Floor Statements

Mr. President, Vladimir Putin and Xi often call for what they call a multipolar world. By ``multipolar world,'' these Presidents of Russia and China mean to criticize the post-Cold War situation with the United States as the preeminent superpower.

Even some American commentators and politicians seem to agree with Putin and Xi.

In some corners of American foreign policy thought, there is an implicit acceptance of the premise that large, powerful countries are entitled to a certain sphere of influence and where they can, at the same time, dominate their neighbors against the will of the people who live in those countries.

The Soviet Union previously had an ideology of exporting communist revolution to other countries. The Soviet Union sought to dominate much of the Eurasian continent and to export its economic and political system to countries around the globe, either by cunning or by force.

When the Berlin Wall fell and the then-Soviet Union collapsed, many previously captive nations became free to chart their own course. As a result, many of them chose free market democracy.

Those countries also naturally chose to develop good relationships with the United States and what we call the West--countries of the West.

Putin clearly sees this as a humiliation. And he famously called the collapse of the Soviet empire as ``the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century.''

By contrast to the Soviet Union, the United States is what we might call a reluctant superpower--I think sometimes too reluctant.

We never set out to have the most powerful military. The instinct of the American people was to stay out of World War I and World War II. We then learned that our failure to nip aggression in the bud and do it early comes at a tremendous cost.

Still, our instinctual reluctance to get involved in foreign wars is to our credit. I am not saying that we have never deviated from our general nature or made mistakes. But I believe that imperialism is contrary to the American character.

During the Cold War, Margaret Thatcher had this to say--and bear with me because it is a fairly long quote. Margaret Thatcher said this:

It is fashionable for some commentators to speak of the two

super powers--United

States and the Soviet Union--as though they were somehow of

equal worth and equal significance. Mr. Speaker, that is a

travesty of the truth! The Soviet Union has never concealed

its real aim. In the words of Mr. Brezhnev, ``the total

triumph of all Socialism all over the world is inevitable--

for this triumph we shall struggle with no lack of effort.''

Indeed, there has been no lack of effort.

Contrast this with the record of the West. We do not aim at

domination, at hegemony, in any part of the world. Even

against those who oppose and who would destroy our ideas, we

plot no aggression. Of course, we are ready to fight the

battle of ideas with all the vigour at our command, but we do

not try to impose our system on others. We do not believe

that force should be the final arbiter in human affairs. We

threaten no-one.

I will further quote her in just a minute.

Now, listen to this point that Thatcher makes, because I think Putin still thinks like a Soviet.

I continue quoting Thatcher:

In talking to the Soviet Union, we find great difficulty in

getting this message across. They judge us by their

ambitions. They cannot conceive of a powerful nation not

using its power for expansion or subversion, and yet they

should remember that when, after the last War, the United

States had a monopoly of nuclear weapons, she never once

exploited her superiority. No country ever used such great

power more responsibly or with such restraint.

Where she says ``no country ever used such great power more responsibly and with such restraint,'' she was referring to and complimenting the United States.

Putin and Xi talk about the United States as some sort of hegemony, pushing our values on others. The fact is, whatever they think, America's principles and systems of government have spread across the world primarily through example, not by force.

To understand the American view, let's look back on a speech made by John Quincy Adams on the Fourth of July, 1821. There are a lot of lessons that you can draw from a speech 200 years ago.

A small excerpt of this speech is often quoted in arguing for more isolationist foreign policy. I will get to that point later.

First, I want to mention about the broader point of Adams's speech, which was to celebrate the Declaration of Independence as an articulation of America's founding principles.

John Quincy Adams goes on at length extolling the American founding based on natural rights, rejecting monarchy, as we all know.

America, with the same voice which spoke herself into

existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the

inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful

foundations of government.

At the time, revolutions had broken out in Europe and Latin America, threatening monarchies and empires of that day.

Adams--meaning John Quincy Adams--castigates empires that seek to nominate people by force.

He then ends the speech with a call for the spirit of liberty--that spirit of liberty that is talked about in the Declaration--and he asks that to descend upon Britain and all monarchies.

In fact, the diplomat in attendance from the Russian Empire was appalled at the statement that John Quincy Adams was making.

He reported to St. Petersburg that the speech was ``an appeal to the nations of Europe to rise against their governments.''

This was provocative stuff for monarchists.

In the excerpt of the speech that is most often quoted, Adams makes a digression to clarify that he is not suggesting the United States intervene directly to support every anti-monarchy revolution.

Adams explains that the United States has respected the independence of other nations and has not intervened even when ``conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.''

In this case, he is referring to the anti-colonial revolutions taking place at that time in Latin America or Greece.

The most famous quote from that speech comes in the following passage about the role of the United States. So quoting from John Quincy Adams again:

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been

or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions

and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of

monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom

and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator

only of her own.

People have argued how Adams' words apply to specific foreign policy debates today, but what is beyond question is that John Quincy Adams said Americans ought to at least root for freedom and independence. It is in our American DNA to take the side of the underdog, fighting for liberty against an empire.

As Margaret Thatcher explained, dictatorships and democracies aren't morally equal.

However they feel about the prudence of any particular foreign policy decision, Americans should reject the Putin-Xi vision of a multipolar war.

Let's look at some examples and consider the alternative values of the multipolar war Putin and Xi are offering to 8 billion people.

On Sunday, September 11, 2022, Grace Evangelical Church in Melitopol, Ukraine, was full of worshipers. Worship leaders with guitars stood in front of a giant, colorful screen displaying the lyrics of a praise song. It looked like any evangelical church here in the United States. As the congregation was singing praises to Jesus, armed Russian soldiers in camouflage barged in and stopped the service. I encourage every American to watch that video, and it is on video. The soldiers took the names of all the worshipers and detained the minister.

In the same Ukrainian city, the largest church was the Melitopol Christian Church, and that happens to be a charismatic Protestant church. Russian soldiers broke into the church with sledgehammers. They arrested the pastors in the middle of the night, waking one pastor's 9- year-old son with a gun in his face. The large cross in the front of the church was removed--the building confiscated by the Russian occupiers not for religious reasons but for secular use.

Before the Russian invasion, there were more Protestant churches in that city than orthodox churches. Now, as you see how the Russians invade, there are no Protestant churches in that community. Evangelical churches are considered undesirable by Russians for being too Western, even being accused of being too American.

Religious freedom, as we know, is a core natural right. In fact, it is the first right mentioned in our own Bill of Rights. The degree to which a country respects this right of religious freedom is a good barometer of the degree to which it respects individual rights in general. You cannot call yourself a free country if you suppress the freedom of religion.

Both Russia and China are among a handful of countries designated by the State Department as being what we call Countries of Particular Concern because of their severe violations of religious freedom.

China has been holding up to 2 million Uighurs and other Muslims in detention camps. The State Department has now officially labeled what China is doing to the Uighurs and other Muslims in detention camps as a ``genocide.'' They have been beaten with batons while being strapped to chairs; interrogated while water is being poured in their faces; placed in prolonged solitary confinement, constantly surveilled; deprived of sleep and food; forbidden from speaking their own language or practicing their own religion; and forced to sing patriotic songs that only Xi would approve of.

The Chinese Communist Party says that these camps are for vocational education to fight ``extremism.'' Here are some examples of what the Chinese Communist Party calls extremism: having too many children, being an unsafe person, being born in certain years, wearing a veil or having a beard.

My staff met with a former internee from one of these camps-- obviously, because that person was able to get free. She described widespread torture and rape. Since this started to result in children, the Chinese Communist Party has subjected Uighur women to forced birth control and sterilization. Uighurs in other countries, including in the United States, have been subjected to harassment and intimidation, including threats against family members for speaking out about the genocide of their people.

The Chinese Communist Party sees a threat from any belief system that provides an alternative to the Chinese Communist Party's ideology. So it has

co-opted religious institutions that it can control while suppressing independent religious groups. This includes Tibetan Buddhists. Chinese officials have demolished a number of Tibetan monastery buildings and placed atheist Communist Party officials in important administrative positions.

Tibetan Buddhists are very peaceful so they pose no threat to the government except in their moral authority and their credibility in undercutting the government's legitimacy in that region. In Tibet, there have been reports of forced disappearances, arrests, torture, physical abuse, and prolonged detentions without trial of monks, nuns, and other individuals due to their religious practices.

Authorities arrest individuals for possessing photographs of or writings by the Dalai Lama.

Also, practitioners of Falun Gong, which traces its roots to the traditional Chinese religion, have been labeled ``members of a cult.''

Freedom House independently verified 933 cases of Falun Gong adherents sentenced to prison terms of up to 12 years in just a 3\1/2\- year period, often just for exercising their rights to freedom of expression in addition to freedom of religion. Thousands more are believed to be held at various prisons and extralegal detention centers. There are reports of cases of torture, disappearance, brainwashing, rape, and death of Falun Gong practitioners by the Chinese Communist Party.

When a person dies while imprisoned, their families are told that their loved ones committed suicide or died of a disease, but the bodies are cremated before evidence can be gathered.

In recent years, there have been credible reports of Falun Gong practitioners and other political prisoners having been victims of forced organ harvesting.

Christianity also has had a deep historical and cultural impact on modern China, but in the mid-20th century, the Communist Party suppressed the religion. The growth of Protestantism in China in recent decades has led to the emergence of what we call house churches. These are independent and not part of one of the state-sanctioned, Chinese Communist Party-controlled churches.

The Chinese Communist Party has clamped down on Christian activities outside of registered venues, banned unauthorized evangelization online, and intensified its crackdown on unauthorized Protestant meeting points and underground Catholic churches. Christians seeking to practice their faith free of government control have to fear their identities being discovered and facing punishment or imprisonment.

By contrast, Taiwan has complete religious freedom. Note that the new Taiwanese President, Mr. Lai, is part of a vibrant Protestant minority. I met him a few years ago when he was Vice President-elect, and he came to Washington for the National Prayer Breakfast.

Aside from geopolitics, it is only natural that Americans would sympathize with Taiwan over communist China because of religious freedom in Taiwan versus no religious freedom in communist China.

To repeat the words of John Quincy Adams, ``Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.''

So I have laid out for my colleagues the multipolar world that Xi and Putin want versus the freedom that is declared in our Declaration of Independence and practiced here, and by practicing it here, we hope we are an example for other countries that prefer democracy and religious freedom.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today is the day of the whistleblower.

But every day should be the day of the whistleblower.

I have asked every President since Ronald Reagan to hold a Rose Garden ceremony to honor whistleblowers. No President has done so.

That is a shame because Presidents should view whistleblowers as making their job easier not more difficult. It is often the whistleblower who gives the unvarnished truth relating to government misconduct. And once that misconduct is known, it can be taken care of.

When fraud and waste are exposed, the executive branch should bend over backwards to eliminate it. Instead, the executive branch often stupidly attacks the whistleblowers for courageously putting themselves out there.

And for those in the FBI like Marcus Allen, retaliation is holding your security clearance hostage.

Let me give some other recent examples. Department of Homeland Security whistleblowers alerted me of this administration's failure to implement the DNA Fingerprint Act. This failure allowed migrants with criminal histories to enter the United States unchecked, putting our communities at risk. The Department of Homeland Security has violated Federal law. The Office of Special Counsel substantiated the allegations and the retaliation against the whistleblowers for their disclosures. On July 23 this year, I held an oversight roundtable to highlight the whistleblower disclosures and the resulting retaliation they have suffered.

Whistleblowers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives brought to light that the Agency wasted millions of taxpayer dollars. How so? The ATF illegally misclassified human resource positions as law enforcement and paid these employees enhanced benefits they weren't entitled to.

Whistleblowers also provided my office with records revealing the Department of Health and Human Services failed to vet sponsors for unaccompanied alien children. They provided detail never before known to the public. On July 9 this year, I held an oversight roundtable with some of these whistleblowers, giving them a public voice to share their stories for the benefit of these kids. Agencies just don't like being exposed, apparently even if the lives of children are on the line. We have to change that culture.

Whistleblowers recently provided me with internal FBI documents of State Department incompetence and obstruction. Specifically, documents show the State Department actively interfered with FBI operations. For example, the State Department prevented the FBI from arresting known terrorists, members of Iranian proliferation networks, and other criminals providing material support for Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The Department did this because it didn't want the FBI's arrest of the Iranians to upset the pending Iran Nuclear Deal. I made these FBI documents public on May 21, 2024, to prove the facts of the matter.

And most recently, I have made records and video public relating to the Trump assassination attempt. I obtained those records from local law enforcement officers, not the Federal Government. The information that I have made public is usually because of whistleblowers.

The government rarely provides information to Congress upon request. Simply put, that is a slap in the face to

not just Congress but the American people. Accordingly, it is critically important that all Federal Agencies promote openness and transparency. They must also ensure Federal employees know their rights to blow the whistle on wrongdoing, including to Congress.

That is why I have fought hard to ensure Federal Agencies include the anti-gag provision as required by law. That provision is a notice to employees of their rights to disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct to Congress, an inspector general, and the Office of Special Counsel.

For example, the ATF failed to include this notification in guidance sent to their employees. I demanded they issue updated guidance, which they subsequently did. Further, in March of this year, I wrote to all 74 inspectors general requesting they conduct a review of their Agency's nondisclosure policy, forms, and similar agreements to ensure it includes the anti-gag provision as required by law.

The task of supporting whistleblowers doesn't start and stop on Whistleblower Appreciation Day. It is a full time, year-round job. Last year, I talked about the legislation I have introduced this Congress to do just that, from the Securities and Exchange Commission Whistleblower Reform Act to the False Claims Amendment Act to the IRS Whistleblower Program Improvement Act and others.

Whistleblowers are brave men and women who perform an invaluable public service. Whistleblowers must be protected; they are patriots. Dating back to the Revolutionary War, the first whistleblowers reported fraud and misconduct. Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse.

As I stand here today in July 2024--a long way's away from the Revolutionary War--the same sentiment remains. I am proud to have introduced the National Whistleblower Appreciation Day resolution for the 11th year in a row on behalf of the entire Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus.

And I will tell you this again:

One day, all of us together, we are going to get that Rose Garden ceremony.

Mr. President, two or three times lately, I have been coming to the floor to have a conversation with my colleagues on the subject of national security.

Remember, all of us, that wars are being waged right now in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and I presume elsewhere on this globe. We have uncertainty and unrest looming on the horizon in the South China Sea and the Horn of Africa.

There are also serious national security concerns right here in the United States. For the last 3 years, our own southern border, hundreds of thousands of migrants from around the world have come to America without our permission, including people on the Terrorist Watchlist.

Earlier this month, we celebrated the 75th anniversary of NATO, the most successful military alliance in modern history. Winston Churchill sowed the

seeds for the idea of NATO. He did this in the aftermath of the failed League of Nations. He delivered his speech called ``Sinews of Peace''-- he did this in America's heartland--a famous speech at a college campus in Fulton, MO.

Churchill spoke of two great dangers that imperil the hearth and home of common people. Those two dangers are war and tyranny. In his speech, he called for a military coalition to build what he called a ``temple of peace'' that would be, as he said in a quote, a ``force for action, and not merely a frothing of words.'' That was Churchill's way of saying a blueprint for peace that actually worked.

No European NATO member was invaded post-World War II because of NATO. By contrast, the nations that wanted to be very aggressive during the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union, instigated conflicts in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, but they didn't mess around with Europe. Churchill's words of wisdom, then, stand the test the time.

I would like to further quote Churchill:

From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies

during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they

admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which

they have less respect than for weakness, especially military

weakness.

The fall of the Iron Curtain opened the lane to freedom, symbolizing victory over tyranny that we must never take for granted. It is no secret that Russian President Vladimir Putin--remember, a former KGB officer--wants to resurrect the Soviet Empire from the ash heap of history. You can consider Russia's recent timeline of aggression.

In 2008, Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia. In 2014, Moscow annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula and occupied parts of eastern Ukraine. And then 3 years ago, Putin launched what we now know as a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Appeasement was a key ingredient in Putin's recipe for Russian expansion.

Let's not forget that Russia marked NATO's 75th anniversary-- celebrated here in Washington, DC--by, at that time, launching 40 missiles into Ukraine, targeting a children's hospital, killing scores of innocent civilians. Putin very much has hitched his horse to America's foreign adversaries by getting supplies for his war efforts from China, Iran, and North Korea--kind of the 21st century axis similar to Germany, Italy, and Japan during World War II. Just as dangerous for us now as that other axis was dangerous and brought great conflict during World War II.

With global conflicts and terrorist threats in mind, history must inform our Nation's path forward. History shows a strong U.S. military is an impenetrable instrument of peace. A weakened U.S. military is, for sure, an invitation for our foreign adversaries to keep pushing the envelope.

Now, make no mistake, Russia and Russian allies' mission is to do whatever it takes to undermine the United States as a leader of the free world. We didn't seek that title--being leader of the free world-- but we learned the hard way that allowing dictators to get away with aggression eventually threatens American freedom.

This brings me back then to square one. The core responsibility of the Federal Government is national security, and that fundamental responsibility begins and ends with a strong national defense. An impenetrable U.S. military safeguards America's food security, energy security, infrastructure security, and cyber security.

In a nutshell, the U.S. Armed Forces are the nucleus for peace and prosperity at home and abroad. So when the Senate takes up the must- pass National Defense Authorization Act and the Defense appropriations bill, I urge my colleagues to invest in America. Doing so will cement our national security interests for generations to come.

First, we must enhance pay and benefits for members of the military and their families. Next, we must restock America's arsenal and boost our military preparedness.

In recent decades, Washington has allowed our Armed Forces to lose their wartime footing. When we lose our footing on any one of those rungs, know that our enemies are circling the waters to take us down a notch.

My colleague from Mississippi, Senator Wicker, serves as ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I reviewed his plan that outlines where the U.S. military most needs defense dollars.

As it stands, the United States is ill-equipped to meet the emerging global threats to our national security. Senator Wicker's blueprint would put us back on the right path to secure peace through strength. The plan estimates that the annual defense budget needs to grow to 5 percent of gross domestic product.

Our defense spending as a share of GDP has been falling and is nearing a historic low. Meanwhile, many of our European NATO allies have been dramatically increasing defense expenditures because they see how dangerous the world has become.

Another key NATO metric is the percentage of defense funds going toward equipment--in other words, warfighting capability. The United States is in the bottom of the pack among our NATO allies on this very score.

It is no coincidence that the United States became the leader of the free world by leveraging its commitment to peace around the world through unassailable military power.

In the first quarter of the 21st century and a key period in history, America stands at the crossroads. We cannot bury our heads in the sand when China's spending on defense is on a pace to match our own country. And that is according to estimates from our intelligence community.

To be sure, China is plotting to leapfrog America as the global superpower: China leveraging every tool at its disposal, China infiltrating our education system, China manipulating data on TikTok, China deploying debt-trap diplomacy, and, finally, China unleashing military exercises in the Taiwan Straits and even close to Alaska, in the Bering Sea.

We can't afford to ignore what is really obvious: A diminished military puts our national security at risk and our troops very much in harm's way.

Today, I call upon my colleagues here in the Congress to stand by our duty and our constitutional obligation of national security being the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government. We must stand shoulder to shoulder to meet this moment. In fact, we have a responsibility to do so on behalf of our constituents and, more importantly, getting future generations protected, and that is a long-term responsibility.

As Senator Wicker's report details, we must modernize U.S. nuclear programs, revive homeland defense sites, and restore the U.S. Navy and fleet readiness. And we need to bolster the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force, bring Cyber Command up to speed, and provide our servicemembers better training, technology, and modernized munitions to fulfill their missions.

There is no time for dillydallying. Right now, our foreign adversaries are cobbling alliances to skirt sanctions, undermine freedom, and secure their own self-interests.

In closing, I will finish with three messages. First, we can avoid war by anticipating war. Second, preparing for war does not mean writing a blank check to the Pentagon. You can be sure that I will continue my oversight work to get the most bang for our defense buck. Thirdly, we must respond to the writing on the wall. If we allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security about our military power, historians will write about America's twilight instead of an American-led 21st century.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Ernst for bringing this and continuing to bring the plight of the hostages to our attention.

I am glad to join Senator Ernst in speaking about just one of these: Edan Alexander. He grew up in Northern New Jersey. He was a champion swimmer for his high school team and a big fan of the New York Knicks.

Edan also had close ties to Israel. He was born there, had grandparents there, and had his bar mitzvah there. Still, his mother was surprised when Edan announced his senior year in high school that he wanted to postpone college and go to Israel.

Edan joined a program for young Jewish adults who want to explore serving in Israel's Defense Forces. Edan and 16 other American high school graduates, including a classmate from his high school, moved to a kibbutz in Israel. There they did 4 months of training before committing to serve in the IDF. Edan returned for a visit home in August and expected to return again in April for his brother Roy's bar mitzvah.

He was on patrol at the kibbutz on the morning of October 7. He called his mother after the Hamas terrorist attacks began. She said:

I'm here. I'm with you. I love you. Just protect yourself.

Just be safe.

That is the last she heard from her son. Edan needs to come home now.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, this week officials from all 31 of our NATO allies are going to be here in Washington for what is referred to as the NATO summit. At that summit, we will be celebrating 75 years of the most successful military alliance in modern history. And why do I call it the most successful military alliance? I mean that after two devastating world wars about 20 years apart--and those wars brought incredible bloodshed and destruction to Europe--now, we have had almost 80 years of relative peace in Europe. No European NATO member has been invaded.

Now, we take it for granted that most of Europe is peaceful, but that was not the case before NATO arrived. Remember that the Soviet Union, after World War II, quickly exerted domination over the countries that it occupied at that time. But the U.S.S.R. wasn't satisfied with that situation.

So many people expected war to break out in Europe at some point during the Cold War, but it did not. Thank God, no war happened.

The Soviet Union helped launch wars in Asia and violent revolutions in Africa and Latin America. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, but the U.S.S.R. did not dare touch those countries that were under the NATO umbrella. The strongest defense resulted in peace.

NATO was not the result of some idealistic dream. Rather, NATO was a very practical response to the hard lessons learned of two World Wars that the United States tried its best to stay out of those wars as long as it could.

Now, we all remember from history that World War I was supposed to be the ``war to end all wars.''

Woodrow Wilson, you will remember, proposed the League of Nations in a very naive belief that an international forum could prevent war through diplomacy and international condemnation. Obviously, the League failed.

By contrast, NATO is a working military alliance of Nation States, not some debating society, as the League turned out to be.

After World War II, the United States realized that minding our own business and letting Europe sort out its messes wasn't working. We, eventually, got dragged into World War II anyway, by which time it took an incredible amount of resources and over 400,000 American lives to bring that war to an end.

NATO grew out of the realization that U.S. leadership was essential to preventing World War III. NATO prevented a war by being prepared for war. Strength equaled peace. We know that deterrence works, but deterrence must be credible.

Our defense must be strong enough that would-be aggressors would think twice before attacking. As Ronald Reagan said:

NATO's strategy for peace has always been simple: Prevent

aggression before it starts. Be strong enough, be determined

enough so that no adversary should think, even for a moment,

that war might pay.

At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, NATO members said

that Ukraine and Georgia could join sometime in the future, but made clear that that membership would not be offered anytime soon.

Now, just 4 months later, Russia invaded and occupied parts of the Republic of Georgia. Now that happens to remind me of when Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave a major speech in 1950 outlining the U.S. defense perimeter in the Pacific. It very clearly did not include the Korean Peninsula. Less than 6 months later, North Korea invaded the south.

So signals you send as a nation or as leaders of a nation make a difference sometimes. And that statement by Acheson led to the Korean war.

So just like Acheson's speech in 1950 did to Korea, the weak statement at the 2008 Bucharest summit made it clear that Georgia and Ukraine were on their own. That was seen as a green light by Putin. The perception of weakness led to war.

How did the United States react to this aggression against the sovereign, pro-American Republic of Georgia? There happened to be some stern words that didn't accomplish much.

Then, 6 months later, the Obama-Biden administration announced the infamous reset to patch up relations with Russia. That reset sent a very dangerous message. The Obama policy was almost the opposite of peace through strength. No wonder that Putin felt emboldened, 6 years later, to invade neutral Ukraine in both the Crimean Peninsula and in Ukraine's east.

President Obama responded by refusing defensive weapons to Ukraine and, at the same time, urging negotiations. Now, you can't have fair negotiations when someone has invaded your home and has a gun at your head.

Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas often cites former Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko's rules for negotiations. This Russian says:

No. 1, demand the maximum. Do not meekly ask but demand that which has never been yours.

No. 2, present ultimatums. Do not hold back on threats, since you will always find people in the West who are willing to negotiate.

No. 3, do not give one inch of ground in negotiations. They themselves will offer you at least part of what you are asking for, but do not take it. Demand more because they will go along with it, and in the end, you will get a third or even half of that of which you had nothing previously.

Those are the rules of a Soviet Foreign Minister.

Now, we should remember all of that when we hear Putin's demands today. The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, starting in February of 2022, was the result of a failure of deterrence. We could have avoided additional aggression had the West shown more strength.

What about the argument that it was provocative to let countries that Russia used to dominate join NATO?

Well, here are some key facts about NATO that ought to put those arguments to an end:

No. 1, NATO is a defensive alliance.

No. 2, NATO membership is open to sovereign democracies that want to join, but it does not seek expansion for its own sake.

No. 3, it is the right of all sovereign countries to choose their alliances. There is no neighbor veto to joining a defensive alliance.

Now, let's look at the Baltics. You remember that they were, at one time, called Soviet Republics. Actually, the United States never recognized the illegal Soviet occupation of the Baltic States that started in 1940. We maintained, during that next 50 years, uninterrupted diplomatic relations with all three countries throughout the Cold War.

Here is a little-known historical fact. Upon the founding of NATO, the U.S. Secretary of State received a letter from the acting consul general of Estonia welcoming the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on behalf of his country.

Here is what the Estonian diplomat wrote:

Estonia is still under the illegal occupation and

domination of the Soviet Union and is, therefore, prevented

from manifesting openly its keen interest in this pact.

But I want to further quote this Ambassador.

I have the honor to offer my best wishes to the signatories

of the North Atlantic Pact, and to express my confidence that

they, inspired by the ideals of democracy, of individual

liberty, and of the rule of law, will strive relentlessly for

peace with justice, which excludes peace at any price.

Therefore, I express the belief that countries, which were

forcibly deprived of self-government and independence will

benefit by this noble endeavor.

That ``noble endeavor'' is the establishment of NATO.

The Estonian diplomat was right all those 75 years ago. His country, which is now free and a great NATO ally, has, in fact, benefited from the North Atlantic Treaty.

While the Baltic States have been officially NATO members for 20 years now, they would have signed the Washington Treaty in a second had they not been illegally occupied by the Soviet Union. So I consider the three Baltic countries honorary founding members of NATO.

I have explained that the United States learned after two World Wars that it is better to prevent World War III than to get dragged in once that future war could be raging.

But we ought to ask again: Why the NATO alliance?

The United States, with its powerful military and nuclear arsenal, would respond to defend an ally if article 3 were invoked. That has certainly played a big role in deterring the Soviets and now the Russians.

But that could be accomplished simply by giving a one-way security guarantee to Europe. While that might still serve our national interest in preventing World War III, it would put a burden on all of our shoulders.

So the real benefit of the NATO alliance is that it leverages American leadership to bolster the ability of our European allies to defend themselves. If every country had different defense plans and weapons that used different ammunition, an aggressor would be able to pick them off one by one, even if they tried to join forces.

In theory, the Europeans could do some of this on their own. In fact, some European leaders have suggested that the European Union ought to develop an independent military capacity.

Now, I would say: If they want to do that, more power to them. However, most Europeans accept that American leadership has been indispensable to date. It has been to our benefit that NATO militaries are interoperable with the U.S. military.

The only time article 3 of the NATO treaty has been invoked was after the United States was attacked on 9/11. Many of our NATO allies sent men and equipment to fight and die alongside the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

It is true that there is a minority of countries in NATO that are further from potential threats and do not spend enough on their own national defense or their contribution to NATO. Then there are countries like Poland and Estonia that take national defense seriously and spend more as a percentage of GDP than even we do in the United States.

Keep this in mind: It is the existence of NATO that sets the 2- percent spending expectation, makes common defense plans, and helps to determine what capabilities are needed for a credible defense.

Without NATO, Europe would be weaker, and the chances of the United States getting dragged into another war would be even greater. A strong national defense is an instrument of peace more than an instrument of war.

In fact, we could call our Defense Department the ``Department of Peace.'' That is really what its main function is--being strong to prevent war.

We must make sure our military and our allies' militaries are strong enough to fight a war, precisely so we don't have to go to war.

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, last week, the United States and Allied nations observed a significant milestone in world history: the 80th anniversary of D-Day. That day--by land, air, and sea--this massive military operation unleashed the largest amphibious assault known to the world.

More than 18,000 paratroopers dropped onto the beaches of Normandy. More than 14,000 dispatches from Allied Air Forces provided cover. Nearly 7,000 naval vessels participated, including more than 132,000 ground troops who swam ashore amid heavy German artillery.

American families lost 2,500 servicemembers on D-Day alone. All told, as we know, more than 400,000 Americans died during World War II serving their country. These courageous patriots defended America's standing as the beacon of hope and freedom around the world.

The sacrifice of the American people to back the war effort allowed the United States to flex its military superiority alongside the Allied forces. That effort bested the Axis powers, defeating their authoritarian regimes and ending the Holocaust, where 6 million Jewish people lost their lives. They were murdered.

At every opportunity, Barbara and I are honored to greet veterans who have come to Washington, DC, in what we call Honor Flights, to visit the World War II Memorial.

A World War II hero and former Senate majority leader here in the Senate, Bob Dole, came to be my best friend. He took me, a fellow midwesterner, under his wing when I first came to the U.S. Senate.

My departed friend brought uncommon courage to the battlefield, and we all know he brought principled leadership to the U.S. Senate. His mentorship made a lasting impression on me and my work in Congress. That includes a nonnegotiable tenet of America's national security, which is peace through strength.

You see, widespread isolationist sentiment kept the United States from entering World War I and World War II. America stayed on the sidelines until the cost of aggression was too high, and the threat to the United States became obviously more acute.

Separated as we are from Europe and Asia by two vast oceans and wishing no one any harm, Americans would naturally feel that we ought to be left alone and ignore foreign conflicts.

Now, here is the lesson for today. The United States learned this lesson from World War II: Preventing and stopping aggression very early is much less costly in dollars and lives.

We learned what happens when you wait. When unchecked aggression has lit the world on fire, we are forced to fight a devastating world war.

That is why the United States led our allies in creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, better known as NATO. This most successful defensive alliance in history turned 75 this year.

Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss the differences between Democrat foreign policy and Republican foreign policy.

There seems to be a pattern where if a Republican President is elected, partisan pundits warn that it will be very bad for our international relations. Now, by contrast, when a Democrat President takes over from a Republican, the same partisan pundits often promise smooth overall international relations. These same left-leaning pundits then breathe a sigh of relief that our alliances will be shored up and everything will be miraculously harmonious, but if you look at the record, it often doesn't work out that way.

President Carter presided over a string of foreign policy disasters, leaving the United States looking weak and humiliated.

Ronald Reagan was portrayed as a dangerous cowboy who might start a nuclear war. On the contrary, Reagan's calculated efforts to push back against Soviet communism resulted in fewer nuclear arms and freed millions of people from repressive regimes.

In 2009, the new Vice President, Joe Biden, went to Munich to deliver the Obama administration's first major foreign policy address. That address was hailed by some in the media as announcing a more cooperative approach with European countries.

Biden's promise to defer more to other countries rather than setting the agenda was a foreshadowing of President Obama's infamous ``leading from behind'' policy, which turned out to be a disastrous policy.

Biden also said:

It's time to press the reset button and to revisit the many

areas where we can and should be working together with

Russia.

Then look at what Russia did after that comment. This comment was 6 months after Russia had invaded and occupied territory of the Republic of Georgia, which, if you remember, had sent significant forces to fight alongside the American military in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, can you believe that in a unilateral effort to show good-- meaning good will--towards Russia, the Obama-Biden reset included abruptly scrapping planned missile defense cooperation with the Czech and Polish allies of America.

To add insult to injury, the Obama administration made the announcement about abandoning our missile defense cooperation with the Czech Republic and Poland on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland--not an ideal time to make that announcement--and, of course, that announcement turned out to be a grave error. Not only did it offend some of our most pro-American allies, but it also sent the very exact wrong message to dictator Vladimir Putin.

Putin's Russia, like the old Soviet Union before, only understands strength. They respect even enemies that have strength. They are not going to take advantage of somebody that shows strength. Unilateral concessions are perceived by Putin as weakness and actually encourage further aggression, just like we saw against Ukraine in 2014.

The Obama response to the 2014 invasion of Ukraine was, again, dangerously weak. Sending such a signal to Putin is the wrong thing to do. This signal amounted to wagging its proverbial finger at Russia while denying Ukraine the defensive weapons needed to repel the Russian invasion.

So what did Obama do? His policy was to send helmets and blankets and then push for negotiations--another show of weakness--doing all this while leaving Ukraine helpless, with a gun to its head.

Obviously, negotiations under such circumstances effectively meant Russia keeping what it gained by force and freezing the conflict until Russia could take more land.

Is there any wonder, then, that Putin felt he could get away with taking the rest of Ukraine in February of 2022? Do you know what he was getting away with at the same time? Killing women, children, grandmothers, grandads, really kidnapping maybe 20,000 children, taking them to Russia.

President Obama's pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran at all costs alienated our closest ally in the Middle East. That close ally we all know is Israel. But the Iran agreement also alarmed Saudi Arabia, which has been a longtime strategic partner of the United States.

Then you will remember the drawing of the infamous redline in Syria at the time Syria was going to gas people to death and this infamous redline, before immediately abandoning it, as Obama did, sending a very dangerous signal about America's weakness to the axis of Iran, Russia, and China, now very much cooperating as an axis like Germany, Italy, and Japan did before World War II and during World War II.

Now, all of this about the redline no doubt played into Vladimir Putin's calculations when he chose to invade Ukraine for the first time a few months later.

So far, I have just talked about Democrat administrations. I want to talk about Republican.

When Trump was elected, he scrapped the nuclear deal. This repaired the trust with our gulf partners, and not only repairing trust but leading and setting the stage for the Abraham Accords, which accords were cooperation that nobody thought could ever happen between Israel and Arab Nations because previous administrations said: We can't expect any sort of close working relationships between Israel and Arab countries if we don't have a Palestinian State. But President Trump didn't wait for a Palestinian State. Yet he had success bringing Israel into economic relationships with a lot of Gulf partners.

This major diplomatic breakthrough went way beyond the long-sought recognition of Israel by Arab and Muslim countries; it also opened the door to economic and people-to-people ties that have the potential to foster a new era of mutual understanding and peace in the Middle East.

President Obama was also overly cautious in dealing with China's aggression in the South China Sea and too overly deferential to China's imperialistic sensitivities toward Taiwan.

Now, do you remember that in 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act passed, and it mandated strong, if unofficial, economic and military ties, including military sales. This has been the basis of U.S. policy with Taiwan for decades.

The more you slow-walk military sales to Taiwan out of deference to China's feelings, the more China feels really empowered to dictate aspects of our bilateral relationships with Taiwan.

President Trump abandoned this weak and this dangerous Obama policy of appeasement.

President Trump imposed sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, which Russia was clearly pursuing to give Russia geopolitical leverage over Europe and Ukraine because supplying energy to other countries brings that leverage.

The Trump administration armed and trained the Ukrainian military and cooperated closely with our frontline allies like the Baltic nations and Poland.

The Trump administration stopped being deferential towards China. Arm sales to Taiwan became a regular occurrence, and U.S. Government officials got the blessing to interact with their Taiwanese counterparts. Can you imagine China feeling it has a right to tell Senators and people in the administration or U.S. House of Representatives Members: You can't go to Taiwan.

Now, this message that Trump sent--China got that message that it couldn't get away with breaking trade rules and pushing around our allies and partners in the region.

Most recently, President Biden's insistence on returning to failed Obama-era policies has resulted in foreign policy setbacks. The cascade of countries joining the Abraham Accords would likely have continued, to include even Saudi Arabia, but the Biden administration's repeated efforts to resurrect the defunct Iran nuclear deal once again damaged the trust of our regional allies and our partners--at the same time, empowering Iran.

President Biden promised to repair relations with our European allies. What he meant became clear when he dropped sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. This was a sign of deference towards Germany at the expense of our Eastern European allies. Germany is indeed a close ally in Europe, but Germany is not all of Europe.

Also, while it is known that there was a personality conflict between President Trump and former Chancellor Merkel of Germany, our alliance with Germany is deep enough to survive both personality conflicts and differences over Nord Stream 2.

In hindsight, everyone, even including the Germans, can see the folly in giving Vladimir Putin the ability to turn the heat on and the lights off throughout all of Europe. And he would be glad to have that power. This gesture of good will towards Germany was certainly not worth bolstering Putin and upsetting several Central and Eastern European allies, who saw clearly what was at stake if you gave Putin that power.

Let's face it: Trump does ruffle feathers. But his policies-- including pushing delinquent NATO members to spend the agreed amount on defense that they are obligated to spend on NATO security--these countries were better for it, and European security was better for it than the Obama and Biden policies that simply sought applause from certain European leaders.

There are those strongly backing Trump and then, as we know, those strongly opposed to Trump--both claiming, though, to know what he would do in a second term. I do not have much time for pontificating and political prognosticating based upon speculation. I prefer to look at the record, and I hope I have reminded people of that record.

We should demand a foreign policy based on American strength. Sometimes we talk about peace through strength, or sometimes we forget to remind people that a strong American military is the best tool to bring about world peace. So we should demand a foreign policy based upon that strength.

And we should also be on guard to not accept a failure of American leadership spun as a more collaborative approach with our allies. Our allies who are closest to the threats from Russia and China really want strong American leadership and need us to push our more reluctant allies to do what it takes to defend the free world.

That is what we saw in the first Trump administration, and it is the kind of leadership we badly, badly need right now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here to inform my colleagues what is wrong with our immigration enforcement involving children.

In April, the Biden administration finalized a rule governing its Unaccompanied Minors Program. They did this over the objections of this Senator and 38 others when we informed the administration in a letter. And we didn't object lightly.

For nearly a decade, my oversight has shown that the Office of Refugee Resettlement--that is ORR for short--has failed to protect unaccompanied minors. Biden's new rule cements ORR's dangerous policies.

Here is just one example of ORR's many failures. This is taken straight from a Justice Department court filing. A sexual predator smuggled a 10-year-old girl. I will call her Mary. That is not her real name. Mary was from Guatemala, smuggled to the United States on false promises of an education.

When she reached the border, ORR officials promised Mary they would find a safe sponsor for her. Then they simply trusted everything to Mary's predator and what that predator said.

Mary's predator lied about being her father. He gave ORR phony documents and phony forms approving Mary's release to his sister, who he claimed was Mary's aunt.

Under Biden's rule, ORR doesn't have to verify a sponsor's proof of identity or even guardianship. It doesn't even fully background-check the sponsor. The ORR rule takes a sponsor's representations at near face value and then puts employees on a 10- or 14-day clock to get kids into the hands of the sponsors as fast as possible.

Then, without even batting an eye, the ORR escorted Mary to her fake aunt in Chicago. There, this 10-year-old girl was stabbed with a kitchen knife, scalded with cooking oil, and repeatedly sexually assaulted by four men.

Mary, you know, thought she was coming to America to have a better life and pursue the American dream. Instead, she was enduring a nightmare. I imagine Mary prayed every night for help. I reckon she spent every day asking God how this happened to her.

It happened because the United States turned a blind eye, and by finalizing this rule, the administration of President Biden is refusing to remove the blindfold.

ORR knows it has a problem. The Justice Department told ORR what happened to Mary.

Last December, I led 38 other Senators in demanding ORR change its policies, but our warning fell on deaf ears. Biden's ORR just finalized a rule with policies that are even worse than those that placed Mary with her abusers. Under these policies, in 2021, ORR sent another little girl to a sexual predator in the State of Kentucky who falsely claimed to be her uncle. ORR accepted fake paperwork and unverified claims. It moves kids to sponsors as if they were nothing more than products on an assembly line. We ought to protect kids from predators.

There is a process that Congress can object to these rules. It is called the Congressional Review Act. It is something that can be done in the U.S Senate with just a majority vote. You don't have to have 60 votes to stop debate because it is limited to 10 hours of debate, and then you vote whatever the majority wants to do.

We have this whole thing of child abuse in the immigration system because we are not adequately vetting the people who bring these kids in or where they are assigned. It is very clear that child abuse of this type is not a Democrat or a Republican issue. Under the Congressional Review Act process, I am glad to have the support of Senator Manchin and 43 other Senators on my resolution to overturn the Biden administration's awful ORR rule. I hope to see more of my colleagues support this effort. I hope to get it to a vote and ask for their support.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, a Presidential campaign and a political party misreported payments to lawyers as legal expenses and, thus, violated the law.

Now, am I referring to Donald Trump and his trial? No. I am referring to the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

In the 2016 Presidential election cycle, they improperly reported money used to fund the Steele dossier as legal expense, and in doing so, they hid its true purpose, which was opposition research against Trump.

Now, the Federal Election Commission held, 6 years later, that it found probable cause that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign violated Federal law. They were fined over $100,000. Were they criminally prosecuted? Of course not.

The now-debunked Steele dossier threw our country into crisis and did it for years. In 2020, Senator Johnson of Wisconsin and I were able to get once-classified information declassified.

That declassified information showed that Christopher Steele's sources were, one, connected to the Russian Government; two, supported Hillary Clinton; and, three, that Russian intelligence

was aware of Steele's anti-Trump work even before the FBI started their investigation.

This is information that the Justice Department failed to tell the FISA Court. The Justice Department failed to even apprise the FISA Court that the FBI had a counterintelligence case on one of Steele's key sources. The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee colluded with the Russians.

They used a former British spy, Fusion GPS, and a law firm to create a fake dossier and then tried to cover it up by misreporting it under the Federal election rules.

This case is referred to as ``Crossfire Hurricane.'' It is a textbook example of government weaponization. It was to get Trump at all costs as they could.

And now that weaponization has moved to the judicial system, our last line of defense against partisan political cancer.

District Attorney Bragg manufactured a crime by reviving a time- barred, State-based misdemeanor for alleging falsifying business records. To revive the alleged crime and elevate it to a felony, he alleged it was done in furtherance of another crime, and he also alleged interference in the 2016 election by Donald Trump.

So what were these extra crimes? Violation of Federal election law, tax law, and other business records. The judge allowed District Attorney Bragg to essentially prosecute alleged Federal violations in State court, but because it was a State court, Bragg couldn't actually charge Trump for those further crimes, which were Federal in nature.

So what an absolute mess and scary precedent this partisan process has created that is going to be a sore on public policy, statutory law, and a precedent to be carried on by other prosecutors in the future.

This was a case that Bragg initially declined to prosecute, just as his predecessor declined to prosecute. And that was a case that Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York declined and so, too, and as well did the Federal Election Commission.

Now, that prosecutor in Manhattan that failed to prosecute the same things that Bragg prosecuted was well-respected Cyrus Vance, Jr.

Now, we have Bragg taking up what an outstanding prosecutor by the name of Vance would not do. Even liberal legal analysts have noted that this case wouldn't have been brought against anyone other than Donald Trump.

A State prosecutor has no jurisdiction over a Federal crime, whereas the Justice Department does. And here the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission have exclusive jurisdiction over these kinds of matters.

The Biden Justice Department didn't do anything to assert its jurisdictional hook as it routinely does when, for example, States file lawsuits involving Federal immigration law.

Biden's No. 3 official at the Justice Department, Matthew Colangelo, left that perch to work as a line prosecutor in the Bragg office for this specific prosecution.

Eventually, the ``zombie'' case against Trump, as it has been described by legal scholars, was revived just in time for the 2024 Presidential election cycle. In fact, the grand jury came out with a verdict less than 2 months after Trump announced for the election.

Then, the judge allowed the jury to pick from not one but three different secondary crimes that I mentioned earlier that Trump allegedly committed to impact the 2016 election. This means that jurors could disagree on the crime. Yet the judge would still consider the verdict unanimous to convict.

As Andrew McCarthy said in his June 1, 2024, article, ``The jurors were told that they needn't agree on what unlawful conduct Trump had engaged in to conspire to corrupt the election (which remember was not charged in the indictment.)''

This is a judge who repeatedly contributed to a group ``dedicated to resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump's radical right-wing legacy.''

And McCarthy wrote in his article, ``How can there be guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury doesn't agree on whether prosecutors have proved a key element of the case?''

I could go on and on about the defects in this political persecution. What concerns me most is the damage that is done to our American institutions.

Federal law enforcement, the intelligence community, and now the judicial branch have contorted themselves in ways unimaginable just to try and, at the same time, destroy Trump. In the process, they have broken faith with the laws, with the rules, with ethics, with the truth, and with the American people.

The steel and concrete foundations of our law enforcement and the judicial institutions are breaking apart, piece by piece, bit by bit. It is not the American people who are doing it. It is those charged with running those institutions who are responsible for their shockingly quick decline.

That decline won't stop anytime soon so long as the left and their allies in the media continue to use the judicial system to destroy their enemies based upon make-believe cases.

The leftwing's lawfare crusade has given them what they wanted for a decade now: Donald Trump's conviction on something, anything, just a conviction.

But what the leftwing has failed to foresee is the aftermath of their injecting partisan political cancer into our once storied institutions; that is, they run the catastrophic risk of the American people not caring anymore. Did the Justice Department indict someone on major criminal charges? Well, many people may react with doubt about the merits and the integrity of that indictment because of the Justice Department's past political decisions.

Did the FBI arrest a major criminal? Well, many people may begin to question whether the person arrested is now a part of a political persecution based on made-up information like what happened with the FISA Court and Crossfire Hurricane and everything involving Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

A Democratic judge and prosecution team tried and convicted a Republican in a district that is almost 90 percent Democratic voters. They asked for going to someplace else where they might get a more fair trial, and they got a quick no.

So I hope you get the picture. That is why millions of Americans refuse to take this sham conviction very seriously. Trust is easy to lose, and trust is hard to gain.

Andrew McCarthy stated in his excellent analysis:

What happened in Manhattan was monstrous. The fallout is

the antithesis of a constitutional republic that presumes

innocence, imposes the burden of proof on the state,

venerates its due-process rules, and guarantees equal

protection of the law. The antithesis is now the norm.

Regardless of what happens to Donald Trump, all of us will

live to regret it.

Ultimately, only ``We the People'' can solve the constitutional crisis that politicians, law enforcement, and judicial officers have disgracefully created.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come today to provide some real world perspective from what I call the real America. I am honored to speak on behalf of the tens of thousands of Iowa farmers who, this very day, are tending fields across my home State that feed and fuel America.

I often remind people here in Washington that farmers make up only 2 percent of our population. That means that the other 98 percent of the American people depend on the livelihoods of just 2 percent of the people for their next meal.

Here in the U.S. Senate, I am one of only two grain farmers serving among 98 other lawmakers in this body. This puts me in a unique position. As a lifelong family farmer and a U.S. Senator, I use my platform to speak up on behalf of American farmers, and I know there are lots of other colleagues that I have in this body that do the same thing for the farmers in their State, but I think I do it with some hands-on experience.

From one generation to the next, the way of life of these family farmers upholds our Nation's food security and, in recent decades, has strengthened U.S. energy independence.

The productivity of American agriculture has empowered the family farmer to supply the grain for our domestic renewable fuels industry and to displace foreign oil in the U.S. transportation fleet.

America's farmers embrace best conservation practices to strengthen soil health and precision agriculture to reduce their carbon footprint in food and fuel production.

Now, it happens that my State is No. 1 producer of corn and ethanol and No. 1 in a couple of other areas that I won't go into. Clean- burning, renewable fuels are better for the environment, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and create good jobs in rural America and fuels the economic growth of that same rural America. When it comes to the hard work and ingenuity of the American farmers, the sky is the limit, quite literally.

Now, to the point of my remarks today to my colleagues: Let's consider sustainable aviation fuel and alternate fuel made from nonpetroleum feedstocks, something the environmental community in the United States is promoting to get greenhouse gas down.

Scientists say that this next-generation fuel will help lower carbon emissions in the environment. That is a pretty big shoe print, considering aviation accounts for 2 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions and 12 percent for the transportation sector alone.

Sustainable aviation fuel--that goes by the acronym SAF--has tremendous market potential. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 360,000 commercial flights have used SAF at 46 airports, mostly in the United States and Europe. That is really just a spit in the ocean, considering there are more than 10 million scheduled passenger flights in the United States per year, according to our FAA.

Displacing conventional jet fuel with sustainable products, such as homegrown feedstocks, presents a tremendous market opportunity for America's farmers and at the same time reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

I am proud to say that Iowa is a leader in clean energy. Nearly 20 years ago, I worked to enact the renewable fuel standard and to this very day keep my thumbs on both Democrat and Republican administrations to faithfully implement the law as Congress intended.

As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I also created the biodiesel tax credit that has helped to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 74 percent.

Last year, my home State produced a recordbreaking 4.6 billion gallons of ethanol and 350 million gallons of biodiesel.

Iowa farmers stand ready to help scale up production of this sustainable aviation fuel--the next generation of airplane and aviation fuel. But it seems that partisan ideology might be standing in the way of that effort.

While we can find unanimous agreement that clean air is good for everyone, finding agreement on public policies to help keep our air clean is not always so clear-cut. In Washington, it is even harder than finding a needle in a haystack.

Many people in this town would find reason to argue if the sky was blue on a cloudless, sunny day. The consensus really clouds over when Federal bureaucrats bend policy to fit ideology instead of sound silence.

In December of 2022, I spoke on this very floor to urge the Treasury Department not to shortchange America's farmers when it wrote rules for the sustainable aviation fuel tax credit.

Unfortunately, when the Democrats wrote the partisan Inflation Reduction Act, they chose to ignore our very own Department of Energy and preferred modeling by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Now, that is pure poppycock. U.S. policymakers need to put America first. That is why I pressed USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack at a hearing in February this year to champion green feedstocks for the sustainable aviation fuel market because he is a big voice in this administration.

America's farmers are ready to provide low-cost and low-carbon fuel to consumers, whether that is on land, air, or sea.

For years, I have been fighting in the trenches to stop the Obama and Biden administrations from misguided regulatory schemes. I am glad that the Supreme Court recently kept check on their ridiculous plans, commonly known as the waters of the United States rule, that would have regulated dry creekbeds and mud puddles on family farms.

When the government starts meddling and telling farmers how to farm and how to raise livestock, you can bet your boots that environmental extremists are bending the ears of bureaucrats and pushing policies disconnected from reality. Writing Federal regulations not backed up by science or common sense is hogwash.

Two weeks ago, the Biden administration put lipstick on a pig when it released guidance to qualify for new Federal incentives for sustainable aviation fuel.

So as the senior Senator from Iowa and a lifelong family farmer, I am here to squeal on the Biden administration's stupid regulations. The decision-making process clearly got mired in politics and bureaucratic nonsense, not the sound science that has governed this process for about three decades.

So let's take a closer look at the guidance issued by the Treasury Department 2 weeks ago. The regulations would be used to implement section 40B sustainable aviation fuel tax credit. That is the Federal subsidy enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act to help this alternative fuel lift off and scale up to meet market demand.

Unfortunately, rather than adopt the science-based GREET--I am going to spell that because it is an acronym, G-R-E-E-T. The science-based GREET model has been used by EPA and others to measure the carbon intensity of

biofuels, and they have been using that formula for decades.

Now, the Biden administration guidelines instead played politics by adopting an untested and untried modified GREET model to determine lifecycle carbon emissions of corn and soybeans for the purpose of calculating who can qualify for this sustainable aviation fuel tax credit, and therein lies the rub.

Let me explain. First, everything in Washington goes by an acronym. GREET stands for these words that I don't know how you connect the title with the acronym, but here is what it says: G-R-E-E-T stands for ``Greenhouse gases, Regulated emissions, and Energy use in Technology.''

The Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory--a very respected laboratory--began developing the GREET analysis 30 years ago, back in 1994.

So that is why I said we have had decades of the use of this. It was a science-based agreement that they came to for this formula, and now, the politicians step in to reform it or to change it.

Scientists use the methodology to analyze the environmental impacts associated with all stages of the supply chain.

Now, in a nutshell, the Federal Government three decades ago launched a process to measure the energy output and environmental performance that could inform policies throughout government of energy efficiency, affordability, and sustainability.

Scientists develop models for particular purposes to evaluate, say, greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, and air pollutant emissions.

Let me pause here to make an important distinction. Nonpartisan scientists develop methodologies to inform policymaking. These methodologies should not be used by political scientists to advance a political agenda. So you can understand my dismay when I reviewed the Biden administration's new formula to qualify for sustainable aviation fuel tax credit.

First, the guidelines, quite, obviously, were written by bureaucrats who don't know the first thing about family farming; and, second, the formula is flawed from another fundamental standpoint: It is going to be easy to violate and nearly impossible to verify and complicate decision-making for the family farmer.

To put it very bluntly, the Biden administration's GREET model update is a stupid approach. While the lion's share of Washington can agree that more widespread use of sustainable aviation fuel is good for the environment, the new GREET model fell victim to a political lion's den.

The Biden administration caved to extreme environmentalists who wouldn't know the difference between a corn planter or a combine, let alone what the effects of uneven emergence means on crop yields or how soil compaction impacts germination of seed.

Every spring, farmers try to hit the ``Goldilocks'' sweet spot: not too wet, not too dry, with just the right soil temperature when they plant to produce the best possible yields.

Every field on every farm is different. For example, no-till versus what we call conservation tillage is tailored to the requirements of that farm. And some of those requirements are based upon the soil conservancy law that I helped pass in 1986.

Farmers are stewards of the soil, passing down this heritage from one generation to the next. It is obvious that the Biden administration either doesn't care or doesn't get that its GREET formula is pigheaded.

The formula says all or nothing in order for farmers to qualify as a sustainable aviation fuel producer and help the aviation industry achieve its clear goals.

America's farmers stand ready to help clean the air, and I am here today to clear the air on how the Biden administration is standing in their way.

For those who want to argue that these regulations make sense, let me explain why they won't work in the real America. Let's consider the practical impact of the Biden administration's proposed rule. In the fall, when crops are harvested, the grain is transported from the field to the market. From the combine, it goes into a wagon or a truck that takes it to the local elevator.

On my family farm, we go to the local elevator in New Hartford. Tens of thousands of farmers are doing the same thing. In fact, in Iowa, it is 86,000 family farmers. I say ``doing the same thing.'' That means either hauling it straight from the field or, after a period of on-farm storage, then taking it to market. Sooner or later, grains are weighed, graded, and commingled with hundreds of millions of bushels of grain from fields across the State--all coming from those 86,000 different family farmers in my State.

Do you see where I am going here? Let me summarize.

First, to qualify for the maximum SAF credit and additional carbon intensity score reductions, the Biden administration dictates that farmers must comply with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Climate Smart Agriculture pilot program, and that requires compliance with the following mandates on the same acres: You have to practice what we call no-till farming. You have to plant cover crops in the fall, after you harvest, to protect the ground through the winter and, more importantly, not to have soil loss in the spring. Then you have to use enhanced-efficiency nitrogen fertilizer.

Now, when we first heard about this, what direction they might go, it said you would only have to apply for one of these three in order to get the tax credit. That is when the outrageous opinions of environmentalists came in and said: No. We have to have them apply to all three.

I don't think that these bureaucrats think in terms of the fall and that if you don't harvest the last of your corn crop until November and the ground freezes, you can't plant cover crops at that time. You have to plant your cover crops in the early spring so that they grow and get some root and can preserve that root through the spring and turn green the next spring. But if it is frozen, you can't do that. That is just one example that makes me wonder if these bureaucrats in Washington know what they are talking about.

Now, for the soybean farmer, it is a little less in the number of requirements. You just have to do no-till farming and plant cover crops in the same acres.

The fact is that not every--let me emphasize this--climate-smart practice that the USDA has works on every farm in the same way. In this town, one size fits all. The GREET update, then, is unworkable for the family farmer. Unrealistic burdens on farming are counterproductive to feeding and fueling the world.

Let me entertain the idea that farmers who want to participate have complied with all of these criteria. Now they must pass another dog and pony show: The sustainable aviation fuel producers or importers must get unrelated third-party verification that their feedstocks have met eligibility requirements. Of course, only accredited verifiers can grant certification to these individual farmers. This la-la land of verification will be paved with endless miles of redtape and loopholes as far as the eye can see.

The Biden administration's changes to the GREET model need a do-over. Bureaucrats who know nothing about farming shouldn't be telling farmers how to grow their corn and soybeans. This is the kind of policy that farmers resent--and rightly so--because it is out of touch with what actually goes on on the family farm. President Biden is abandoning Iowa farmers with this boneheaded update.

Now, I think there might be a little bit of good news if rumors around this town mean anything. I think there are a lot of people in this bureaucracy--and there are four bureaucracies involved in making these sustainable aviation fuel rules. It is only the Treasury that announces them, but other Departments have a hand in it. I think there are people right here in this town who know what I describe that is wrong with these rules and are ready to rewrite them. Of course, these rules were written for what we call the section 40B tax credit rules. That expires at the end of this year. Then there is going to be a new rule. Section 45Z will take over. Maybe we will have a whole bunch of new faces in town after the first of the year, when those rules are read, but I think people even today realize that what I have described here isn't workable.

So as Washington prepares to distribute tens of billions of dollars in

Federal incentives for sustainable aviation fuel, I will continue to battle on behalf of the American farmer and taxpayer.

From the IRS to the EPA and the USDA, the alphabet soup of Federal Agencies makes consequential decisions that impact the lives and livelihoods of real people, from the taxpayers to small businesses and family farmers across America.

The Biden administration's GREET model needs to stick with sound science, not political science.

Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent that newspaper articles from the May 8 issue of the Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman newspaper--a front-page story entitled ``Sustainable Aviation Fuel Tax Credit Rules Announced'' and, on page 11 of the same newspaper, a section entitled ``Questions Surround Impact of SAF Guidance''--be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let's start at the grassroots of Iowa.

The question that comes up frequently at my county meetings--and next week, I am going to hold a Q&A in 12 of Iowa's 99 counties, and I expect I will get this question that I am going to pose to you: Senator, what are you going to do about the open border, people illegally entering our country?

My answer is usually pretty short--that long before I came to the Congress, Congress passed laws saying you can't come to our country without our permission. In fact, I add that we are a very favorable country toward immigration because about 1 million people come here every year, and maybe we should have more who come here under our laws, within those laws, not breaking our laws by entering the country illegally.

I don't get much of a pushback from that because I explain to them that we pass laws, and then the President enforces those laws under our Constitution.

The President has decided not to enforce the immigration laws. It shouldn't surprise us that he has taken that position for 3\1/2\ years because he told us before the election that he was going to open the border.

But there are some things Congress can do about immigration. That is why I am here on the floor today to ask unanimous consent for a piece of legislation that I put in. Maybe if this legislation becomes law, the President still might decide not to enforce it, like every other law.

Since day one, the Biden administration has pursued an open border policy. The result has been utter chaos and a crisis at the southern border. This crisis has become an indelible hallmark of President Biden's America.

However, President Biden, as I have said, has the authority to secure the border. He is already empowered under current law to do that. He could do it today if he really wanted to. It is the same authority that President Trump used to secure our border just a few years ago.

The Constitution makes very clear that the President takes an oath that he shall take care to faithfully execute the laws. President Biden doesn't follow that constitutional oath to take care in regard to the immigration laws. Trump did take that oath very seriously.

Under the Biden administration, some 9 million migrants have been allowed to illegally enter our country. That is about three times the population of my home State of Iowa. The President has done that for 3\1/2\ years. Let me repeat that that 9 million figure is like the entire population of Iowa nearly three times over.

So instead of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, enforcing these immigration laws already on the books, this administration chooses to ignore our border and abuse our Nation's immigration parole and asylum system. That is what my bill deals with, the parole system.

Immigration parole is supposed to allow the executive branch to temporarily grant individuals entry into the United States on a limited but case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. But instead of case by case, the Biden administration uses this program to admit entire categories of people as a means to bypass the legal immigration pathways outlined by Congress--in other words, not doing it on a case-by-case basis.

The actions of President Biden are completely out of line with what Congress intended to be the parole authority. So to address this loophole, I have introduced S. 505, the Immigration Parole Reform Act.

My bill will close this loophole and ensure compliance with Congress's original intent as a limited authority for exceptional circumstances. My bill outlines specific parameters for what constitutes an urgent humanitarian reason or significant public benefit. This bill would also provide clarity on the timing and extension of immigration parole, among other reforms.

So at this point, Mr. President, as in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 505 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I would like to speak for 30 seconds before I yield.

Mr. President, I regret that there was objection because fixing the Biden border crisis begins with regaining operational control and security at the border. This responsibility ultimately falls to President Biden, as head of the executive branch, to enforce the border and immigration laws already on the books. In other words, I would ask President Biden to honor his oath, where he said, in upholding the Constitution, he would take care to faithfully execute the laws.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today, I come to the Senate floor to talk about my ongoing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives oversight regarding the intentional misclassification of law enforcement positions--all of this costing the taxpayers tens of millions and dollars.

As my colleagues know, I have done a lot of ATF oversight work, dating back more than a decade. The Obama-Biden administration coverup in ``Fast and Furious'' is just one example. But, today, we don't need to go back to 2011. Today, we will start in January 2018.

According to emails provided to me by ATF whistleblowers, ATF leadership was notified in January 2018 that some non-law enforcement positions were misclassified as law enforcement. That misclassification cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars because law enforcement gets paid more than non-law enforcement positions.

Specifically, in these ATF emails from January and June of 2018, whistleblowers alerted ATF officials that positions in the human resources division were misclassified. The positions were classified as law enforcement, but they performed no law enforcement duties. This is an example that I keep telling my colleagues we need to pay more attention to, information that comes from these patriotic people we call whistleblowers.

Accordingly, these positions were misclassified in violation of law. That is what oversight by Congress is all about: to make sure that the executive branch faithfully executes the laws according to the Constitution.

Emails from July 2019 show that whistleblowers contacted the Justice Management Division at the Department of Justice headquarters about these very problems. The whistleblowers informed the Justice Management Division that they notified ATF management of the misclassified positions and that ATF hadn't corrected this illegal conduct. Based on what whistleblowers have told my office, the Justice Department didn't even bother to get back to the whistleblowers.

Then, in July 2019, one whistleblower reported the matter to the Office of Special Counsel, and the other whistleblowers made their report to that same office April of 2020.

After the second whistleblower reported ATF's misconduct to the Office of Special Counsel, that office opened the claim for investigation in May of 2020.

On June 9, 2020, the Office of Special Counsel determined there was a substantial likelihood both whistleblowers' allegations disclosed violations of law, of rule, or regulation; a gross waste of funds; and gross mismanagement--once again, emphasizing tens of millions of dollars wasted here. The Office of Special Counsel referred the matter to the Attorney General for investigation.

Then, on November 2, 2020, the Office of Personnel Management partially suspended ATF's position classification authority. That office did so after preliminary findings from their investigation revealed that certain ATF non-law enforcement positions were misclassified in violation of statute and regulations.

On March 1, 2021, the Office of Personnel Management issued their final report substantiating the whistleblowers' claims and found that ``ATF leadership had acted outside of merit system principles and demonstrated disregard for the rule of law and regulations.''

This illegal scheme came to light because of brave whistleblowers. The

ATF whistleblowers, we now know, were right. All those government bureaucrats should have listened to the whistleblowers from the beginning. Instead, ATF rudely ignored their evidence and, obviously, ignored whistleblowers doing what they thought was right for our country.

I wrote Attorney General Garland and then-Acting ATF Director Richardson concerning these findings on October 6, 2021. I asked for copies of the final Office of Personnel Management report and an accounting of how much taxpayer dollars were wasted due to ATF's illegal misconduct. I also asked how long ATF unlawfully misclassified positions and the total number of misclassified positions within all of the ATF.

On December 15, 2021, the Justice Department responded that it couldn't provide answers because of various ongoing investigations. How tired I am of hearing from our law enforcement Agencies in the Federal Government that they can't comment to oversight investigations by Congress because of ``ongoing investigations.'' It is an excuse to avoid what they promise us every time they come before Congress: that they will answer our questions.

Going on now to April 7--6 months later--in 2022, the Justice Department provided me with a redacted copy of their investigative report, which they submitted to the Office of Special Counsel on March 29 of 2022. But they still failed to fully answer all of my questions.

Let me remind the executive branch yet again: The U.S. Congress maintains independent constitutional authority to investigate the Federal Government, irrespective of any ongoing investigation.

After the conclusion of the investigations, which was May 2, 2023, the Office of Special Counsel notified President Biden that ``whistleblowers' allegations were wholly substantiated.''

That investigation found ``substantial waste, mismanagement, unlawful employment practices at the ATF.'' It also found ``for years, the agency intentionally misclassified jobs as law enforcement and paid those employees benefits to which they were not entitled.'' The Office of Special Counsel also found that ATF's illegal scheme wasted at least 20 million taxpayer dollars.

When is the government going to learn that it needs to listen to whistleblowers instead of treating these patriotic whistleblowers like skunks at a picnic? ATF could have saved the taxpayers at least $20 million if they would have listened to these brave whistleblowers.

Then, on November 6, 2023, the Office of Personnel Management wrote to ATF and the Justice Department. Incredibly, if you can believe this, that letter restored ATF's position classification authority effective immediately even though ATF was unable to provide the necessary evidence to support that its updated position classifications were proper and within the law. This restoration doesn't bring this matter to a close.

On January 30 this year, my colleague from Iowa, Senator Ernst, and I wrote to the Justice Department and to the ATF. In that letter, we noted that ATF Internal Affairs Division had been investigating the illegal scheme. We asked for answers and for findings relating to that investigation. Those government employees who were notified of the illegal misconduct and did nothing to investigate or stop it must be held accountable because in this town, if heads don't roll, nothing changes. And that applies the same, of course, to those who participated in that scheme of misclassification.

No one is above the law. But as of right now because of ATF's failure to give any update on the internal investigation, all Congress knows is that nobody has been held accountable.

It is very clearly hypocritical of the Biden administration's ATF to revoke the licenses of firearm sellers for innocent clerical errors but at the same time refuses to hold its own employees accountable for an illegal misclassification scheme.

Finally, in our January 2024 letter, we also noted that whistleblowers alleged to us that the ATF had been illegally misclassifying positions for more than the 5-year period reviewed by the Office of Personnel Management. The Office of Special Counsel noted in their letter to President Biden that the evidence suggests that ATF engaged in this illegal activity since at least 2003-2004.

The whistleblowers also alleged to us that hundreds of employees across all ATF field divisions and offices occupied positions that were identified as ``misclassified.'' Accordingly, if true, the cost to taxpayers for these misclassifications is likely significantly higher than $20 million. And if true, the review done by the Office of Personnel Management was really, really narrow.

Clearly, the Justice Department and the ATF have a lot of explaining to do. The taxpayers deserve to know how much of their money ATF wasted. The taxpayers deserve to know who was held accountable and how they were held accountable. And if nobody was held accountable, why not?

The entire matter is an example of the important role whistleblowers play in shining light on government waste, fraud, and abuse. Without the continued persistence of these brave whistleblowers to report wrongdoing that they know about and maybe the people in the head of the departments don't know about, ATF's illegal misclassification scheme, substantial waste of taxpayers' funds, and gross mismanagement would have likely continued.

I commend the grit of these whistleblowers. Senator Ernst's and my oversight on this issue will continue.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, with a heavy heart, I come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to pay my respects for the unexpected and tragic passing of a young Iowan earlier this year. Colin C. Smith lost his life at age of 37, while scuba diving in February. He had a longtime passion for this deep sea pursuit and was a seasoned diver. For 20 years, he had enjoyed scuba diving in Grand Cayman and always looked forward to visit this special place with his family.

During his undergraduate years, Colin served as an intern in my Senate office. This was just the first rung on his ladder of government service. He also landed a White House internship during the George W. Bush administration. After graduating from the University of Iowa in 2009, Colin went on to earn his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law.

Then, Colin returned to his Hawkeye roots in 2012 and launched his legal career at the Nyemaster Goode Law Firm in Des Moines. Not long after that, he answered the call to public service and accepted the opportunity to serve as Legal Counsel for two chief executives for the State of Iowa, Governors Terry Branstad and Kim Reynolds, respectively. Most recently, he was a partner in the Sullivan and Ward Law Firm.

His professional achievements matched his ambitious travel itinerary exploring the world. Not even a year ago, Colin had returned from a 2- week trek to Antarctica. I am told his globetrotting bucket list included bringing his beloved daughter Maddie on a safari to Tanzania this summer and to places around the world as she grew older. May Colin's zeal for adventure and discovery carry on through his daughter.

Barbara and I send our condolences to Colin's family and loved ones. We are grateful to call his parents Jim and Cindy Smith good friends. In your time of bereavement and mourning, our hearts go out to you. No parent ought to experience the grief of laying a child to eternal rest. Take comfort in the joy Colin's life brought to all who knew and loved him. May his memory bring you peace in the years to come.

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

Mr. President, a recent article by Peter Pomerantsev in TIME Magazine starts this way. It is about a Ukrainian held prisoner by the Russians. I quote:

After they beat Azat Azatyan so bad blood came out of his

ears; after they sent electric shocks up his genitals; after

they wacked him with pipes and truncheons, the Russians began

to interrogate him about his faith. ``When did you become a

Baptist? When did you become an American spy?'' Azat tried to

explain that in Ukraine there was freedom of religion, you

could just choose your faith. But his torturers saw the world

the same way as their predecessors at the KGB did: An

American church is just a front for the American state.

Since Soviet times, the Russian Orthodox Church has been used as a tool of the state, so Russians assume Protestants in Ukraine are American agents.

The world was horrified after the Kyiv suburb of Bucha was liberated, revealing that civilians had been massacred simply for being loyal Ukrainians. But Bucha is not an exception. In every part of Ukraine that Russia has occupied, civilians have been murdered, women systematically raped, and Christians not loyal to Moscow have been persecuted, tortured, and killed. Every day, the Russian military fires rockets, drones, and shells at civilian areas to demoralize the population in hopes of taking more Ukrainian land. Yet, with every Russian missile attack, every Ukrainian town destroyed, and every report of murdered pastors, the Ukrainian people become

more determined to prevent any more territory falling under Russian occupation.

You can understand why calls by some American politicians to negotiate with Russia seem so absurd to Ukrainians under daily attack. Ukraine knows that if it allows any more territory to fall under Russian control, it will mean more Ukrainians tortured and killed. Likewise, for most Ukrainians, giving up on their fellow countrymen currently suffering under Russian occupation is unthinkable.

There is also zero indication from Russia that Russia is looking to negotiate. The lack of any new U.S. military assistance from Congress for over a year has actually bolstered Putin's belief that he can outlast the West despite being outnumbered and outmatched in economic and military power.

Now, we all know that Russia is in violation of multiple treaties recognizing Ukraine's borders and promising to respect its sovereignty. Start out with the United Nations Charter that guarantees the sovereignty of individual countries. But beyond that, the United States and Russia, plus the United Kingdom, all signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1993 in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union in return for a guarantee of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. If you believe in the rule of law, that Budapest Memorandum ought to mean something.

Just like in 2014, if Russia gets away with any territory it took by force, it will send the message that force pays off. Before long, Russia will be back for more territory. And who is to say they would stop with Ukraine? Anyone claiming that there is no threat to the rest of Europe is choosing to ignore comments by people in Putin's inner circle threatening NATO allies like Poland and the Baltic countries.

I think Putin made it very clear back in 2005 when he said that ``the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'' We all hear Putin talking a lot about Peter the Great and restoring the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire grew and grew throughout history, irrespective of national, ethnic, religious, or cultural borders. That provides the context when Putin repeats the phrase ``Russia's borders do not end anywhere.''

I believe in the lesson we took from World War II for the Cold War that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When we see the flame of aggression, we ought to stamp it out before the whole world is engulfed.

Neville Chamberlain bet everything on the hope that letting Hitler take Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia would satisfy him and there would be, according to his own words, ``peace in our time.'' It is not 1938, but it could be, and hopefully no world war confronts us like it did in 1938 when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made that trip to Germany and had that meeting that ended with the words ``peace in our time.''

We all know that Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia and then, in a short period of time, invaded Poland. We stayed out of that war until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, and then World War II was raging both in the Pacific and in Europe.

So can we learn from history? Today, we have to decide again whether to respond to aggression with strength while the threat is manageable or opt for appeasement and hope, against experience, that it will not lead to a wider war as it did in the late 1930s.

Think about how much was lost in World War II, not just in dollars but in American lives. Now think about how much it would cost in American blood and treasure if Russia is emboldened to attack a NATO ally and article 5 of the NATO treaty would kick in and all 31 countries would be involved in that effort--and the United States would likewise be involved.

The United States has been spending about 5 percent of our annual military budget to arm Ukraine, and U.S. intelligence believes the war has severely degraded Russia's military power and its ability to threaten NATO allies. Ukraine has taken back about half the territory Russia occupied in 2022. But without American aid, Ukraine is almost out of ammunition, and Russia sees an opportunity.

Europe has spent more than twice as much as the United States on aid to Ukraine in total dollars. Think of the humanitarian aid that Europe lends to all those millions of Ukrainians who have sought refuge in other countries. Compared to Europe, when you look at it as a share of the economy, the United States ranks No. 32. No. 1 ranking Estonia has provided more than 12 times as much assistance as a share of its economy because Estonia knows what it was like to be occupied by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991.

Europe has stepped up big-time and keeps finding ways to do more. You read daily in the newspapers about European leaders wondering whether the U.S. Congress is going to step up, and they have tried to fill in the vacuum while we dither here, waiting to make a decision on more help for Ukraine.

The Czechs and the Estonians have led two efforts to pool Europe's funds to purchase shells from other countries to patch the gap left by the United States while Congress dithers on this issue, but the Czechs and Estonians do not have the military industrial base that we do, so they cannot do it all.

Opponents of Ukraine aid have started talking down our industrial base's ability to produce everything needed to stop Russian aggression while also preparing for China, which may just follow Russia's example against Taiwan if Russia is successful in Ukraine. These people argue that Ukraine can't win so we should cut our losses and worry about China. I disagree. The fact is, Russia has lost much of its experienced military and advanced equipment. Russia does have a vast population and has put its economy on full war footing, so it has been able to reconstitute; however, Russian soldiers are poorly trained, and the morale of these Russian soldiers is in the toilet.

Russia has resorted to its old tactic of ``meat assaults,'' where hundreds of poorly trained infantry try to overwhelm Ukrainian defenses with sheer numbers and great deaths.

Russia has only been able to make incremental advances while taking huge casualties in the face of superior Ukrainian morale and equipment.

Russia's economy is feeling the strain. Word has gotten out about how freely Russian commanders sacrifice the lives of their soldiers. It will only get a lot harder to replace the tens of thousands of Russian soldiers sent to their death in Ukraine.

Russia is pinning its hopes on U.S. military aid not coming and Ukraine running out of ammunition. I, for one, am happy to help dash Putin's hopes. The good news is that our defense industrial base is ramping up. That includes the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, which has more than doubled production using its current facilities. It is also undergoing a major modernization program, accelerated by previous Ukraine supplemental bills.

In the near future, it will have a brandnew facility that will be able to produce many more 155mm shells and do it much faster.

Those arguing that the United States is no longer up to the task of producing the necessary military equipment are underestimating our economy.

I am reminded of President Carter's famous 1979 malaise speech where he identified a crisis of confidence among the American people. That was 1979.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan came along with his signature optimism that America's best days are ahead. And he worked to overcome the challenges that we faced, including the lagging economy and an underresourced military.

Just recently, the Japanese Prime Minister spoke to our Congress and delivered a message as a very good friend. He said he detected an undercurrent of self-doubt about Americans. The Japanese Prime Minister spoke movingly about the role of American leadership in championing freedoms and fostering the stability and prosperity of nations like Japan. That Japanese Prime Minister explained that while American leadership is indispensable, Americans are not alone in this world.

With allies like Japan and many countries in Europe stepping up, the free world has never been stronger or more united. So this is hardly a time for a crisis of confidence.

In fact, I am shocked to hear some people in my own party--the Republican Party--accepting American decline and advocating a return to the

Obama head-in-the-sand policy toward Russia.

Remember, back then, Obama was so afraid of escalation that he tried to appease Putin after Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine. Look at that mistake we made. Do we want to overdo it again?

Obama refused to provide any lethal aid--not one bullet for Ukraine under Obama. He pushed Ukraine to negotiate with a gun to its head.

President Trump came in, reversed the Obama policy, and provided equipment and training to the Ukrainian military. Thank God Trump did that. The Javelins provided by the United States played a major role in stopping the Russian advance towards Kyiv.

Take it from this Senator, elected to this body alongside President Reagan: The conservative position is to believe in America, to invest in our military, and to support freedom.

Like the Senate-passed bill, most of the money in this package goes straight to our military to replenish stockpiles--spent in the United States, using American labor. It will allow for more drawdowns to send vital military aid to Ukraine. This includes Patriot interceptors that can take down Russia's most advanced missiles and save lives at the same time.

Ukraine will get more Iowa-made howitzer shells that are far more accurate and reliable than those that Russia has begged from North Korea.

And an improvement added by Reagan Republicans in the House is a requirement for the Biden administration to provide the long-range ATACM missiles needed to take out Russia's supply lines.

I have been calling for these ATACMS to be provided for a long time. I think the reason they have not been provided by the Biden administration is due to the holdover of the Obama fear of escalation. That fear has proven to be misguided.

The only way to lasting peace is strength. That is what Ronald Reagan showed Americans. Strength is what we need now in the face of aggression from Russia and Iran and threats from China.

I don't buy this notion that it is a conservative or Republican position to abandon the American leadership that has kept the peace since World War II, meaning no World War III. I certainly do not think it is conservative to advocate a return to a weak and failed Obama policy.

I make no apologies for supporting Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan in the face of threats from the axis of anti-American dictatorships. And, now, instead of the axis of the 1940s--Germany, Italy, and Japan--it is now the axis of the 21st century--Russia, Iran, China, North Korea. They have their sights set upon replacing the United States as leaders of this Earth. It is an investment worth making to prevent the United States getting sucked into World War III. It is also the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.