Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to commemorate Sunshine Week. Sunshine Week coincides each year with March 16, one of our Founding Fathers' birthdays: James Madison. Madison is widely known as the father of open government.

The sunshine I am talking about isn't the kind that helps the corn grow in Iowa. Sunshine Week is dedicated to promoting government accountability to the source from which all government derives its power: the people. Before joining the Supreme Court in 1916, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants: electric light the most efficient policeman.'' As a longtime champion for an open, accessible government, I speak today in support of those enduring principles.

In great works of literature, readers often remember a novel's opening line even if they forget the rest. When one hears that line, it immediately calls to mind the entire book. Well the same is true of our Constitution, a document that both defines the powers of the

Federal Government and, at the same time, carefully limits those powers.

``We The People.'' These are not the opening words of a novel, but they are just as memorable as the best opening lines in literature. These solemn words form the opening line of our framework of our government, the Constitution.

This is not an accident. Our Founders and Framers made a conscious choice to open our sacred charter by calling to mind the source of all government powers, from local school boards to the deliberations of this Chamber: the people of our United States, as James Madison said, acting in their sovereign capacity. These are truths we must repeat often, so that we never forget them. The people in this framework are in control. To use the analogy of the sun, whatever promotes self- governance, spoken of in our Declaration of Independence, is sunshine. Whatever hinders the people in their right to govern their communities is darkness.

As the Federal Government has grown in size and scope, all too often bureaucrats prefer to live in the shadows of the bureaucracy. They forget that they are ultimately accountable to the people. Because of this, Congress has passed a series of laws requiring openness and accountability to citizens and taxpayers. Just like we need information from government agencies to decide how to cast many of our votes in Congress, so too do the American people need this information to fulfill their role, and to cast theirs.

This week is meant to draw attention to this need for openness, especially the Freedom of Information Act, which requires government Agencies to produce documents enlightening citizens as to what Agencies are doing. There is also the inherent constitutional power that Members of Congress have to conduct oversight and launch investigations.

Despite this framework of laws and the bedrock principles of our Constitution, Agencies day in and day out fight tooth and nail so they won't have to turn over records when people file Freedom of Information Act requests and even when Members of Congress make requests for information. The Freedom of Information Act is a key law for providing transparency in government. Exemptions that allow records to be withheld should only be used when necessary and not as an excuse to withhold potentially embarrassing information. Federal Agencies must also reverse the trend of ever-increasing FOIA backlogs.

For example, according to annual FOIA reports, the Department of Homeland Security saw its FOIA backlog double at the end of fiscal year 2022 from the previous fiscal year. They are not alone. The Justice Department, Defense Department, and State Department all saw increases in their FOIA backlogs from the prior year. Federal Agencies need to do better.

I continue to work for laws that strengthen the Freedom of Information Act and other measures that will ensure the people's business is conducted in public, not in private. I am planning to reintroduce a bipartisan bill to ensure FOIA remains a useful public tool and to push back against recent case law that erodes greater transparency. This bill will restore pro-transparency principles and will make it crystal clear where Congress stands on the public's right to know what our government is doing.

To mark ``Sunshine Week,'' I am also introducing the bipartisan Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, which would permit and encourage all Federal courts to welcome cameras into the courtroom. I am also cosponsoring, with Senator Durbin, a companion bill which would require the U.S. Supreme Court to televise the arguments heard before them. I thank my Senate colleagues who are joining me as cosponsors on these important pieces of legislation.

I have supported the long overdue release of records on the assassination of President Kennedy. I support efforts and conduct oversight on a daily basis that bring information on our government's operation to the light of day. I have also long supported whistleblowers, who play a vital role in shining the light on waste, fraud, and abuse.

By reintroducing the SEC Whistleblower Reform Act, I am working to ensure whistleblowers who report possible violations of our Federal securities laws are fully protected, whether they take their concerns to the SEC or to someone in their company. My office has worked with whistleblowers and groups protecting their rights for decades. It is an essential part of our work. As Agencies all too often resist turning over the information we need to do our jobs, whistleblowers fill that gap with firsthand accounts of potential wrongdoing. To those whistleblowers: You are true patriots.

Corruption is a problem in our own government, but it is also a global problem. I support the rights of whistleblowers everywhere in their efforts to bring sunshine to corruption and aid people in their rightful quest to govern themselves.

Finally, I have been a long-time supporter of the False Claims Act. Since 1986, when I led the effort to update the False Claims Act, that law has helped the government recover $72 billion in taxpayer money from fraud and likely saved billions more by deterring would be fraudsters. The False Claims Act is a tool by which we can--and must-- hold fraudsters accountable.

That is why I also reintroduced the bipartisan Administrative False Claims Act again this Congress. That legislation raises the statutory ceiling on claims that can be handled with administrative procedures from $150,000 to $1 million, expands the number of Justice Department officials who can review these claims, and allows the government to recoup costs for investigating and prosecuting these frauds. The legislation makes pursuing fraudsters more efficient.

We need to take all possible steps to let the sunshine in. If we do, we will have a better and more accountable government that serves the people as it should.

Mr. President, last Congress, I spoke of my strong opposition to the nomination of Eric Garcetti to be Ambassador to the Republic of India. I opposed the nomination due to the serious and credible allegations that he enabled sexual harassment and racism to run rampant in the Los Angeles mayor's office. When the nomination expired, I had hoped President Biden would recognize his egregious mistake, believe the victims, and change course.

President Biden failed to do so. Indefensibly, at the same time the Biden administration decries sexual harassment and racism, it has now twice nominated an individual to represent our country abroad who has enabled those very same disgusting acts. Accordingly, I continue to oppose Garcetti's nomination and ask this question: What will it take for the Biden administration to believe the victims? That same question should be posed to every Member in the Senate that is considering voting for him.

During my career, I have prioritized protecting victims of sexual harassment and abuse. In 2005, I cosponsored the Violence Against Women Act. That bill provides vital aid to the Justice Department's Office on Violence Against Women and to law enforcement to protect victims of sexual harassment and abuse. Last Congress, I cosponsored bills introduced by Senator Gillibrand to protect and defend victims of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. I cosponsored resolutions introduced by Senator Feinstein to raise awareness of sexual assault. These include the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act of 2021, the Speak Out Act, the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, and a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

This Congress, I have sent several bipartisan letters to the Department of Justice seeking information regarding sexual misconduct by Bureau of Prisons personnel and inmates against staff. With Senators Durbin and Padilla, I met with the Bureau of Prisons Director to further investigate sexual misconduct and discuss reforms to enhance prevention, reporting, investigation, prosecution, and discipline of these matters.

With respect to Mayor Garcetti, I have made clear to my colleagues and

the American people that credible whistleblowers approached my office about concerning allegations that he was aware of and enabled his deputy chief of staff, Rick Jacobs, to sexually harass several employees within the mayor's office. These men and women alleged that Rick Jacobs engaged in inappropriate and degrading physical contact without their consent. They alleged that Rick Jacobs made crude sexual remarks and gestures towards staff and others. They alleged that he made blatantly racist remarks towards Asians and other minorities.

These allegations have also been publicly reported by many news outlets. Text messages made public by the Los Angeles Times indicate that these incidents were common knowledge among Garcetti's staff. A now infamous picture shows Jacobs inappropriately touching an individual next to him. In the picture, Mayor Garcetti is standing on the other side of Jacobs.

Mayor Garcetti said under oath during his nomination that ``I want to say unequivocally that I never witnessed, nor was it brought to my attention, the behavior that's been alleged, and I also want to assure you if it had been, I would have immediately taken action to stop that.''

How can that statement be true when there is a photo with Jacobs inappropriately touching an individual next to Garcetti? How can that statement be true when text messages exist from his own staff discussing the toxic work environment within the mayor's office?

In total, my office identified over 19 individuals who have either witnessed Jacobs' behavior or were the victims of it. So who are these brave and courageous individuals who made these allegations? Are they Republican operatives? No. They are his former communications director, senior staffers, junior staffers, businessmen, civic leaders, and a Los Angeles Police Department officer assigned to protect him. This isn't a political hit job. This is a bipartisan endeavor to stop an inadequate nominee.

To defend himself, Mayor Garcetti has pointed to a report which inconceivably purports to clear Jacobs of any wrongdoing. The report was conducted by a law firm hired and paid for by the city of Los Angeles. Mayor Garcetti and the city of Los Angeles would be liable if the report concluded sexual harassment occurred. The report was also delivered to the city of Los Angeles under attorney-client privilege, apparently in the hope that no one outside the city would ever see it.

The report failed to interview multiple firsthand witnesses. The interviews weren't taken under penalty of perjury. The report focused exclusively on allegations of sexual harassment made by the Los Angeles Police Department officer and failed to give due weight to other witnesses. For example, the report includes an interview with Jacobs in which he admits to using racist language, kissing, hugging, and squeezing people's shoulders. The report also identifies the individual in the lewd photo I mentioned earlier. The report says that the individual stated that Jacob's actions weren't funny and embarrassed that person. That makes it clear nonconsensual physical contact occurred. It is evidence that sexual harassment occurred. And it literally occurred right next to Mayor Garcetti.

The last time I spoke about this matter was right after President Biden signed the Speak Out Act into law. I cosponsored that bill, which Senator Gillibrand led. The law enables survivors to speak out about workplace sexual assault and harassment.

So, on the one hand, the Biden administration says it supports victims. Yet, on the other hand, the Biden administration supports a nominee who enables misconduct that creates more victims. The Biden administration's positions are irreconcilable. They are the very definition of tone deafness. The Biden administration and all those who support this nomination have sent a message that victims will only be believed when politically convenient. The Biden administration has no credibility when it comes to protecting victims of sexual harassment. To my Senate colleagues, do you support victims of sexual harassment and racism or a man who enabled it for years, leaving many victims in his wake? You can't support both.

Mayor Garcetti's own staff have spoken out to stop this nomination at a risk to their careers. One of them is Naomi Seligman, who was Mayor Garcetti's former communications director and one of the many whistleblowers who worked with my office regarding this nomination. She said that Garcetti's vote out of the Foreign Relations Committee ``on International Women's Day no less, shows a real disconnect between the rhetoric we hear from elected leaders who claim to support victims of workplace sexual harassment and the pass they give to party loyalists in the next breath. It's disheartening to say the least.''

I agree. Mayor Garcetti is incompatible with the office that he seeks. I, again, strongly encourage my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--to review the evidence found in my investigative report, as well as in the press. Most importantly, listen to the victims. The facts and the evidence compel me to vote no, and my colleagues must join me in doing the same.

Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of Joshua D. Jacobs, to be Under Secretary for Benefits at the Department of Veterans Affairs,

Mr. President, I have been glad to see that Lena Santos Ferguson is finally gaining recognition for her work to desegregate the Daughters of the American Revolution. In 1980, Mrs. Ferguson was turned away when she tried to join DAR. She was discriminated against even though she could trace her ancestry to Jonah Gay, who had supported the Revolution through the town committee of Friendship, ME.

According to the Washington Post, one of Ferguson's White sponsors was told that, if Mrs. Ferguson was admitted, the DC chapter ``will probably fall apart.'' However, last month, the DAR renamed its Washington, DC, nursing scholarship as the ``Daughters of the American Revolution--Lena Ferguson Scholarship,'' doubled its size, and announced the upcoming placement of a plaque in honor of her work.

It is a testament to the work of those such as Ferguson that the DAR has gone from threatening dissolution to naming a scholarship in her honor.

Ferguson represented a much larger group of under-recognized Black Revolutionary War patriots. In 1984, when Ferguson was finally allowed to join the DAR, the settlement agreement had an impact well beyond one woman's effort for recognition. It led to new research and the identification of over 5,000 of the estimated 10,000 Black Revolutionary War participants.

However, highlighting the contributions Black patriots made in the American Revolution does not end with DAR. That is why I worked with Senator Murphy to pass into law the National Liberty Memorial Preservation Act. Our bipartisan bill allows the National Mall Liberty Fund D.C.--a group founded by Maurice Barboza, Ferguson's nephew--to continue its work getting a monument to Black patriots on or near the National Mall in Washington, DC.

Both this monument and the work of Mrs. Ferguson display the founding purpose of our Nation. Unlike almost every other country on Earth, Americans are not bound together by a common ethnicity or geographical ancestry. We are all Americans because we believe in the principles our country was founded upon. This is the common heritage of all Americans of all backgrounds. It is vital that we do not forget that bond and even more vital that we preserve the principles themselves and honor those of all backgrounds who fought for them.

The construction of the National Liberty Memorial by July 4, 2026-- the 250th anniversary of our Nation's founding--would serve as another important reminder of that bond we share as Americans. I urge my fellow Americans to come together around that goal.

Madam President, today, I would like to extend best wishes to the former Senator from New York, James L. Buckley. One hundred years ago today, on the 9th of March, Jim was born the fourth of 10 children, just as the Roaring '20s were getting underway. As he celebrates his 100th birthday, an impressive milestone by all accounts--I am also told he is the oldest living former U.S. Senator among us--Barbara and I wish Jim and his family a happy celebration.

Jim Buckley was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1970 as a candidate of the Conservative Party, making him the first third party candidate to win election to the U.S. Senate in four decades. Representing the State of New York in the 92nd through 94th sessions of Congress, he served during a rocky period in U.S. history that included the Vietnam and Watergate era. Before ever putting his name on the ballot for public office, Jim enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1942, serving our country in uniform during World War II. He received his law degree from Yale University in 1949 and, from there, pursued a career in the law as an attorney and in lawmaking as a U.S. Senator.

Our congressional service overlapped during the 94th Congress, when I was a freshman Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. We didn't have the opportunity to serve together here in the upper Chamber. Senator Buckley ran for reelection as a Republican in 1976, losing to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, with whom I served until his retirement in 2001.

As conservatives, Senator Buckley and I share a commitment to shared principles, limited government, sanctity of life, States' rights, and safeguarding constitutional rights, including political free speech. In fact, his name will be attached for posterity to a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Buckley v. Valeo. Then-Senator Buckley led a coalition of free speech advocates to challenge amendments made to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 because they interfered with First Amendment rights.

Students of history, political junkies, and legal scholars recognize that this case has shaped the landscape of free speech and campaign finance for the last five decades. In 1976, the High Court arrived at two important conclusions regarding campaign finance laws. On the one hand, the Supreme Court found that contribution ceilings on individual contributions did not violate the First Amendment. However, in a vote of 7-1, it struck down restrictions on campaign expenses and found they did violate the First Amendment as an infringement on free expression.

Following his time in the legislative branch, Senator Buckley went on to serve in the Reagan administration in the U.S. State Department. From 1982-1985, Senator Buckley served as president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Germany, essentially a clarion of the airwaves fighting communism. From there, he continued his lifelong devotion to public service when he was nominated by President Reagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Judge Buckley was confirmed by the Senate on December 17, 1985. He served for the next 11 years and assumed senior status on August 31, 1996. I have served on the Senate Judiciary committee every year I have been honored to represent Iowa in the Senate, including 6 years as chairman. My colleagues here in the Senate understand that I take seriously my constitutional role to vet nominees to the Federal bench. In our system of checks and balances, I strive to uphold this fundamental cornerstone of our democratic republic. Lawmakers write the laws and set policy. Judges interpret the laws; they don't exercise their value judgments or impose their own policy preferences.

As Judge Buckley himself said at his portrait ceremony in December of 2003: ``I hope, though, that my service on this court has been able to establish, if nothing else, that it is possible for a person to have the strongest views on questions of public policy and still understand and observe the sharp distinction between the constitutional role of a legislator and that of a judge.''

I couldn't say it better myself. I salute this great American for his public service to our great Nation, from the U.S. military and spanning all three branches of the Federal Government. Senior statesman, Senator, and judge may not be his most exalted titles. For someone whose humility and commitment to family are well known, those honors are husband, dad and grandfather. I extend my best wishes to Jim for a happy 100th birthday. Thank you for your patriotism, principled leadership, and service to America.

Mr. President, I would like to expand on my recent comments on the need to stand up to Putin to prevent future aggression and the death and suffering it causes. Specifically, I would like to address the calls from well-meaning people for a diplomatic solution.

Many people understandably want an end to the killing in Ukraine. I certainly do. So why not sit down and talk? As I have said before, we tried that after 2014, and it didn't work. We ended up with a full- scale invasion a year ago.

More fundamentally, it is important to consider what there is to negotiate over. To start with, what is the nature of the disagreement? In other words, assuming you could get Putin or his representative to a negotiating table, what are the opposing positions and the potential middle ground?

Vladimir Putin has continued to repeat his original stated war aims, ``demilitarization and denazification.'' Denazification in the context Putin uses it clearly means regime change. It is pretty clear that Putin thought he could take out the current elected government and install a puppet regime. President Biden publicly released the intelligence we had to that effect before the war began, which I think was a smart move.

Demilitarization means that Ukraine has to give up its right to defend itself, allowing Russia a free hand to intervene with force if Ukraine ever again tries to assert its right to act independently of Russia.

Obviously, President Zelenskyy cannot ever agree to meet those two demands. No President of a sovereign country could. Of course, in Putin's mind, Ukraine is not a sovereign country. That is the problem. Putin repeats a false version of history that says Ukraine is an artificially created country and rightfully part of Russia.

Ukraine has a long history of independence before it was ever conquered by Russia, in fact long before Russia even existed. But, for decades, Putin has pushed a warped, imperialistic view of history that is all too common among Russians.

When Putin repeatedly invokes Peter the Great, we should be concerned. Remember, Peter the Great was a Russian expansionist emperor who conquered lands like Finland and the Baltics from Sweden.

It may be comforting to buy into Putin's propaganda that he feels concern for the people in parts of Ukraine where they speak Russian and that perhaps those people want to be Russian. That makes his motives seem like they might have some justification. It also lulls us into the belief that Putin will be appeased once he cleaves off a chunk of eastern Ukraine. There is absolutely no reason to believe that, nor has Putin actually said that. The Russian Federation in its current borders has subsumed many non-Russian ethnicities and languages from past imperial conquests. Not speaking Russian never stopped them before.

In 1939, the Soviet Union attacked Finland in the Winter War despite its language and culture being very, very different from Russia. It was a nakedly imperial quest to reconquer lost territory of the Russian empire. Finland fought back and kept its independence, but Russia kept a big chunk of Karelia. This is an area that spoke a dialect of Finnish and was not historically Russian in any deep cultural or linguistic sense. Sadly today, in that region, Karelians maintaining their native language and culture represent a tiny minority of the population. Over the years, it has been thoroughly russified.

In Ukraine, mass graves and reports of widespread rape from areas liberated from Russian occupation should suffice to dispel the myth that Ukrainians welcome occupation or that Russians see Ukrainians as brothers. The fact that many people in eastern Ukraine speak Russian never made them Russian, just as English-speaking Irish citizens do not long to be governed by London. Eastern Ukraine was subject to a policy of russification under the Russian Empire and then under the Soviet Union, when many Russian workers were imported to the area.

But it should be clear to everyone now that the Ukrainian national identity cannot be easily suppressed, regardless of the language they speak at home. Still that does not stop Russians from trying. Thousands of Ukrainian children from Russian occupied areas in eastern Ukraine have been forcibly deported to Russia and adopted into Russian families. Members of the Putin regime talk openly about how these children came with pro-Ukrainian attitudes but have now been brainwashed to adopt pro-Russian sentiments. This alone meets the definition of genocide.

In Putin's 2007 Munich Security Conference speech, his critique of the United States included the assertion that we seek a unipolar world where we impose our values on others, and called for a multipolar world--in other words, one with different spheres of influence.

When Putin talks about countries like Ukraine and other formerly Russian dominated countries, it is clear that he sees them as either in his sphere of influence, or someone else's. Putin cannot accept that Ukrainians might want to leave behind the corrupt, Russian dominated post-Soviet system where oligarchs get rich and the average person's economic and political freedom are limited.

Putin talks about ``NATO expansion'' into the Baltics as though NATO is a rival empire. In reality, the Baltic countries begged to join NATO. And they were admitted at a time of naive optimism in the West that Russia was becoming a peaceful democracy. The Baltic countries are actually a useful case study to understand how many Russians think about their former imperial subject countries.

This month, Estonia and Lithuania celebrate the 106th anniversary of the birth of their republics in their current independent form. It is important to understand that the Baltic countries are historically Western in their culture and outlook. Like Ukraine, they experienced attempts at russification, during the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, including importing of Russian-speaking workers, threatening their unique cultures and languages. After regaining their freedom from Soviet occupation in 1991, the Baltics quickly built thriving, free market democracies.

Given their history, it is natural that they sought to protect their way of life from Russian domination by joining the most successful defensive alliance in history. Putin and many Russians speak with resentfulness about the Baltics. Their very existence as prosperous, Western-style free-market democracies not dependent on Russia politically or economically is clearly threatening.

Russian state media tries, absurdly, to convince Russians that their prosperity is due to development efforts under the Soviet occupation or that they are about to become failed states any day now. Many Russians are convinced that their joining NATO makes them U.S. puppets, reflecting the spheres of influence worldview.

Again, joining NATO was their fervent wish, not some policy of expansion for expansion's sake on the part of NATO, and their populations are some of the most pro-American anywhere in the world. Putin dismisses the wishes of his smaller neighbors as irrelevant to great power geopolitics. He thinks they are inevitably pawns to be bartered over by big empires. Given our origin as a tiny collection of Colonies seeking independence from a powerful empire, Americans ought to think differently.

Putin is threatened by NATO expansion not because he believes NATO countries might attack the Russian Federation. Our NATO allies bordering Russia did not host any long-term deployments of troops from other allies before Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine. Multiple NATO allies have since provided small rotational forces to our eastern flank allies intended to deter Russian aggression. Those forces have naturally grown since the full scale invasion of Ukraine in February. But, frankly, they are still insufficient to repel the kind of full- scale invasion we saw in Ukraine, much less pose any kind of threat to Russian territory.

Putin's military leaders, for all their mistakes in Ukraine, are not stupid. They do not see NATO as a military threat to current Russian territory. Rather, Putin sees NATO as a threat to his dream of reconstituting the Russian Empire. President Macron of France has suggested offering Putin security guarantees. That plays into Putin's false propaganda that he faces any kind of threat from NATO.

When Putin talks about security guarantees, he has made clear that he means a dismantling of NATO in areas he sees as his rightful sphere of influence, enabling him to bully them. Keep in mind that, when he invaded Ukraine initially in 2014, Ukraine was militarily neutral, but seeking closer economic relations with the European Union. In February 2014, months of popular protests by ordinary Ukrainians culminated in what Ukrainians call their ``Revolution of Dignity.'' The Ukrainian President at the time yielded to pressure from Putin and refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union after it passed overwhelmingly in the Parliament.

The Ukrainian Parliament ultimately voted to remove the President. He then fled to Russia, but not before violent confrontations between special riot police and protestors. Putin has falsely claimed this was a U.S.-sponsored coup rather than a grassroots rejecting of his meddling in Ukraine's sovereign affairs. Russia then invaded Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

To be clear, the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine had nothing to do with NATO, the U.S., or any military threat to Russia. Rather, Ukraine's decision to seek closer economic ties to Europe threatened Putin's sense of entitlement to have Ukraine dominated by Russia.

Putin has said ``true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.'' This reflects his notion that Ukraine can never be truly independent. In his mind, Ukraine is either in Russia's sphere of influence, which he sees as its natural state, or it is somehow controlled by shadowy Western forces. We should not fall into the same imperialistic trap of sidelining or minimizing the wishes of Ukrainians. President Biden has said, ``nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,'' and he must stick to that.

We must also be clear-eyed about what is and is not possible to negotiate with Putin. As I have said before, Putin only understands strength and weakness is provocative. As Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission President and former German Defense Minister under Angela Merkel said, ``We should have listened to the voices inside our Union-- in Poland, in the Baltics, and all across Central and Eastern Europe- they have been telling us for years that Putin would not stop.''

President Biden should take that lesson to heart as well.

Estonian Prime Minister Kallas puts it this way: ``History shows that appeasement only strengthens and encourages aggressors and that aggressors can be stopped only with force. As the prime minister of Estonia, a frontline NATO country that endured half a century of Soviet occupation, I know what peace on Russia's terms really means. Russian peace would not mean the end of suffering but rather more atrocities.''

I wish it was possible to negotiate with Putin to put an end to Ukraine's suffering. But what he wants is domination of Ukraine, and that is not ours to offer.

We have only two options left. We could sit on the sidelines and watch Ukraine get slowly crushed, which would embolden Putin and open the possibility that he would eventually attack one of our allies. Or we can support Ukraine's victory and independence.

As I have said before, backing a Ukrainian victory comes with costs and risks. But the risks and costs of not stopping Putin now will be much higher. That makes repelling Russia's invasion of its sovereign neighbor in the U.S. national interest.

The Russian threat will not go away, so for our national interest and in the

interest of long term peace in Europe, supporting a decisive victory for Ukraine is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, the media likes narratives that split issues neatly into two opposing positions and often Republican against Democrat.

There is one narrative that has been repeated so often it has become conventional wisdom. It holds that President Biden and Democrats in Congress have been 100 percent committed to opposing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but Republican support is softening.

That misleading narrative was briefly scrambled when the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a horribly naive letter calling for President Biden to engage in direct diplomacy with Russia.

Clearly, there are factions on both sides of the aisle hesitant about backing a Ukrainian victory. There is also confusion about who in U.S. politics is most behind Ukraine winning the war.

Let's be clear, the most fervent supporters of victory for Ukraine are Republicans.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration gets credit for being all in for Ukraine, when in fact it is more accurate to say that it is, at best, three-quarters of the way in. And it has been dragged this far by events, public opinion, and some of our bolder European allies.

Speculation about future Republican support for Ukraine is often framed in terms of Biden's chances to get the aid he might want, but no one asks why President Biden let $2.2 billion worth of authority passed by Congress to draw down existing weapons for Ukraine expire on September 30 unused.

I have been pleased for the most part with President Biden's rhetorical defense of Ukraine's right to self-defense. But I have been puzzled by some of the delays in sending crucial military aid.

I see signs that the Biden administration is afraid of what will happen if Ukraine is helped to push Russia back into its own borders. It is understandable to be concerned about the risks when dealing with a nuclear armed aggressor. But Putin has backed away from his nuclear saber-rattling in the face of Western resolve. And there are even greater risks in not stopping Russia's aggression now. In fact, in my view, we got where we are now because we acted too timidly in the past. Repeating that mistake now will only invite more aggression in the future.

In early February of 2021, shortly after President Biden took office, I gave a speech wondering whether President Biden's tough-on-Russia rhetoric would be matched by his administration's actions. I reminded the Senate that 12 years earlier, in the early days of the Obama-Biden administration, then-Vice President Biden went to Munich to deliver a speech calling for the United States to hit the ``reset button'' with Russia. Two years prior to Biden's speech, at the same annual conference, Vladimir Putin had sharply criticized the United States and suggested we were a threat to world peace. Moreover, just 6 months prior to calling for a ``reset,'' Russia had invaded and occupied a significant portion of the Republic of Georgia, which it still occupies to this day.

Calling on the United States to ``hit the reset button,'' as Secretary of State Clinton later symbolically did with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, strongly suggested that the breakdown in relations with Russia was somehow our fault. President Reagan's Ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, famously identified a tendency among some of her fellow Democrats to ``blame America first.'' I put the shameful Obama-Biden Russia reset policy squarely in that tradition. Relations with Russia became bad because Putin saw the United States as an obstacle to his imperial aspirations. That is not our fault. I am concerned that some corners of the Biden administration have not fully dispensed with the naivety behind the so-called Russia reset.

Let's recall just how mistaken the Obama-Biden Russia policy was. Many people remember the arrest of Anna Chapman and nine other deep cover Russian spies living as normal Americans. The FBI had been monitoring this spy network until agents saw signs that Chapman suspected the jig was up. The FBI needed to arrest the whole network before she had a chance to warn them and they all fled the country.

However, it just so happened that Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian President--at least in name--was in town. Medvedev was meeting with President Obama about all the areas of cooperation between the U.S. and Russia made possible by the reset, plus a photo op eating hamburgers together. To not upset this chummy meeting, the arrests of the Russian spies were postponed until Medvedev was on a plane back to Moscow.

Remember, in order to get around term limits, Vladimir Putin drafted his loyalist, Medvedev, to be the puppet President until Putin could run for President again. This was a transparent shell game. But there was naive hopeful talk that Medvedev was a reformer who might steer Russia in a more democratic, pro-Western direction. Anyone following Medvedev's recent rhetoric about Ukraine knows that is far from true. He remains totally loyal to Putin and has been serving as his rhetorical attack dog.

When Russia invaded and occupied parts of Ukraine in 2014, the Obama administration had angry words for Putin. The reset was on the rocks. But the practical response of the Obama administration was to deny Ukraine defensive weapons, sending only non-lethal aid. President Obama urged Ukraine not to fight to avoid escalation and to settle the matter diplomatically.

Russia has a history of using negotiations to create frozen conflicts. Russia will snatch a piece of land, then demand a ceasefire and negotiations, allowing it to keep the ill-gotten gains indefinitely.

Obviously, maintaining the status quo with Russia occupying parts of Ukraine did not result in a lasting peace. It just led Putin to think he could get away with it again. Perhaps he would have if he hadn't gone big.

Having succeeded in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, Putin figured he might as well go big and grab the whole country. It hasn't worked out for him as he hoped, but he hasn't given up on his initial goals either, even now. Those who had put hope in resetting relations with Russia have been mugged by reality.

But behind the current tough talk, I worry that some in the Biden administration, maybe President Biden himself, still cling to a hope that we can reach an understanding with Putin. Like Jeane Kirkpatrick, who remained a Democrat throughout her service in the Reagan administration, there are many Democrats today who have a clear-eyed view of Russia, including many colleagues in this body. I just wish President Biden would listen to them rather than those in his administration who let concerns about antagonizing Putin keep us from doing everything we can to save Ukrainian lives.

The administration has eventually relented and given Ukraine many

weapons systems it had repeatedly said ``no'' to. But there are still weapons we could transfer to Ukraine today that would bring the end of the war closer and save lives; yet the administration is refusing because of fear of ``escalation.''

We have seen that our HIMARS system has allowed the Ukrainian military to destroy ammunition depots and supply lines, making it possible for the Ukrainians to liberate significant territory. We have seen the videos of Ukrainian soldiers greeted with tears of joy by liberated civilians who have endured brutal Russian occupation.

However, we did not transfer the HIMARS until June, months into the war. And we denied the Ukrainians longer range missiles for the HIMARS. There are reports that we even modified the systems before delivery to make sure they could not shoot longer range missiles. This is apparently based on a misguided concern about threatening Russian territory.

Recently, the Biden administration has announced it will send Ukraine the ground-launched small-diameter bomb, which is double the range of the current HIMARS rockets, but which still fall far short of the range of the Army Tactical Missile System that Ukraine has been asking for.

Despite its success in retaking some of its own territory, Russia cannot seriously claim to be concerned about a Ukrainian invasion. Ukraine is the one that is being brutally invaded and occupied by Russia. And Ukraine has every right under international law to target Russian bases from which Russia is launching missiles at electrical plants and apartment buildings. Moreover, as the Lithuanian Prime Minister pointed out on her most recent visit to the United States, Ukraine needs these longer range missiles to attack Russian positions inside Ukraine itself.

The most clear-eyed leadership about the war is coming from those who know Russia the best, like the leaders of our Baltic allies. When Americans see Iranian-made drones and Russian cruise missiles crashing into apartment buildings, killing old women and young children, our hearts break. But knowing that many of these attacks are being launched from Russian-occupied Crimea, within range of the missiles we have been denying to Ukraine, makes the death and destruction even more heartbreaking.

The more advanced weapons Ukraine can obtain quickly, the faster the war will end. The U.S. and many of our allies have now announced delivery of tanks to Ukraine, something previously off the table. But it isn't clear if this decision was taken in time for the tanks to arrive in sufficient quantity to play a role in a spring counteroffensive or to help Ukraine defend against Russia's renewed offensive efforts, which are underway now. We should not be afraid of Ukraine winning.

President Macron of France has expressed concern about humiliating Putin. It is true that a defeated Putin would be dangerous, but a victorious Putin would surely be even more dangerous. Precisely because Russia has long been dangerous, we have built up military stockpiles in case we need to defend our allies in Europe from a possible attack by Russia.

Some of those stockpiles are now being used very effectively to degrade the Russian military and the threat it poses. This is being done by the Ukrainian military without a single American soldier in battle.

Some people have expressed concerns that we could give too much military aid, reducing what we need in case we have to fight a war. Obviously, we need to ensure our own potential defense needs are taken care of. I have been following closely what we have left and what we have given. Our military stockpiles are not public, but I can say that do not see any cause for alarm. Keep in mind that the level of stocks our military has determined we need is based on possibly having to fight the Russian military, but the Russian military as it existed before the full scale invasion on February 24. Since the Ukrainians have significantly diminished the Russian military, the threat to the United States is greatly reduced. So our requirements for ammunition and equipment are also now also lower.

The Russian war against Ukraine has also shaken us from our peacetime complacency about the state of our defense industrial base. Efforts are now underway to rejuvenate our ability to replenish our stockpiles of arms and ammunition. This will help not only with our efforts to aid Ukraine, but will greatly improve U.S. readiness to deal with potential threats in the near future, such as from China. There are also understandable concerns about the cost to the American taxpayers of replacing the equipment given to Ukraine.

Aside from the fact that some of this would be replaced with upgraded versions soon anyway, the cost benefit of a Ukrainian soldier destroying a Russian tank with one of our Javelins is enormous. The Russian military is being destroyed for pennies on the dollar and zero cost in American blood. Then just think of what the cost in American blood and treasure would be if Russia did attack one of our NATO allies.

And make no mistake, Russia's imperial ambitions do not stop with part, or even all of Ukraine. Estonia's Prime Minister often points out ``If Putin wins, or if he even has the view that he has won this war, his appetite will only grow.'' That is exactly what happened after Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014.

Putin's background is in the overlapping world of the KGB and Russian organized crime. In that world, only strength is respected, and weakness invites aggression. Let's not repeat past mistakes. Preventing future Russian aggression will greatly enhance American security and avoid major costs down the road. That makes it in America's national interest to support a decisive Ukrainian victory as soon as possible.

Mr. President, the Senate Budget Committee is charged with the enforcement of budgetary levels and associated budgetary laws. This duty entails the review of measures through all stages of the legislative process. Consistent with the practice of previous chairs and ranking members of the committee, I have instructed my staff to review all bills and resolutions for which unanimous consent for passage is requested for any budgetary and programmatic effects.

To help my staff perform their duties and avoid unnecessary delays during the unanimous consent process, Members are encouraged to provide Budget Committee staff with legislative text and corresponding budgetary information from either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation. I will use this information to weigh the budgetary and policy implications of each matter.

If after considering this information I decide to object to legislation, I will file notice of that decision publicly.

Mr. President, today, the resolution designating January as National Stalking Awareness month will be voted on and pass the Senate. I thank my colleague and friend Senator Amy Klobuchar for her work and dedication to this subject. Approximately 1 in 6 women and 1 in 17 men in the U.S. have experienced stalking at some point in their lives.

This bipartisan resolution sends a clear message: We will not stand for this egregious conduct. Millions of our fellow Americans have been victims of stalking. Oftentimes, their stories involve years-long episodes, drastic changes to their lives to secure their safety and, sadly, other criminal activity by stalkers. This month is a time for us all to reflect on the pervasiveness of stalking and the serious hardships and dangers faced by victims.

As stated in the resolution, I also want to thank the advocates who are on the frontlines of this issue and stand ready to assist victims and provide them with the resources and support they need and deserve.

The work of advocates raising awareness, of law enforcement and courts taking preventive and punitive action and of serviceworkers in providing help to victims are all worthy of our thanks.

Our work doesn't stop here. I am once again recommitting to the fight against stalking, trafficking, and other conduct that targets our most vulnerable populations.

Madam President, earlier this summer, my Democratic colleagues got through on reconciliation--a strictly partisan way--a bill that provided that the IRS would get $80 billion in mandatory funding, which was meant to double the size of the IRS by 87,000 employees.

This additional $80 billion, which comes on top of its annual appropriation, is over six times more than it received through annual appropriations in 2022. Now, I expect, in the new Congress, starting January 3 next year, there is going to be an attempt to reduce the $80 billion and not go for the 87,000 additional employees. I favor doing just that.

However, in the meantime, the $80 billion and the 87,000 employees is law, and so this unprecedented increase in funding demands that Congress have a comparable increase in congressional oversight of the IRS--exacting and unyielding oversight, to be precise. After all, we are talking about 87,000 new employees.

To begin this oversight, Finance Committee Republicans, including this Senator, sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office in October in pursuit of this oversight. In that letter, we asked for information on outstanding issues that the Government Accountability Office has identified at the Internal Revenue Service and the status of recommendations the IRS has failed to implement.

The Government Accountability Office responded to that letter at the end of November, and, as you might quite expect, there are many ongoing and persistent issues. In the November letter, the Government Accountability Office notes that the IRS had 41 unimplemented recommendations related to information systems control deficiencies at the beginning of the fiscal year 2022 audit of IRS's financial statements.

These outstanding recommendations related to information systems control deficiencies are especially concerning given the recent unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information, contrary to U.S. code section 6103, which guarantees the privacy--or is supposed to guarantee the privacy--of your IRS information.

As you will recall, almost a year and a half ago, ProPublica, a publication, published stories based on ``a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data.''

We are no closer to understanding how ProPublica obtained this confidential taxpayer data now than we were in June of 2021. I have sent multiple letters to the Internal Revenue Service and to the Justice Department requesting updates on their supposed investigations on this matter of how did ProPublica get this private information of individual taxpayers. Yet these Agencies--the IRS and the Justice Department--have failed to provide any information concerning how confidential taxpayer information was disclosed or if additional taxpayer data remains at risk.

In fact, just last week, we learned of another confirmed data breach. The IRS inadvertently redisclosed information from tax returns filed by tax-exempt organizations. This is after the information was already improperly disclosed in September. The IRS clearly has a problem, then, protecting taxpayer information, as the law requires.

Now, the 41 information system deficiencies are only a fraction of the total open recommendations identified by the Government Accountability Office. GAO has said that ``as of November 2022, IRS had 176 open recommendations. Fully implementing these recommendations could significantly improve the IRS's operations.''

Despite IRS's shortcomings, my Democratic colleagues handed the IRS $80 billion in additional funding without seeing its plan for the funds or including the additional oversight. So that is why we are calling on additional oversight. It is very important to protect this $80 billion.

Moreover, my Democratic colleagues have heavily weighted the additional funding toward enforcement rather than updating its systems or taxpayer services, because you can hardly call the IRS and get a live person. If you do, you probably don't get the right answers to your questions. So taxpayer service ought to be the No. 1 goal of this additional $80 billion instead of enforcement.

Specifically, more than half of the additional IRS funding is dedicated to enforcement, while less than 5 percent is for taxpayer services. So you can see that taxpayer services isn't high on the agenda of the IRS. The lopsided nature of the IRS funding raises legitimate concerns of overly aggressive tax enforcement.

This is especially true given that 3.2 million tax filers are still waiting for the IRS to process their 2022 tax returns. Countless others are trying to voluntarily comply with the law but can't get anyone at the IRS to answer the telephone. As a result, my office has been flooded with calls from frustrated Iowans requesting assistance in getting the services they need from the IRS.

This is a recipe for disaster. While serving on the 1998 IRS Restructuring Commission, I heard firsthand from small businesses and from individuals about the abusive tactics the IRS can use when enforcement takes priority over taxpayer services.

Given these and other concerns, Senator Thune and I introduced the IRS Funding Accountability Act. Our bill would place a moratorium on IRS spending its additional funding, other than for taxpayer services, until the IRS submits its spending plan to Congress for approval.

Congress would then have the option to reject the plan.

If Congress approves the spending plan, the IRS and the Treasury would be subject to regular reporting requirements and incur financial penalties for noncompliance--in other words, enhancing Congress's constitutional responsibility of oversight to see that the money spent is intended by Congress.

As the former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I understand the necessity for enforcement. Taxpayers should pay what they owe and not a penny less or a penny more. During my time on the Finance Committee, I have worked to provide the IRS with additional tools to identify tax cheats and to collect tax debts that are already due and owed. For instance, I helped create the bipartisan IRS Private Debt Collection Program, which uses private contractors to track down and collect taxes owed to the IRS that they have shelved as a very low priority.

This program has collected nearly $3 billion in net revenue since fiscal year 2019, including over 1.3 billion in the fiscal year of 2022 alone. Every year this program has operated, it has brought more revenue into the Treasury.

Additionally, I offered improvements to the IRS whistleblower program in 2006. This program incentivizes whistleblowers to expose tax fraud by corporations and high-net worth individuals. Since 2007, this program has collected over $6 billion from noncompliant taxpayers.

Both of these proven programs initially received resistance from the IRS. However, I appreciated former Commissioner Rettig's public support for both of these programs.

If President Biden is really committed to closing the tax gap and going after wealthy tax cheats, he should encourage his nominee for IRS Commissioner, Daniel Werfel, to embrace both of these programs.

The IRS has significant and persistent issues that need to be addressed. Congress must exercise robust and aggressive oversight. This is especially true given the outrageous infusion of $80 billion that is mostly geared toward enforcement against the taxpayer.

The IRS must do a better job protecting taxpayer data, provide better taxpayer service, and use its existing enforcement tools and regular appropriations funding more efficiently. Simply put, that is what the taxpayers deserve.

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

Mr. President, I would like to express my strong opposition to the nomination of Eric Garcetti to be Ambassador to India. I am compelled to vote against Mayor Garcetti due to the serious allegations that he enabled sexual harassment and racism to run rampant in the Los Angeles mayor's office.

During my career, I have prioritized protecting victims of sexual harassment and sexual abuse. In 2005, I cosponsored the Violence Against Women Act. That bill provides vital aid to the Justice Department's Office on Violence Against Women and to law enforcement to protect victims of sexual harassment and abuse.

Over several Congresses, I have co-led bills introduced by Senator Gillibrand to defend victims of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. I cosponsored resolutions introduced by Senator Feinstein to raise awareness of sexual assault. These include the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act of 2021, the Speak Out Act, the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, and a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

I have also pressed the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security for more transparency and accountability on their handling of sexual misconduct in the workplace. Moving into the next Congress, Senator Durbin and I have agreed to jointly pursue these inquiries.

With respect to Mayor Garcetti, several credible whistleblowers approached my office about concerning allegations that he was aware of and enabled his deputy chief of staff Rick Jacobs to sexually harass several employees within the mayor's office.

These men and women allege that Rick Jacobs engaged in inappropriate physical conduct without their consent. They alleged that Rick Jacobs made crude sexual remarks and gestures towards staff and others. They alleged that he made blatantly racist remarks toward Asians and other minorities.

These allegations have also been publicly reported in the Los Angeles Times. Text messages made public by the Los Angeles Times indicate that these instances were common knowledge among the Garcetti staff. One picture that has been made public shows Jacobs inappropriately touching an individual next to him. In the picture Mayor Garcetti is standing on the other side of Mr. Jacobs. For Mayor Garcetti to claim that he didn't know what was going on defies reason.

There is also a pending lawsuit by a Los Angeles police officer against the city of Los Angeles as a result of this type of disgraceful behavior. The kinds of behavior mentioned in the lawsuit include Jacobs subjecting the police officer to unwanted hugs, shoulder massages, and crude sexual language.

In total, my office identified over 19 individuals who have either witnessed Jacobs' behavior or were the victims of it. So who are these brave and courageous individuals who made these allegations?

Are they Republican operatives?

No. They are his former communications director, senior staffers, junior staffers, businessmen, civic leaders, and the Los Angeles Police Department officer assigned to protect him.

Despite attempts by Mayor Garcetti and the Biden administration to frame complaints against him as a political hit job, some of the individuals who have come forward and shed light on misconduct are from Mayor Garcetti's own staff.

How hypocritical is it for this administration to encourage victims of sexual harassment to speak out, yet when they do so against a powerful ally of Joe Biden, they are ignored? And they have been ignored in this matter even after providing evidence of harassment, including photographs and text messages.

When convenient, Democrats have supported claims of harassment with far less.

Just last week, President Biden signed into law a bill sponsored by Senator Gillibrand that I cosponsored which enabled survivors to speak out about workplace sexual assault and harassment. Continuing to push this nominee after signing that bill into law is the very definition of tone deafness.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration is sending a message to victims of sexual harassment in the workplace that they will only be believed when politically convenient. As a result, the Biden administration and all those who support this nomination have no credibility when it comes to protecting victims of sexual harassment.

I conducted a thorough investigation of the allegation irrespective of partisan politics. That is my reputation.

The evidence is clear that Jacobs engaged in blatant sexual misconduct and racist behavior and did it for years. The evidence is clear that Mayor Garcetti either had direct knowledge of it or chose willful ignorance as a defense.

Nobody is that brazen to engage in this type of outrageous behavior against other people unless they know that they have a powerful enabler protecting them. Based on the facts and the evidence, the enabler is Mayor Eric Garcetti.

To defend himself, Mayor Garcetti has pointed to a report which inconceivably purports to clear Jacobs of any wrongdoing. The report was conducted by a law firm hired and paid for by the city of Los Angeles.

Mayor Garcetti and the City of Los Angeles would be liable if the report concluded sexual harassment occurred. The report was also delivered to the city of Los Angeles under attorney-client privilege, apparently in the hope that no one outside the city would ever see it.

The report failed to interview multiple firsthand witnesses. The interviews were not taken under penalty of perjury.

The report focused exclusively on allegations of sexual harassment made by the Los Angeles Police Department and--get this--failed to give due weight to other witnesses.

For example, the report includes an interview with Jacobs in which he admits he used racist language, kissing, hugging, and squeezing people's shoulders. The report also identifies the individual in the lewd photo I mentioned earlier. The report says that the individual stated that Jacobs' actions weren't funny and embarrassed that person.

That makes it clear. It makes it clear nonconsensual, physical contact occurred. It is evidence that sexual harassment occurred. Oddly, the report makes no attempt--no attempt whatsoever--to reconcile how it can conclude there was no sexual harassment after clearly describing sexual harassment throughout.

These aren't acts of transparency; these are acts to sweep this whole thing under the rug. Although Mayor Garcetti may be indifferent to the allegations and the actions of his deputy chief of staff, my colleagues and I have a duty to take such concerning allegations and take them very seriously. Whether here in the United States or abroad, there is no place for sexual misconduct or racism.

Mayor Garcetti has had countless opportunities over the years to stand up for victims by removing his deputy chief of staff, which he failed to do. These fundamental failures by Mayor Garcetti are incompatible with the office that he seeks. Therefore, I can't, in good conscience, vote for him.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to review all of this evidence found in my investigative report as well as what is reported in the press. The facts and the evidence compel me to vote no, and I hope my colleagues will join me in doing the same.

I yield the floor.

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

Today, I come to the floor to pay tribute to the President pro tempore of the United States Senate. He is the longest serving Senator currently serving in this institution, and he is my friend from Vermont, Senator Pat Leahy.

As many of you know, the Senator from Vermont also happens to be a talented photographer. His photos have been published in the New York Times, USA TODAY, and elsewhere. Senator Leahy has also appeared in front of the camera in Batman movies. But this shutterbug was bitten by the political bug, and he certainly made his mark in Vermont politics.

At age 34, he became the youngest and very first Democrat elected to the U.S. Senate from the Green Mountain State, and today, he is Vermont's longest serving Senator, having put his name on the ballot two dozen times during his political career.

A year ago in November, my friend and colleague announced that he would not seek reelection to a ninth term. At the Vermont statehouse, he happened to be there to announce his very first Senate campaign. It was at the Vermont statehouse that he did that, and Pat, at that time, recalled the words of Edmund Burke, the Dubliner who served in the House of Commons during America's Revolutionary War. The words that Burke imparted to the electors of Bristol in 1774 inspired Pat Leahy's approach to public service.

Burke said:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but

his judgment.

Burke also said a representative ought to have ``the most unreserved communication with his constituents.''

Now, in my mind, that still is the essence of representative government.

Although we serve on different sides of the aisle, find ourselves on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, and hail from different regions of the country, Pat and I are called to serve our constituents.

Pat Leahy and I have battled together in the trenches countless times over the years. He is a worthy adversary and, countless times, a trusted legislative ally. It takes grit; it takes grace; it takes gravitas to score victories and stick to the courage of one's convictions.

Indeed, Pat and I have more in common than might meet the eye. He is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal from New England, with a law degree from Georgetown. I am a Midwestern conservative and lifelong family farmer. As Senate colleagues, we share an abiding respect for this institution of the Senate. We value bipartisanship. For decades, we have earned the public trust of the voters of Vermont and Iowa. That tells me that Vermonters and Iowans prioritize hard work and constituent service.

At his announcement last November, Pat shared that he and his wife Marcelle made the decision together and that it was, to quote his words, ``time to put down the gavel.''

First, I want to say how much Barbara and I cherish our friendships. Barbara and I celebrated 68 years of marriage last August 22. Two days later, Marcelle and Pat celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary. Barbara and Marcelle are both cancer survivors and have developed a close friendship over these many years. These wives are strong and resilient and use their voices to advocate for early detection and treatment to save lives. Now, I can only speak for myself--and I believe my friend would agree--the unconditional support of Marcelle and Barbara have made us better men and then better Members of the U.S. Senate.

As I mentioned, Pat and Marcelle arrived at their heartfelt decision--made in partnership--to, using his words, ``put down the gavel.'' As you can see here from this photograph, Chairman Leahy certainly knows how to wield a gavel. He has had plenty of practice. In his nearly half century of service, Pat has chaired all of these committees: the Agriculture Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and the Appropriations Committee. This photo was taken in 2015 when then- Chairman Leahy presented me with an engraved gavel as I prepared to take the helm of the Judiciary Committee. By the size of this gavel he is firmly holding in his hands, I am awfully glad that Senator Leahy and I get along so well. Although we don't always see eye to eye on politics, we have found common ground on issues that matter. We respect each other's views and values and build consensus based on mutual trust.

We have served many years together on the Agriculture Committee. Senator Leahy added tens of thousands of acres to the Green Mountain National Forest and is one of the few people on Earth who can explain Federal milk marketing orders--and, boy, did he go to bat for the Northeast dairy farmers.

Senator Leahy has cultivated expertise in Foreign Affairs that is recognized here at home and around the world. He has leveraged his leadership to help ban the export of anti-personnel land mines and secure justice for war victims.

For years, Senator Leahy and I partnered together to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act and also the very important whistleblower protection laws.

We have worked together to root out fraud and protect national security with reforms to the EB-5 investor visa program.

We share a fierce commitment to securing our States' fair shares as champions of small, rural States in America.

From broadband to infrastructure, to the opioid crisis and pandemic relief, Senator Leahy and I have rolled up our sleeves and put in the work to ensure the people of Iowa and Vermont don't get short-ended.

For decades, Senator Leahy and I have served together on the Canada- U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group to advance bilateral economic and trade issues.

In May of 2000, we held our annual conference on the steamboat Delta Queen along a route from Memphis to New Orleans. I cochaired the committee discussing international trade, and Senator Leahy cochaired the panel on international affairs.

In May of 2011, our group met with international partners in Belgium and traveled to Russia, where Senator Leahy gave a very important speech on the judiciary and the rule of law, and then to Ireland to advance in all of these places diplomacy, peace, and prosperity.

I have enjoyed working together to forge fruitful relations around the world.

As I reflect on our years of service together here in the U.S. Senate, some observers might actually suggest times sure are different than when we first came to Washington. Pat was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1974, the same year that Iowans elected me to the U.S. House of Representatives--at that time, the only Republican in the Iowa delegation. Despite the partisanship and polarization that is defining civic life this year and for the last few years, I have great hope for America.

Senator Leahy and I share an abiding fidelity to uphold the promise of America. I am honored to have served these many years in Senator Leahy's company.

Vermonters placed their trust in Senator Leahy's judgment. They counted on his vote, his voice, and his leadership to represent their values, and Senator Leahy has delivered.

Barbara and I wish Pat and Marcelle joyful days ahead in each other's company on their farm, and we wish them that for many, many years to come.

Godspeed to my friend from Vermont.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Last Friday, Elon Musk released documents and very good information relating to Twitter's interference in the 2020 Presidential election by censoring the New York Post Hunter Biden reporting. Just yesterday, Musk reportedly fired Twitter's general counsel, Jim Baker, for his involvement in the censorship scandal. Baker, you might remember, was general counsel at the FBI and was involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

You can't make up these stories.

Musk also released information that showed that the Biden campaign was involved in the censorship efforts. The information shows that Twitter employees knew--actually knew--that they had no legitimate basis to censor the Hunter Biden reporting but proceeded to do it anyway. Twitter also removed links and blocked the reporting from being shared by direct messaging on its platform. Folks that fought the good fight against Twitter's extraordinary censorship were also locked out of their accounts.

These documents that Musk made public made very clear that Twitter was effectively an arm of the Democratic Party and the Biden campaign. Twitter essentially gave the Biden campaign a massive in-kind campaign contribution.

What Twitter and other big tech companies did in 2020 with respect to censorship was as much an outrage then as it is today. Simply put, what they did is expected of communist China, not the United States of America.

Reports also indicate that the FBI warned Twitter during weekly meetings before the 2020 election that hack-and-leak operations involving Hunter Biden material were likely to occur in October of 2020. Well, the FBI had the Hunter Biden laptop since December of 2019, almost a year before the election.

Information on it has been verified by liberal news outlets. It took a long time for those liberal news outlets to admit that this wasn't Russian disinformation.

So, then, I ask this question: Did the FBI do the same or did they fail to do their due diligence?

I find the FBI's action in advance of the 2020 election to be more than suspicious. It is too bad that just now, 2 years later, we get this information from a person that bought Twitter and wants the public to know what actually went on.

Now, some of you remember that Senator Johnson and I released our first report on the Biden family connections to communist China on September 23, 6 weeks before the 2020 election. And you know, if you remember, at that time it was swept up into the Hunter Biden censorship fiasco not long after. So, too, was our second report, which we released on November 18, 2020.

But we were more than just censored. Before we even made the first report public, the liberal media and even some of our Democratic colleagues tried to smear us with false claims that our work was connected to you know what--Russian disinformation. My Senate colleagues went into full Joe Biden protection mode.

So here we have four elements to this fact pattern that ought to shake up every Member of the U.S. Senate and shake them up to their very core. No. 1, the FBI got their hands on Twitter via these weekly briefings--the weekly briefings that I have already expressed existed-- and planted seeds regarding future hacked material relating to Hunter Biden. No. 2, the FBI improperly labeled information it possessed on Hunter Biden as you know what--disinformation. No. 3, the FBI provided an unnecessary August 2020 briefing to me and Senator Johnson that was used by some Democrats and by the liberal media to try to undermine our investigation that started well before the 2020 election. No. 4, the liberal media repeatedly and falsely labeled my and Senator Johnson's investigation as you know what--Russia disinformation.

Now, all of that happened in the runup to the 2020 Presidential election.

In the long run, these false allegations and bad faith efforts against me and Senator Johnson didn't work, as everybody knows now but didn't know at the time.

For example, in this Congress, Senator Johnson and I gave floor speeches on these dates in 2022: March 28, March 29, and April 5. Through those speeches, we introduced bank records connecting Hunter and James Biden to the Chinese communist regime. We sent hundreds of pages of bank records to U.S. Attorney Weiss on October 26 of this year, showing those very same connections--the same connections that Johnson and

I made in our 2020 report. These are authentic bank records. They aren't Russian disinformation.

President Biden still owes the American people answers about his connections to Hunter and James Biden's business deals and arrangements. He owes the American people an explanation as to how much he knew about their businesses and personal relationships with communist China.

On October 13 of this year, I wrote to the FBI telling them that I know it possesses documents that indicate Joe Biden was aware of Hunter Biden's business arrangements and may have been involved in some.

In conclusion, since Senator Johnson and I began our Biden investigation August 2019--now, remember, 14 months before the 2020 election--now, after all that, our work has been substantiated. Big Tech censorship may have succeeded in the short term; however, the truth eventually sees the light of day. And I thank the new Twitter owner for his transparency. Accountability should follow.