadership.

Yes, our friends in Ukraine are counting on us, but so are so many other allies as they look to see what we will do. This has never been America alone helping Ukraine. It has been all-in for many countries.

Early in the conflict, I traveled to Poland with a number of Senators--Democrats and Republicans--and it was right when one of the first major loss of life had occurred in Ukraine at a military training facility. And we happened to be at the entry point where families were fleeing--people in wheelchairs, little kids with backpacks with nothing but their stuffed animal in it. That is what I remember.

I remember the Polish people who had been invaded over the years by the Hapsburgs, by the Nazis, by the Russians, opening their arms to these Ukrainians, which they are still doing today--millions of refugees.

We have played a very important role in this conflict. We have surprised the world, and I am certain we surprised Russia. And the Ukrainians have surprised them with their incredible courage when everyone had counted them out. This scrappy force who had been at the frontline for years already in Donbas and other regions in Ukraine who, once again, went to the frontline.

We trained them. It is our equipment that has been so superior, as well as those from our allies in this fight. And what has happened? Well, since Vladimir Putin's unprovoked and unlawful, unjustifiable invasion last February, our Ukrainian friends have reclaimed half of the territory that is rightfully theirs. Vladimir Putin tried to capture Kyiv, but he failed.

Senator Portman and I, in the middle of the war, went and saw that airfield where the Russians had come down in parachutes thinking that the Ukrainians would just fold. They didn't fold. They held their ground and they kept Kyiv.

Vladimir Putin tried to wipe Ukraine off the map, but he failed.

He tried to break the Ukrainian spirit, but he has made it stronger.

He tried to take them down in the middle of winter last winter by cutting off their electricity. He threatened the biggest nuclear plant, not only in Ukraine but in all of Europe. There is no limit to what they will do. He has shown his true colors: capturing cities, slaughtering innocents, abducting Ukrainian children. But the Ukrainian people have shown theirs: defending their democracy against all odds in brilliant blue and yellow; cellists playing their song and their national anthem on burned-out steps; ballerinas going to the frontline in camo; a videographer delivering medical supplies to Ukrainian troops; the DJ at the national call center using her platform to find missing loved ones. It is not just the troops on the frontline; it is the entire country. And they are watching to see what they are doing.

I met with the Ukrainian Ambassador today along with the Speaker of their House, along with their Defense Minister; and they are watching. The Russians are using everything that is said in this Chamber, everything that is done, because they are trying to use it against the Ukrainians. They are trying to break their spirit, break their backbone, break the morale of their troops. Well, it is not working. But they are watching.

This is our moment. I think Leader McConnell put it best when he said--and I say this to our Republican colleagues when you think about the Iranian drones that were used by the Russians, when you think about the massacre in Israel and the fact that Hamas then went to Russia--a representative of this terrorist group went to Russia and met with leaders there:

Think of it as an axis of evil: China, Russia and Iran. So this is not just a test for Ukraine. It is a test for the United States and for the free world. And the path toward greater security for all of us is simple: Help Ukraine win the war.

Let us not forget what President Zelenskyy did in the hours immediately after the initial invasion, when everyone in the world--all those pundits that were at the Munich Security Conference that Senator Shaheen and I attended--people were counting him out. He did one incredibly brave thing followed by thousands of brave acts. He went to the street corner with just a few of his top advisors, and he stood there and looked at the camera and in the face of evil, in a statement of defiance, in a call to action to democracies everywhere, he said three simple words: ``We are here.''

America heeded that call. Ukrainians heeded that call. And democracies all over the world united in every corner of the world, and we said: ``We are here, too.''

The Ukrainian people have defended its nation against a tyrant, against one of the largest armies in the world. It is our moral obligation to stand by them. And talking to those leaders in the Baltic countries yesterday--Lithuania and Latvia and Estonia--they have been through this before. They have stood tall, but they know what the stakes are.

If we let this happen and we let Putin just march right in next month because we refused to help, he is not going to stop marching in their eyes because they have seen it before. We must ensure that democracy triumphs over autocracy; that humanity prevails over brutality; and that the spirit of Ukraine carries the day.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.