Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 593, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 533.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the Kaine amendment to the preamble be agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 706, 765, 766, 767, and 770; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, finally, I would ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times and that, following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session. Those dates would be Monday, April 11, at 11:30 a.m.; Thursday, April 14, at 11 a.m.; Monday, April 18, at 4 p.m.; and Thursday, April 21, at 12 noon.

I further ask that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, April 21, it next convene at 3 p.m., Monday, April 25; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Brainard nomination; further, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 25.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 593, following the remarks of Senator Cornyn.

Mr. President, the process of confirming a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be lengthy, thoughtful, rigorous. I am grateful to the Presiding Officer and Chairman Durbin for doing it right with Judge Brown Jackson.

Judge Jackson has answered hours of questions about her judicial philosophy, why she made certain decisions, why she represented certain clients, how her background has shaped her world view. Nearly every detail of her professional and personal life has been and will continue to be interrogated publicly as she goes through the final stages of this process.

But a strange thing is going to happen when Judge Jackson finally takes her seat on the Supreme Court. She will, after all of this review and scrutiny, become effectively immune from ethics standards.

Why is that? Because every Federal judge--circuit judges, district judges, court of international trade judges, court of Federal claims judges, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges--every Federal judge is bound by a code of ethics in order to safeguard the judiciary's neutrality and transparency--all Federal judges, except for nine: the Supreme Court.

It is not because the Supreme Court is so highly regarded by the American people. In fact, the opposite is true.

Trust in the institution's reputation is in rapid decline right now. According to a recent C-SPAN poll, only 30 percent--about 37 percent, actually--of likely voters believe that the Supreme Court acts in a ``serious and constitutionally sound manner.''

In a democracy that prides itself on a fair and independent judiciary, that is unacceptable. It is worrying, but it is not surprising. Recent revelations surrounding Justice Thomas and his wife's involvement in the events of January 6 have finally brought attention that

those standards we try to uphold during the confirmation process quickly disappear upon confirmation.

Now, this isn't some new phenomenon. We have seen Justices--both liberal and conservative--promote political fundraisers, speak at partisan events, fail to recuse themselves from cases with pretty clear conflicts of interest. And if the past is prologue--the recent incident that has gained a lot of attention regarding Justice Thomas's family-- it won't be the last.

Now, I first introduced a bill that would require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of ethics 10 years ago. And I have reintroduced a version of that bill in every Congress since.

The majority of Americans agrees with me: There is absolutely no reason why the Supreme Court shouldn't be subject to a code of conduct just like every other Federal judge.

But the Court disagrees. John Roberts said in 2011 when he was asked about this:

The Court has no reason to adopt a code of conduct as its definitive source of ethical guidance.

Well, it has a reason now. And to be clear, I am not talking about a code of conduct that is written by Congress. Instead, my legislation would require the Judicial Conference to create a binding code of conduct that applies to all Federal judges and Justices, including those on the Supreme Court.

It is a simple step that would improve transparency, enforce accountability, and restore some lost faith in the institution. And, frankly, because of that diminishing faith, it is in the Court's interest to do everything possible to try to help rebuild public confidence.

During Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation process, Justice Kagan put it best. She said:

The Court's strength as an institution of American

governance depends on people believing [it has] a certain

kind of legitimacy, on people believing it is not simply an

extension of politics, that its decision-making has a kind of

integrity to it.

If people don't believe that, they have no reason to accept what the Court does. Justice Kagan said it well.

And right now, that belief is teetering dangerously close to the edge. The spouse of a Supreme Court Justice was involved in an effort to organize a coup and overthrow of a democratically elected President of the United States. That is extraordinary. That is not normal. It should not be treated as just another flavor of legitimate political action, and the fact that there is no clear binding code of conduct that addresses this kind of behavior and no clear standards of recusal for Supreme Court Justices that the American people can see and trust is just unacceptable.

I think that my Democratic and Republican colleagues can agree on this, the American people deserve to know that our Supreme Court Justices are being held to the highest standards whether they be Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents or Justices appointed by Republican Presidents. It is not enough for us to just trust the Court any longer to self-enforce a secret internal code of ethics.

The highest Court in the land cannot be exempt from the standards that we hold every other Federal judge to. I am glad that this piece of legislation has gained additional cosponsors just over the course of the last week. I hope that it eventually becomes a bipartisan piece of legislation, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in holding the Court to account.

Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, finally, I know votes are pending, but I am also coming to the floor to request, as I will in a moment, unanimous consent for the nomination and approval of Javier Ramirez to be Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

I would guess that not a lot of my colleagues know much about the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and that is because we normally don't have to have a debate over the confirmation of its Director on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

The Agency is an independent one that has been in place since 1947. Its mission is to preserve and promote labor management peace and cooperation by providing mediation and conflict resolution services to industry, government agencies, and communities. The FMCS has 10 regional offices, more than 60 field offices. Its headquarters are here in Washington, DC.

It does the basic blocking and tackling of keeping our economy running. It is charged with trying to avoid conflict between labor and management so that we don't have strikes, so that we don't have work stoppages, so that our economy runs as smoothly as possible. It is a pretty noncontroversial Agency, and the individual who has been selected to run it is equally noncontroversial. He is a career public servant.

Javier Ramirez began at the FMCS in 2005. He is currently the director of Agency initiatives there. To me, this would be a no- brainer, that we could come together and decide as a body that we are going to make sure that we have someone running an Agency that is pretty vital to the smooth flow of our economy and the mediation of disputes between labor and management.

And so I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 665, Javier Ramirez, of Illinois, to be Federal Mediation and Conciliation Director; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

I know colleagues are eager to get this vote going, but 20 seconds in response.

This place is grinding to a halt. And it is absolutely extraordinary the number of noncontroversial nominees who are now required to move through full votes, cloture motions on the floor. U.S. Attorneys who never, ever had to come before this floor for votes and debate now do.

This is an exercise in fundamentally breaking the Senate. This place only works with UC. We cannot run every single nominee through regular order or we would be here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

I am grateful for my colleague's comments. I hope that we will be able to confirm Mr. Ramirez. But this is the kind of work that the Senate used to be able to do through UC, and it is unfortunate that we continue to have this breakdown in process.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I got the chance to hear some of Senator Sasse's remarks. I noted the floor chart with my name on it, accusing me of what he called tribal hackery.

I am not exactly sure what the rules of the Senate are. I am not sure that that is becoming of the U.S. Senate to use those terms about fellow Members, but let me come down to the floor to explain why I think we should have a legitimate debate in this Chamber about a phenomenon in which Republicans very often are not willing to cast their vote in a way that is aligned with their voice.

Yes, I noted this morning--as was displayed on Senator Sasse's chart--that this week, of the Republicans who stood up at a press conference and eviscerated President Biden's handling of the Ukraine crisis, two-thirds of them voted against the budget that included $14 billion of aid to Ukraine. I see a fundamental inconsistency in criticizing an administration for not doing enough but then not being willing to cast a vote to get aid to the people of Ukraine.

Senator Sasse's second chart--the one that didn't accuse me of tribal hackery--laid out a very true statement, in which a small percentage of the overall budget is dedicated to Ukraine aid. That is, of course, true.

But the reason why I find it concerning that Members of the Senate who, I take their word for it, are genuinely interested in getting help to the people of Ukraine are then voting against the budget that delivers it, is because it speaks to a broader problem in the Senate today, which is a lack of interest in compromise, a lack of interest in finding a result--a fealty to the perfect and an antagonism to the good.

Sure, I would be happy to yield.

Senator Sasse, I was going to try to respond to your critique, but I am happy to yield at this point.

So every one of us approaches a big--

Absolutely not.

The point is that the only way that this place passes legislation is compromise, is voting on pieces of legislation that have in it things that----

Senator----

So inside every piece of legislation are elements that many of us disagree with, right? Inside that budget that you voted against are all sorts of things that I disagree with. But, in the end, in order to govern the country, you have to be able to find a path to compromise.

And what I have found, over the time that I have been here, is that there is a pathway to getting things done. It generally involves 90 to 100 percent of Democrats and a small slice of Republicans. It is increasingly hard to find compromise that involves more than 10 or 15 Republicans because, as you state, inside these pieces of legislation there are things to disagree with, right? There are things that you find objectionable.

So while, in the past, I think people would set aside some of the things that they weren't happy about in the interest of the greater good, today there seems to be a higher bar, and the result is that it is just a lot harder to get things done.

Now, on the budget, luckily there were enough of us that were willing to celebrate the good, as opposed to the perfect, in order to get that budget passed and significant aid to the Ukrainian people across the finish line.

My worry is that, as time goes on, there will be an inability to find those coalitions and that we will be stuck in a world in which you can't get Federal budgets done, you can't get big pieces of legislation done because there isn't that interest in compromise that is necessary sometimes to get passed a big package like the one that we passed earlier this week.

Yes, Senator Sasse.

Reclaiming my time. Listen, I understand that Republicans would love for this inconvenient truth not to be pointed out for them-- right?--the fact that they are eviscerating the President at press conferences for the crisis in Ukraine. There were Members at that press conference that Senator Sasse attended that said, if not for President Biden, this invasion would have never happened; that it was his fault.

That might not have come from Senator Sasse's mouth, but there were others at that press conference--right?--who have repeatedly blamed this entire crisis not on Vladimir Putin but on Joe Biden's policies. And I do think it is convenient for Republicans to consistently eviscerate the President for his conduct but then not be willing to cast the difficult votes necessary to help the President effectuate a policy there.

The consequence of a ``no'' vote on that budget, whether you like it or not, was that assistance money not getting to Ukraine. There wasn't another vote in front of us. The only choice that this Senate had was, Do we support a piece of legislation that includes necessary money----

I let the Senator finish.

The choice before this Senate was, Are we going to support a piece of legislation that includes the necessary money in order to allow for Ukraine to defend itself and for this administration to get emergency resources, or are we going to vote it down?

And I understand that the American public are rightly upset about the way in which we budget. But, on that day, there was one choice before this body.

So I do see that there is an inherent contradiction between Republicans standing up at press conferences, which, frankly, are speaking most often to the same audience that you believe that my tweets are speaking to, right? Most often, these press conferences are designed to rally the faithful.

So I think it is a bit sanctimonious to suggest that only one of us in this Chamber is involved in preaching to the choir. Much of the engagement in press conferences here, around this issue of Ukraine, ends up speaking to base audiences, and the message being sent to that audience is that President Biden isn't doing enough.

And then, when we had an opportunity to pass bipartisan legislation to give him the tools to do more, the same Republicans that were at that press conference criticizing the President decided--and, I submit to you, for legitimate reasons having nothing to do with the Ukraine money--to cast a vote that had the consequence, if it was the majority position in this body, to disapprove of that money, to reject that money.

I would.

I will. Thank you, Madam President.

The Senator is exactly right. Not only was there another option--pass the Ukraine supplemental on its own--there were a million other options. Right? There are always different ways that we can do things, and that is always a reason to vote no.

I could always choose to vote no on a measure before us because I can dream up of a scenario in which the outcome would be better aligned with my priorities. I think that is a very convenient reason to defend a ``no'' vote: that there is a theoretical outcome that would be more in alignment with your beliefs.

That is not how things work here, right? We are presented with pieces of legislation we all have input into. This was not a Democratic bill. This was a bill worked out with many Republicans as well. And ultimately we had a choice. We had a choice.

And, again, I think it is a lot easier to just come down here to vote no on everything. But when life and death are at stake in a place like Ukraine, I think, on the willingness to support a piece of legislation that maybe has some things in it you don't like, the bar may be a little bit higher.

I don't think I have anybody seeking to yield at this point.

Let me say this. I take Senator Sasse's position seriously, and I want him to take my position seriously, as well, because I object to the idea of my effort to draw attention to the fact that Republicans voted against a bill that includes significant money for Ukraine as political hackery. I object to that characterization because I do think I am speaking to a broader trend line in this body, in which it is seemingly harder than ever to get both sides to the table to agree to big things that change people's lives or change realities overseas.

I think Senator Sasse makes an important point, which is the way we are doing things right now with respect to the budget is insanity. I agree with that. The lack of transparency, the fact that all of this work is shopped to the majority and the minority leaders--that is not good for government; that is not good for transparency. I think there are legitimate reasons why Members of this body would vote against the budget.

But that is not what my statement was about. It was about trying to juxtapose that vote to this criticism of the President. I do think those two things are relevant because the American public is being given the impression by many Republicans that the President isn't being serious enough about this crisis or isn't working hard enough at this crisis.

And I do think it is legitimate to put on the table for a discussion the fact that the very people who are criticizing the President's conduct are often not willing to support the funding necessary for him to carry out that mission--for reasons that have nothing to do with Ukraine but have, in the end, the effect of denying the President, if this position was the majority--it was not last week--given that the consequence of voting down the budget would have been to ultimately deny that funding to the President and to the people of Ukraine.

I think this is a legitimate topic for discussion, and I will continue to raise it. I will take the Senator's word seriously and try to raise it in a way that is constructive, but I think this is a legitimate topic for discussion in the U.S. Senate.

This is not about rallying the base. This is about trying to promote a discussion about how we make this place more functional and how these press conferences that Republicans are doing end up having some connection to the reality of the votes that happen on the floor of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as if in executive session, I ask that the motion to reconsider with respect to the Pagan nomination be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to offer a few remarks about claims that have been made on this floor over the course of the last few days regarding the path forward to American energy independence.

The oil industry--reaping record profits in the billions of dollars-- is taking advantage, quite artfully, of the crisis in Ukraine to make arguments to the U.S. Congress and this administration that they should be given new liberties to drill on lands in the United States to be able to reap even greater profits.

And the claim that the oil industry makes that is often parroted by friends inside this body is that the path to American energy independence runs through drilling for more oil in the United States of America. That is not true. That is an oil industry talking point. That is a means by which the industry can get Congress and the administration to provide them with new opportunities for more profit.

But the facts belie the argument that America could achieve energy independence solely through drilling for more oil and exploring for more gas in the United States. Why do we know this? Well, we know this, primarily, because the oil industry doesn't drill in the United States to benefit our national security. They drill in the United States to make money. And the reality is, when the price of a barrel of oil is too low compared to the cost of pulling it out of the ground in the United States, the oil companies don't drill. Right now, for instance, the oil industry has thousands of leases to drill on public lands that they are not utilizing.

As you would hear it on the floor of the Senate, the failure to be energy independent is Joe Biden's fault because he is not providing for any new leases on public lands. Well, you do not need any new leases on public lands because there are thousands of leases that the oil industry already has to drill that they just are not using. There is nothing in the ground. There is no oil coming up. And the reason for that is, well, the economy was in shambles, so there wasn't demand; the price of oil was down so that the companies didn't see a big enough profit; there is a general workforce shortage right now in the industry. But none of those reasons are Joe Biden. Those are market- based reasons why the oil industry has not been drilling on land they already own.

The second reason why there is not a path to energy independence through drilling alone is because the oil that we drill in the United States, it doesn't stay in the United States. Some of it does, but much of it gets exported. In 2020, we were drilling about 18 million barrels a day in the United States. About half of that was shipped overseas. Only half of that stayed in the United States. I wanted to make sure that wasn't something we needed to pay closer attention to.

The oil that we drill in the United States doesn't stay here. It goes to the highest bidder. In fact, often, the oil we drill in the United States is going to China. For as hard as my friends on the other side of the aisle say we should be on China, the reality is, during some months of the last several years, America was sending record amounts of oil from U.S. oil production facilities to the Chinese Government.

It just isn't true that there is a path to American energy security simply by drilling for more oil in the United States. That oil only comes out of the ground when the price is high enough. The oil industry doesn't drill to be patriotic. They drill to make money. And there is never a guarantee that that oil or that gas stays in the United States; much of it is sent overseas.

As I mentioned, there is also no argument to be made credibly that Joe Biden is waging some war on American energy independence.

The two biggest changes that are often cited that the President made: One is, as I referenced, this pause on new leases on public lands. That just has very little impact because, first of all, very little of the oil that the industry drills is on public lands. Only 10 percent of the oil the industry drills is on public lands. Ninety percent of it is on privately held lands, so a pause on 10 percent of the leases just doesn't have a macro effect on oil drilling.

Second, any leases that the administration would give out right now, they don't end up in drilling occurring for years. So whether or not we are pausing or not pausing leases on 10 percent of the opportunities to drill in the United States, that has an impact years from now, not today.

The argument is, ``Well, the President stopped the Keystone Pipeline from going into effect.'' Same thing. The Keystone Pipeline was years out; and, second, most of the Keystone Pipeline oil wasn't staying in the United States. Most of that oil was going to be shipped overseas.

There is a reason why the Keystone Pipeline was ending up near the terminals in the Gulf that ended up sending oil to places other than the United States. Once again, the Keystone Pipeline was not a guarantee for American energy independence; that was a guarantee that the majority of that oil was going to end up in some other country.

And so if you are serious about energy independence, then you are not serious if you are talking about getting there through drilling. This is not a serious solution, because the facts tell you that the drilling only happens when the oil industry makes enough money and that the lion's share, at least half of that oil and gas, can end up going overseas, not to American consumers.

Do you know how you do make this country energy independent? Investing in renewables, because we don't ship wind power overseas. We don't ship solar energy overseas. When a wind turbine is running in Iowa or a solar panel is generating energy in California, that energy goes straight onto the American grid. That energy stays right here in the United States.

Now, it also has a tremendous benefit of being clean energy, of not contributing to the warming of the planet. That alone is a good enough reason to prioritize clean energy over fossil fuel energy, but renewable energy also has the benefit of being truly domestic energy; truly secure, American-only energy, as opposed to fossil fuels, which only get turned on when the price is high enough and often end up leaving the United States to other countries.

Those are the facts. The oil industry delights when crises like this occur and the prices go up at the pump, and friends of theirs come down and claim that the only path to energy independence is through more drilling. But the problem is it just isn't true.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

First of all, let me agree with my Republican colleagues. We stand in awe today of the Ukrainian people, of President Zelenskyy, of the Ukrainian military. They have given the Russians more than they thought was coming. They have stood up a defense and are resistant. The world has watched with admiration, and the jury is, frankly, still out as to whether the Russians can make good on their plans, given how fierce the Ukrainians have fought.

And I have been proud to stand with my colleagues on this floor as we have delivered additional aid to Ukraine, as we have made sure they have had the Javelins and the Stingers necessary to protect themselves. I have been proud to visit Ukraine with many of my colleagues here today, and we are going to continue to stand with the Ukrainian people.

But I want to make two points today with respect to the effort that has been undertaken by my good friend, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

First, let me make a specific point on the merits of the bill that is being proposed here today.

Passing this bill with no committee process, no amendments, no debate would be a terrible idea. What this bill does, essentially, is to shatter American unity with Europe, with Japan, with South Korea, with all the allies that have stood with us over the course of this past week.

President Biden spent the last 2 months methodically building a never-before-seen coalition of nations to impose the most significant set of sanctions ever seen, and this bill would undo that.

Why? Because this would mandate that the United States impose certain new sanctions over Europe's objection. It calls for the United States to abandon our policy of focusing on multilateral sanctions and start over with unilateral sanctions. Why is that a terrible idea? Well, first, because unilateral sanctions just aren't as effective as multilateral sanctions are. When you are talking about energy policy, you want the Europeans with you because that is where the Russian energy ends up. Without Europe, going at it alone, it makes the United States look weak, and the sanctions just aren't as effective.

But second, this bill is a bad idea because breaking with Europe and our NATO partners right now--that is exactly what Vladimir Putin wants. Yes, he wants to control Ukraine, but what he wants more is to smash the transatlantic alliance to pieces. He sees the invasion of Ukraine as a wedge that will cause America to squabble and break with our allies. Putin is setting a trap for us, and this bill would have us walk right into that trap.

Third, let's be clear. With a couple of small exceptions, President Biden has already done everything that this bill calls for and more. This bill calls for sanctions on those responsible for the buildup of forces around Ukraine. The administration has imposed sanctions on Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Lavrov, 13 other members of Russia's Security Council.

This bill calls for sanctions on Nord Stream 2. Nord Stream 2 is done.

Thanks to the committed diplomatic efforts of the Biden administration, the German Government has put an end to Nord Stream 2, and we have applied the sanctions.

This bill calls for sanctions on oligarchs. Biden did that with our allies, and he went further. He launched a task force that is going to identify, freeze, and take from Russian oligarchs their assets.

This bill calls for sanctions on financial institutions. The administration has already targeted all 10 of Russia's largest financial institutions, which hold more than three-quarters of the Russian financial sector's total assets.

This bill calls for a prohibition on investment in occupied Ukrainian territory. President Biden did that on the first day of the war.

This bill calls for sanctioning transactions involving the Russian sovereign debt. President Biden did that on the second day of the war.

This bill calls for sanctions on Belarus. President Biden levied sanctions on 24 Belarusian individuals, 2 state-owned banks, and 13 of the country's industries.

President Biden has put together a sanctions package that is sweeping, that is unprecedented, that is breaking the back of the Russian economy. So why are we down here on the floor engaged in this back-and-forth?

And that brings me to my second point, a broader one. It used to be that the all-consuming politics of this town sometimes would take a break when the crisis was big enough. Sometimes they would stop at the water's edge. This was the case in 2001 when this country was attacked.

Republicans were in charge of the White House and both Houses of Congress, and Democrats certainly had the choice to blame the attack on President Bush to try to score political points. Democrats could have come down to the floor to offer partisan bills. Democrats in the Senate could have used their minority prerogatives to block Bush's national security nominees.

But that is not what happened in 2001. Democrats and Republicans came together because, at that moment, patriotism, the love of your country, the defense of your country was more important than politics or party.

Now, today, the shoe is on the other foot. Democrats control the White House, the House, and the Senate. And while our Nation wasn't attacked last week, I would argue that this moment is the most perilous that the United States and the world has faced, certainly since 2001, but given the nuclear stakes involved in a conflict with Russia, perhaps the most perilous since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Now, I get it. The professional outrage machine that dominates American politics today has deluded a lot of folks in the Congress into believing that unity is weakness; that putting your country over party is an anachronism. But I don't believe that.

I believe that sometimes the stakes are so high that you have got to put aside your politics--at least temporarily--put aside your disagreements and get behind your government.

Now, let's be honest. As this crisis has grown in seriousness, over and over again Republicans have had the chance to do what Democrats did in 2001: elevate loyalty to country.

But all through 2021, even as Senators were made aware of Russia's plans to invade Ukraine, Senators Cruz and Hawley and a few others continued to put politics first by blocking every single national security nominee who came before this body, including those nominees who would have been working to try to help Ukraine and stop the Russian invasion.

Last month, Republicans and Democrats were working on a bipartisan bill to support Ukraine in its time of need. Those negotiations were difficult, but instead of staying at the table, Republicans walked away with virtually no notice to Democrats and introduced this bill, with only Republicans supporting it.

And now, instead of rallying behind a President who has shocked the world by uniting friends and foes behind an unprecedented set of crippling sanctions against Russia, Republicans are down here on the floor, not more than a week since the Russian invasion began, to highlight their grievances with the President's policies.

Russia invaded less than a week ago. We returned to Washington last night, and instead of deciding to sit down with Republicans today and work on agreeing on a package of support for Ukraine, like the one that President Biden has requested, Republicans have instead chosen to spend today, our first day back in the Senate since the invasion, playing politics, trying to force a vote on a bill that they wrote, that not a single Democrat supports, that everybody knows is not going to pass, has no chance of passing.

Now, we could do the same thing. Democrats could just put a bill on the floor that we all negotiated with ourselves and force Republicans to vote on it. We could choose to use this week to highlight the differences between Republicans and Democrats, but we are not going to do that because our priority is to try to work together with our Republican colleagues to find unity--unity--at this moment; to not use the first day that we are back in session since the invasion began to highlight the differences between our two parties.

And, frankly, when I look at what Republicans have been calling on President Biden to do, I don't see a lot of daylight. I don't see a lot of reason for complaint. I don't see the imperative to come down here and highlight the differences.

Nord Stream 2 is gone. It is not happening. SWIFT sanctions, previously opposed by Europe, are now happening. Russian banks are being crippled. Assets of Russian oligarchs are being seized. Vladimir Putin is being personally sanctioned. Embargoes are being put on key technologies sent into Russia.

The set of sanctions that President Biden announced--it goes further than what most all observers and pundits predicted. It is frankly stunning how successful President Biden's diplomacy has been.

And it just strains all credibility for Republicans to suddenly claim that this diplomacy is irrelevant and all these countries are going to impose these sanctions even if President Biden did nothing.

I wish my colleagues could see the seriousness of this moment and the need for us to focus our energies on coming together instead of playing into our enemy's hands and showing our differences at this moment.

Our President has rallied the world to this fight. Vladimir Putin is reeling, but we are forced to spend time today debating a partisan bill introduced by only one party that has no chance of passage because today on this floor scoring political points seems more important than finding a way to come together--to come together with the President, with both parties around our support for Ukraine.

And for those reasons, I object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object. First, very quickly, let me make a few final points about Senator Risch's comments.

Senator Risch says that this isn't a partisan exercise. It is. The bill that Senator Risch is talking about was introduced by only Republicans. It was introduced with no notice to Democrats. There was a big showy press conference in which only Republicans were there. In fact, the introduction of this bill was a messaging point for Republicans to announce that they were no longer negotiating with Democrats.

And so I appreciate that Senator Risch often is working very industriously with Democrats, but in this case, it is a partisan bill. Only Republicans support it.

And offering it today is not helpful to the process because it had no chance of passage. Instead, today, we should be working on getting additional funding to the Ukrainians.

President Biden has requested our help, has requested Congress to step up and provide humanitarian assistance and more lethal assistance to Ukraine. Right now, with the time that we are spending arguing over a bill that is supported only by Republicans that is never going to pass this body, we could be using that time to come together around a bill that can pass, that will pass.

So that is why there is anger on our side about this exercise. There are these moments in American history and world history where our focus should be on unity, where our focus should be on coming together and finding what we can do together; and, instead, the piece of legislation that was just offered was a bill that was specifically introduced to highlight the Republican position in contrast to the Biden administration.

As for Senator Barrasso's bill, it suffers from the same problem, which is it separates us from Europe. It separates us from our allies.

There is a lot of wisdom on the Republican side of the aisle, but it mystifies me why so many of my friends who know so much about Russia don't understand that Putin's primary objective is to break NATO into pieces, is to smash the European Union, is to create tensions and fissures within the transatlantic alliance, right?

Putin sees the greatest catastrophe of the last 100 years as the breakup of the Soviet Union, and he blames the United States and the West for that breakup. So, while the invasion of Ukraine is part of his process of remedying that grievance, the real crown--the real cherry on top for Vladimir Putin--is the splintering apart of NATO and the United States from Europe. Now, we almost got there during the Trump administration. Relations were never worse; threats of pulling out of NATO or refusing to honor our article 5 obligations.

I would argue that this invasion is happening in part because the Biden administration made clear that there wasn't going to be a natural disintegration of the transatlantic alliance, and so Vladimir Putin is using this invasion of Ukraine, first and foremost, to get control of the territory he wants but also to try to split us from each other. And our fear is that bills like this essentially step into the trap that Vladimir Putin has laid for us because secondary sanctions on European entities against the wishes of European governments splits us from each other. Had Joe Biden gone this route, you would have never had the Europeans working with us on swift sanctions. You would have never had the Europeans working with us on the seizure of Russian assets.

But because Joe Biden made the wise decision to do these sanctions in concert with Europe, we got more than we could have ever imagined. And this bill would walk us backwards, undo that unity with our colleagues.

It may be that there will be a moment in time where we can convince our European colleagues to move with us on sanctions against certain elements of Russia's energy economy, but we must do that together. We have to do that together because you need to understand what Putin's larger game is. It is the breakup of the transatlantic alliance.

I wish my colleagues were on the floor today, celebrating-- celebrating what President Biden has done. Nobody thought that he could keep the alliance, that he could keep us together with Europe, that he could get Europe to agree to what they have already agreed to. I wish we were rallying behind our President right now.

I get it that there are always differences between the Republicans and a Democratic President, but, boy, this would be a great moment for us to be on the floor, supporting the breakthrough that President Biden has achieved on crippling sanctions against Russia and spending this day working together to try to deliver billions of dollars in additional aid to Ukraine. Instead, we are engaged in a partisan squabble over bills that have no chance of passing, that are literally just as valuable as the pieces of paper that the press releases from the Republicans will be written on.

I hope that we can get beyond today and get down to work on serious business--the serious business of coming together, Republicans and Democrats, and providing Ukraine the assistance they need, in a bipartisan way, through a package of support that can be supported by both parties and signed by this President.

For that reason, I object.

Mr. President, the world was safer when the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear agreement negotiated by President Obama, was in place. The world became a much less safe place when President Trump tore up that agreement against the advice of his Secretary of State and his Secretary of Defense.

We have an opportunity right now to reconstruct that agreement--or the most important elements of it--so that Iran once again is as far as possible from being able to obtain a nuclear weapon. That would make the region safer. That would make the United States safer.

But time is of the essence. U.S. negotiators, European negotiators, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians are right now entering what could be the last round of discussions, and it is absolutely imperative that the U.S. Senate provide this administration with the support it needs to effectuate an agreement.

I want to talk to my colleagues for a few minutes about how important it is for the United States and our European allies--for the world, indeed--to reconstruct a diplomatic agreement with Iran.

And I want to also talk for a moment about how disastrous the last 5 years have been--a period of time during which the United States has largely been out of compliance with that agreement.

The JCPOA was signed by the United States and European allies and was entered into, on behalf of a coalition that included Russia and China, with the Iranian Government. It was signed in July of 2015, and within about 6 months, the IAEA was able to verify that Iran had completed its obligations under the nuclear agreement.

This included commitments that would increase the amount of time that Iran needed to acquire enough material for a nuclear weapon from 2 to 3 months--that was the amount of time that it would have taken them prior to the nuclear agreement--to at least a year or more.

The agreement reduced Iran's stockpiles of enriched uranium by requiring it to ship 25,000 pounds of it out of the country. Iran committed to dismantling and removing two-thirds of its centrifuges. It modified its heavy water reactor at Arak and filled it with concrete so that it could never be used again, preventing Iran from producing weapons-grade plutonium. And, finally, Iran agreed to provide unprecedented access to its nuclear facilities and to its nuclear supply chain--not only the sites that we knew about, but it also agreed to adopt what are called the additional protocols which allow the IAEA to be able to request and get access to sites in which they might have some suspicion that there was new prohibited nuclear research activity happening.

Under this deal, Iran reduced its stockpile of uranium by 98 percent. It kept its level of uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent, significantly below the levels that you would need to make a bomb.

The JCPOA, as I said, got the Iranians to reduce their number of centrifuges from 20,000 to 6,000.

And so this was the world that President Trump inherited--the United States, Europe, Russia, and China united on Iran policy; Iran shutting down major elements of their nuclear research program, such that they were now more than a year out from getting a nuclear weapon if they made the decision to achieve a nuclear weapon. That is called the breakout time, the time from which a country decides it wants a nuclear weapon to the point at which it has a nuclear weapon. For Iran, that went from 2 to 3 months prior to the agreement to over a year after the agreement.

But it also lined up the United States, Europe, China, and Russia-- this unlikely alliance of traditional adversaries, at least with respect to Russia and China--so that we could then move on to Iran's other malevolent behaviors.

Critics of the deal said it only pertains to the nuclear program, but that is not the only bad behavior that Iran is engaged in.

Well, President Trump inherited a united front of unlikely allies that then could be utilized to pressure Iran to make changes to its ballistic missile program, to reduce its support for terrorist organizations and proxy armies around the region. That is why Secretary Tillerson and Secretary Mattis and many other Trump advisers encouraged him to stay in the deal.

But he didn't. President Trump tore up the deal and announced to the country and the world that he was going to pursue a different strategy.

Critics of JCPOA said that President Obama shouldn't have entered into an agreement. Critics said that he should have held out and kept applying more and more sanctions, even if the Europeans walked away, as a means of getting Iran to come to the table on a broader agreement that would include its ballistic missile program and its support for terrorists.

President Obama believed it was important to get the nuclear question off the table. But to the extent there was any silver lining of President Trump's decision, it is that it allowed us for 4 years to test the theory of the opponents, the theory of the critics, because President Trump implemented the strategy that the critics of the JCPOA wanted President Obama to employ.

Donald Trump imposed greater sanctions. He did it without the Europeans, and he demanded that he would only talk to the Iranians if they came to the table on everything. In fact, he set it down on a piece of paper.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave Iran a list of 12 demands and said that we will come to the table and talk to you and we will consider releasing these sanctions if you talk to us about all of your dangerous behaviors in the region--your nuclear program, your ballistic missile program, your support for terrorists. So President Trump gave us the gift of testing the theory of the opponents. You know how the story goes. It was a spectacular failure.

It was a spectacular failure in multiple respects. First, let's just talk about what happened to Iran's nuclear program. In May 2019 Iran announces that it will no longer observe the JCPOA stockpile limit. And, as of November of last year, the stockpile of enriched uranium-- enriched uranium gas--was roughly 11 times what it was during the agreement.

In July 2019, Iran began enriching uranium up to 4.5 percent, above 3.6 percent, as specified in the agreement. In January of 2021, it began enriching uranium to 20 percent; in April of 2021, up to 60 percent.

In September 2019, Iran announced it would no longer be bound by any research and development limitations on advanced centrifuges. They started that research again.

In November 2019, Iran announced that it would start enriching uranium at Fordow up to 4.5 percent. Under the JCPOA, enrichment at Fordow was prohibited for 15 years. By January of last year, Iran was enriching uranium to 20 percent at Fordow.

And in November of 2020, Iran's Parliament passed a bill requiring the country to build that new heavy water reactor at Arak that allows them a path to plutonium. Once built, that reactor will be capable of producing enough plutonium annually for two nuclear weapons.

And since February of this year, Iran has been restricting that IAEA access to its facilities. It no longer complies with the additional protocols. So if you ask for access to a site in which you think there is new nuclear research activity being undertaken, Iran no longer feels obligated to grant that access.

Iran went to a breakout time of 2 to 3 months to a breakout time under the agreement of more than a year, to, today, a breakout time of 2 months--arguably less than the breakout time prior to the deal.

But it is important to also note that during these last 4 years, none of Iran's other malevolent activities in the region have abated. In fact, arguably, they have gotten worse. Iran continues to support proxy armies in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon. In fact, their connection with Hezbollah in Lebanon and with the Houthis in Yemen is probably stronger today than it was during the JCPOA.

After President Trump backed out of the JCPOA, Iran restarted attacks on U.S. troops. Now, Iran has been engaged in permanent destabilizing activities in Iraq since the outset of that war, but during the period of time that we were in the JCPOA, they were not shooting directly at U.S. troops. Their proxy armies had stood down. Once we were outside of the JCPOA, those attacks started again. In fact, one rocket that was sent by a proxy army at a U.S. staff base in Iraq could have killed 100 U.S. troop members. It just narrowly missed.

The Iranians have undertaken attacks against the Saudis that they never would have contemplated while the JCPOA was in effect, taking action against Saudi oil facilities, including a high-profile attack against Saudi Aramco.

And their proxy armies, similarly, are firing at our friends in the Gulf. Just in the last few months, we have seen an increased level of drone attacks and missile attacks against Saudi Arabia and the UAE from inside Yemen.

One of my Republican colleagues here in this body claimed that Trump's Iran policy had ``restored deterrence.'' That is a laughable proposition because it did exactly the opposite. Once we got out of that agreement, Iran started their nuclear research program to the point that it is stronger than it was prior to the JCPOA in some ways. They didn't stop any of their other destabilizing activity. It got worse, and they didn't come back to the table.

The whole point of the critics of the Obama policy was that if we had just kept on applying sanctions, Iran would come to the table on everything. Trump tried it. It didn't work. Iran didn't come to the table on anything.

Their actions in the region, their actions against the United States, their nuclear research program just got more serious and worse.

Listen, diplomacy is not weakness. News flash: Occasionally there are diplomatic agreements that are in the best interests of the United States, and the JCPOA was inarguably one of them. The data tells a clear story.

Iran wasn't a good actor during the JCPOA. They were still engaged in all sorts of deleterious activity. But Donald Trump inherited the ability to use that coalition that was built to build the JCPOA to take on that other activity. He inherited a nuclear research program which was controlled, and he threw it all away.

What is interesting is that many of our allies who were very skeptical of the JCPOA when it was signed are now very supportive of the United States reentering it. It tells you that they see the same story that I am telling you.

Our Gulf allies, who were among the most vocal opponents of the JCPOA in 2014 and 2015, sent out a joint statement urging ``a mutual return to full compliance of the JCPOA.'' This was a deal that the Gulf nations opposed, and they now support the United States entering back into it.

And a cavalcade of Israeli officials--former intelligence and defense officials who can now feel freer to speak about their personal views-- have been equally clear about the need to get back into this agreement.

Tamir Pardo was the former director of Mossad. For 5 years he directed the Mossad. He said:

What happened in 2018 was a tragedy. It was an

unforgiveable strategy, the fact that Israel pushed the

United States to withdraw from the agreement 10 years early.

It was a strategic mistake.

Amos Yadlin, the former chief of the IDF military intelligence unit, a job he held for 4 years, said: ``If we want to be honest, what postponed Iranian progress towards achieving nuclear weapons was the nuclear agreement--and not military action. . . . [Iran is] closer now than they have ever been before. And that is because of the very wrong policy . . .'' of withdrawing from the agreement.

Gadi Eisenkot, former IDF chief of staff said that ``the fact that the U.S. withdrew in 2018 from the . . . deal released Iran from all restrictions and inspections in the deal, even if there were holes [in the agreement], and brought Iran to the most advanced position today with regard to its nuclear program.''

And so, so many of our friends in the region see the need to get back into this agreement. The status quo is not acceptable.

Now, it is not going to be easy because there are elements of Iran's progress in nuclear research that are difficult, if not impossible, to undo given how much new research, how many advanced centrifuges they have built since President Trump left the agreement.

And, quite frankly, there are some sanctions that we have applied to Iran since the nuclear agreement that we aren't going to release, because we told the Iranians and the world that we were going to apply sanctions to Iran relevant to their ballistic missile program and their support for terrorist organizations, and we did that--some of them under President Trump. Those aren't going to go away.

But it is important for the Biden administration to see that many of the sanctions that Trump put in place during that period of time may have sounded good, but they had no impact on Iranian behavior.

I would put on that list the sanctioning of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the sanctioning of the Supreme Leader. These aren't good people, but those sanctions didn't change Iran's behavior for the better. In fact, during that period of time, their behavior got worse. Their nuclear research program became more advanced. And so, if releasing those designations or sanctions are required in order to make the world safer and get Iran back into the nuclear box, then I hope the administration will give serious consideration.

I hope the administration understands the vital importance of getting back into this agreement and being willing to do the tough things in order to achieve a new nuclear agreement with the Iranians.

The Iranians are going to have to make concessions as well. The Iranians are going to have to make some serious changes to their current scope of nuclear research. But it is the only way to unlock sanctions relief for a country that badly needs it. There is no way for the current President of Iran to make good on all the promises he made without the sanctions relief.

But time is of the essence. Time is of the essence. President Biden promised to restart diplomacy with Iran to make the world a safer place by getting back into a nuclear agreement. This is the moment to do it, and I would urge the administration to take all of the smart steps necessary in order to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, making the region and the world a safer place.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield back all time on the motion to discharge.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination: Calendar No. 362, Homer L. Wilkes, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment; that the cloture motion be withdrawn; that the Senate vote on the nomination without any intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: