Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak about Orrin Hatch, whom many of us were fortunate enough to work with for many, many years. He had a tremendous impact on the U.S. Senate and, in turn, on America.

Barbara and I first want to express our condolences to Elaine, his wife, to their six children and their families, and to all of those who mourn the passing of this outstanding public servant and humble servant of the Lord.

Senator Hatch's funeral will be this Friday.

In December of 2018, as his incredible 42 years in the U.S. Senate were drawing to a close, Orrin Hatch delivered the usual farewell address of retiring Members here on the Senate floor.

Concerned about the direction that he had seen this institution take in recent years, he said:

We must restore the culture of comity, compromise, and

mutual respect that used to exist here--and still does, in

some respects.

He also said:

We must not be enemies but friends.

In his farewell address and in the quotes that I just read, Orrin's commitment to mutual respect and integrity is made very clear. It is also a charge to us to honor his memory by taking his words to heart as we go about our work here and in what we do across the country.

During Orrin's career, he served as chairman of the Finance Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and as President pro tem of the U.S. Senate. I have had the honor of doing those same three things. The Finance Committee and the Judiciary Committee are powerful committees that deal with matters of broad importance to America. Decisions are made there that directly affect the lives of all Americans. Many times, dearly held beliefs and principles held by different Senators come into conflict during long hours of work on important legislation or with high-level Cabinet and judicial nominations.

Many of the tributes to Orrin have already made an observation which I share from our decades of working together at the negotiating table.

Orrin was an unflinching, dyed-in-the-wool statesman who stayed true to his values and his convictions and finessed disagreements with a spirit of collegiality. He always remembered that he was working with friends and not enemies, and he always remembered why he was in the U.S. Senate--to represent the great people of Utah. Orrin's ability to disagree without being disagreeable was evident from his incredible level of productivity. According to the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation, when he retired, he had passed more legislation into law than any living Senator and had sponsored or cosponsored more than 750 bills that were enacted into law.

As anyone who has spent any length of time in the Senate knows very well, getting legislation enacted into law, especially any enduring legislation, requires the ability to develop relationships and build trust with Members of both parties. To be productive over the long term, those relationships need to be able to withstand the unproductive partisanship that tends to dominate the fleeting issues of the day.

Some of Orrin's most significant legislative accomplishments highlight his ability to work across the aisle.

A prime example is the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, also known as Hatch-Waxman, stemming from his work with longtime Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman.

Another important piece of legislation is the State Children's Health Insurance Program on which he worked with the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Orrin regularly talked about working with his good friend Senator Kennedy. For many years, Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy appeared to be complete opposites. They couldn't imagine that those two Senators, with very different views, could even work together, much less be friends. People who say that don't understand how the Senate works.

Orrin's spirit of bipartisanship didn't come at the expense of his principles. Whether he was criticized for compromising with Democrats or for not compromising enough, Orrin stuck with what he believed was the right thing to do.

As chairman of the Finance Committee, during consideration of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Orrin took the lead in drafting the most important tax reform legislation to be enacted in more than 30 years.

When staff would discuss provisions to be included in the legislation, Orrin would repeatedly ask what the tax policy was. This was always his primary concern, not what was the most politically expedient policy or the best policy with which to win reelection. Orrin wanted to get the details right, and the rest of his decisions flowed from that perspective. I know because I worked with him for decades on that committee, particularly during that legislation.

Despite the criticism he would get from all sides, Orrin would never let that drive him off course from sticking with his values and from being civil with his colleagues. In his office, Orrin had a statue of a red-tailed hawk that staff had given to him. It had a plaque on it that said, ``Tough old bird.'' He adopted that phrase to describe himself to reporters and many who met him in his office.

His ``tough old bird'' status was fully evident one late night during the Finance Committee's consideration of that tax bill I have referred to--the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. When Republicans were accused of only being interested in looking out for the very rich, Orrin forcefully noted his own very humble beginnings. He shared how he had worked his whole career for ``people who don't have a chance.''

Another principle Orrin shared with me was the importance of staff. To be effective day in and day out and to sift through the avalanche of information that comes into every Senator's office, good staff is vital, particularly when a Senator has served for a lengthy period of time. Staff is important to preserving the institutional memory of a committee. From years of around-the-clock work, they become really a second family. They may not share blood ties, but they share loyalty and share service to dig down into the trenches when policymaking and politics become a blood sport. So having longevity and cohesion within a staff is very, very important.

A tradition that I believe was unique to the Hatch office was the election of a Pioneer Day's King and Queen from the people within that office. Now, Pioneer Day is a Utah State holiday that celebrates the entry of the first Mormon pioneers into Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847. To recognize that holiday, everyone working for Senator Hatch, whether in his personal office or on a committee he chaired, would vote for a King and Queen from a slate of candidates from within that office. At a lunch attended by the whole office, Orrin would announce the winners and crown the King and Queen. The coronation was a salute to their service to the people of Utah, whose enduring pioneering spirit rings true to this very day.

Outside of ensuring his office was a place that good staff would want to work, Orrin was no aloof boss. His sincerity shined through with me and his Senate colleagues and then, of course, with his staff. He wanted to know what was happening in his staff's lives and made sure to say that he appreciated their advice even when he might not take that advice.

In closing, I return to what I said about Orrin and what he said in his farewell address. I associate myself with his remarks that we must be friends and not enemies. That is how we can honor Orrin Hatch and keep his spirit within this institution that he cared so much for and devoted much of his life to--here, right here, in the Senate.

Orrin's lifetime of public service helped generations of families in Utah achieve a better quality of life and made America and the U.S. Senate a better place.

Godspeed, my friend.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, there has been a lot of noise about canceling student debt. That has been going on for quite a few months, but it seems to have taken on a new life here within the last week to 10 days. That whole talk is worse than closing the barn door after the horse has escaped; it is like buying a new horse but leaving the barn door open. If all student debt was gone tomorrow, we would be right back where we started when this whole new crop of students graduate.

Last month, the administration unilaterally extended all the pause on paying back student loans for all borrowers until the end of August, regardless of need. It doesn't matter that all Americans are back to work now, if they want to be back to work. It doesn't matter if the borrower is making six figures and can afford to pay off their loans.

The latest extension will bring the cost of this student loan payment pause up to about $150 billion. Just to put that $150 billion in context, the entire Department of Education budget for this year is about half of that amount at $80 billion.

Higher education advocates have been calling for the doubling of the Pell grant. That is the program that targets aid to those with the most financial need. It is a noble goal to double the Pell grant; but, of course, Congress needs to find the money somewhere to do just that.

Now, instead, the Biden administration is spending billions of dollars to allow high earners with graduate degrees to not pay their loans with no say from the Congress of the United States. And you know the President of the United States has been debating for months--maybe starting at the beginning of his term--did he really have the authority to do it. He has expressed the opinion, at least on the $50,000 figure, that he didn't figure he had the authority to do it. I question whether he has that authority at all.

If you want to help those who owe more in student loans than they can afford to pay, we need to fix the student loan program on the front end. In other words, we need to change the incentives and give colleges a reason to bring down tuition. Right now, a high school student looking at college is often in the dark about what they will end up paying to attend college and to get that degree. It is no wonder that prices rise when students don't know even what those prices are. And students are encouraged, of course, to borrow the maximum even if they don't need that maximum, because that is what the Federal law requires.

So in response to this problem about a Federal policy encouraging students to go into more debt than they need to get their degree and also about the rising tuition costs because colleges think they can raise their tuition at will because the Federal Government is going to come in and help the student, I have introduced three bipartisan bills to give students the information they need to make the choice that works best for them. My bills would make it easier for students to see how much each college would cost, what aid they are going to be getting, and what their average salary versus student loan payments would be. The answer isn't to cancel student debt only after students have gotten in well over their heads, it

is to stop them from getting into that situation in the very first place. And it certainly wouldn't be done unilaterally from the White House with no say from this Congress on the $150 billion program.

Now, even worse, the benefits of just canceling or pausing student debt are mainly going to those at the top of the income range. Graduates with the most debt also tend to be those with the longest degrees and they are now doctors or lawyers. These people, doctors and lawyers, might have plenty of debt now, but people with graduate degrees are also much more likely to have a higher salary and much higher lifetime earnings.

Are the two-thirds of the Americans without college degrees somehow less deserving of a free $10,000 or $50,000 in canceled debt than doctors or lawyers? And what about those people that have already paid off their loans? Are they going to bear the costs of people that borrowed too much when this is forgiven at the $10,000 or $50,000 level?

I am sure many Iowans would be happy to have their car loans or mortgages paid off. Is there any thought about what this can lead to? It is pretty clear. Canceling debt is not a solution. Instead, I have been glad to see many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join my bills to prevent excess student debt in the very first place.

We need to help students by giving them the information they need to find the best college for their needs at a cost they can afford. Otherwise, forgiving student debt is a slippery slope to a lot of other interests wanting debt forgiveness.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Soon, we will be voting on Judge Jackson's nomination, and I would like to explain why I am voting against her appointment to the Supreme Court.

Since the White House announced Judge Jackson's nomination, I have emphasized the need for a thorough and fair process. Unfortunately, the majority party weren't concerned about the rigorous examination of her record. The White House and the majority party have shielded important information. We don't have any nonpublic document from her time at the Sentencing Commission, and the Obama White House held back more than 48,000 pages.

Judge Jackson also gave the White House confidential, nonpublic probation recommendations for some of her

cases, but when we asked about a probation document filed on the Hawkins case, Judge Jackson claimed that she was not able to access records for her old cases because that was allegedly because she was no longer on the district court. And we now know that she sits on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Now, if that is true, there are many unanswered questions about how information the White House thought was helpful was so easily obtained. So we should take into account that all the helpful information has already been leaked.

That brings me to the merits of Judge Jackson's nomination. For judicial nominees, their philosophy ought to decide--how to decide cases ought to be a primary consideration.

Part of having a judicial philosophy is having an understanding of the fundamental principles of our Constitution. Natural rights are a part of that system. Judge Jackson explained to us that she does not ``hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.''

Now, that ought to be very shocking. Natural rights are basic to our constitutional system and principles of limited government. Because we all know our country was founded on the belief that is expressed in the Declaration of Independence:

All men are created equal [and] they are endowed by their

Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are

the Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

And that was further nailed down in the Constitution of the United States.

Our Constitution vests the three branches of government with very limited power. All other powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the States and to the people thereof.

The principle of limited government is what makes America an exceptional nation and sets our Constitution apart. Judges must have a proper understanding of those basic principles; and the way Judge Jackson answered those questions, particularly the answers she gave to Senator Cruz, shows that she lacks that very necessary foundation.

Now, I want to go on to a few other examples. At the hearing, Judge Jackson testified about one of her decisions involving the First Step Act. In that case, prosecutors had rock-solid evidence against a dangerous drug kingpin, but Judge Jackson was displeased the government pursued a mandatory minimum sentence.

So she misused a motion for compassionate release to resentence that person to a sentence she thought he deserved.

As the lead author of the First Step Act, I know that is not what we wrote the statute to do. The act was supposed to allow elderly inmates and those suffering from terminal illness to petition the court for a sentence reduction. The statute also allows for a reduction if the court finds an ``extraordinary and compelling reason.''

Judges should use great discretion. Judges should weigh against the charge, the dangers to society, and the risk of recidivism.

At her hearing, Judge Jackson said that she based her ``extraordinary and compelling'' finding on the nonretroactive changes to the law. This radical interpretation is terrible and dangerous.

Congress chose which provisions the First Step Act would apply retroactively. The Senate is currently considering legislation that I cosponsored with Chairman Durbin that makes some of the First Step Act provisions retroactive, but that is Congress's role, not Judge Jackson's role.

Senator Durbin and I wouldn't have been able to broker a compromise on that legislation if Senators thought the judges would rewrite the law and insert their own views from the bench. Decisions like this will make bipartisan work, particularly on criminal justice reform, harder to do.

A case by the name of Young is just one example of Judge Jackson's lenient approach to criminal law and sentencing. She also declined to apply a number of sentencing enhancements that Congress put into the sentencing guidelines.

A case by the name of Make the Road New York v. McAleenan is another case that shows how Judge Jackson used her methodology to reach a result that contradicts the plain text of the law. Congress gave the Secretary of Homeland Security--and these are the words from the law-- ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' to decide whether illegal immigrants should be subject to expedited removal within 2 years. Judge Jackson reviewed the Agency's decision anyway, and it seems clear why.

She went out of her lane to comment on the policy as, in her words, ``a terrible proposal.'' And she claimed that the government attorneys made an argument that ``reeks of bad faith.'' ``Reeks of bad faith'' are her words.

In fact, her decision and her rhetoric are unfounded. So that is why her decision earned a strong rebuke from the panel of liberal and conservative judges when she was reversed by the DC Circuit.

Judge Millett, an Obama appointee, explained it this way in the opinion:

[T]here could hardly be a more definitive expression of

congressional intent [than] . . . ``sole and unreviewable

discretion.''

These are just a few examples of Judge Jackson's judicial activism. Because her record clearly shows she does not believe in or act within the limited and proper role of a judge, I will vote against her confirmation.

I yield the floor.

The majority leader is going to come to the floor, and I will yield the floor for him when he comes here, but I would like to yield the floor without losing the right to the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to thank my staff who worked on this nomination.

First, I would like to recognize the contributions of Kolan Davis, my chief counsel and staff director. Kolan was assisted by Brendan Chestnut, my chief counsel for nominations.

The staff in the nominations unit also worked incredibly hard on this nomination. They include Lauren Mehler, Gabi Kenny, Vetan Kapoor, and Raija Munk.

The permanent nominations team received some reinforcements for this Supreme Court nomination. Annie Croslow joined my staff to lead the team of special counsels assisting on this nomination. That team includes Annika Boone, Kyle Cole, Isaac Fong, Jenna Lorence, Daniel Morales, and Luke Zaro. This team scoured Judge Jackson's record. They spent countless hours reviewing her opinions, her speeches, and pulling filings and transcripts for her cases. Their exhaustive review helped the Republicans on the committee prepare for her confirmation process.

I also want to thank the communications director, Taylor Foy, as well as the deputy communications director, George Hartmann, Aaron Britt, Annie Richardson, Jennifer Heins, and Megan Behrends also contributed to the communications effort.

Other staff also helped review and prepare for the nomination, including Dave Lewen, Lauren Stimpert, Rachel Wright, Erin Creegan, Tianna Torrejon, and Chesney Mallory, as well as law clerks Carly Hviding, Luke Bunting, and Noelle Daniel.

Finally, I want to thank the rest of my Judiciary Committee staff for their continued work during this process and also thank my deputy staff director, Rita Lari, for her advice and leadership.

Madam President, lots of pundits are trying to get into President Putin's head and looking for some so-called off-ramp. Now, I am not a pundit, and I do not pretend to be able to read Putin's mind. However, I do listen carefully to those closest to Russia who have better insights than the American pundits, academics, and foreign policy theorists.

I happen to be cochair of the Senate Baltic Freedom Caucus, so I interact regularly with Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians--three countries that in 1940 the Soviet Union absorbed into it, and then since about 1990, they have been independent of Russia. So you can see these countries are historically Western in every sense except geography, but they have had a long and often painful exposure to the Russian-Soviet-KGB way of thinking.

Our Baltic friends can help others in the West who cannot seem to fathom what is going through Putin's mind. The fact that we cannot understand Putin's mindset is because he doesn't think like modern Western leaders.

Now, this is important insight from my Baltic contacts. Putin is stuck in the 17th and 18th centuries. Now, you know I like history, so this is something that I can understand. Putin thinks like a czar expanding his empire. He regrets the collapse of the Soviet Union--not because of communist ideology but because it reconstituted the Russian empire.

In foreign policy, it is easy to assume other countries are just like us. Experts don't know what to make of an 18th-century imperialist.

Some observers have speculated that Putin has gone crazy because he does not seem to be acting rationally, but from the standpoint of someone who thinks Ukraine is not a real country, as Putin has said for decades, and who regrets the collapse of the ``evil empire,'' he is acting rationally.

Our Baltic allies have been warning the West that Putin is an aggressor since well before the current invasion of Ukraine, before the 2014 invasion of neutral Ukraine, before the disastrous Obama administration ``reset'' of relations with Russia, and before the 2008 invasion of Georgia.

The Baltics have often been dismissed as hysterical or Russophobic or at least exaggerating when they warn about Russia. Well, the world has awakened to the fact that the Baltics were right all along.

We should have armed Ukraine to the teeth years ago. Putin only understands strength.

What lessons should have been learned from Putin's pattern of aggression over the years? Putin only understands strength, and weakness is provocative.

During the Hungarian uprising of 1956, when the Hungarian people were protesting to break free of Soviet control, the Eisenhower administration in this country paid lipservice to the aspirations for freedom but was secretly obsessed with not provoking the Soviets.

Eisenhower's Secretary of State, Dulles, made his speech in Dallas, TX, where he said this:

The [United States] has no ulterior purpose in desiring the

independence of the satellite countries. . . . We do not look

upon these nations as potential military allies. So you can see the expansion of NATO today proves how wrong Dulles was at that time.

However, after the Dulles speech, he then cabled the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, instructing that this be brought to the attention of the highest Soviet authorities. Any wonder why Hungary wasn't freed at that time?

The Estonian historian and also its former Prime Minister, Mart Laar, maintains that this message from Dulles was interpreted by Moscow as a carte blanche to intervene and the Americans would not stand in the way. That is why he titled the relevant chapter in his book on the rise and fall of communism in the region ``The lost opportunity: 1956.''

So what do our Baltic friends advise right now in the face of Putin's threats to escalate if we supply Ukraine with fighter jets or other advanced weapons?

Believe it or not, their advice is to relax. In other words, don't overreact to Putin's threats.

We have a nuclear deterrent and Putin knows that. The more we show we are scared by his threats, the harder he will push. And we absolutely need to stop declaring what we will not do in regard to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That just seems to embolden Putin to push harder.

The failure to push back the previous Russian aggressions--and that is not just a Biden problem. That is a problem of both Republican and Democratic Presidents before. Also the failure to enforce previous redlines in Syria and the perception of weakness from the Afghanistan pullout debacle--those three things are at least part of the reason for what is going on in Ukraine.

I hope President Biden has picked up on this as well.

Now is the time to redouble our efforts to reinforce Ukraine. Putin appears to have accepted that he cannot conquer all of Ukraine, but he is very definitely repositioning his forces to take as big of a chunk of the country as he can.

Ukraine must win this war--on to victory. Anything short of a Ukraine victory is an invitation for further Russian aggression elsewhere and, who knows, maybe even encouraging China.

We have got to stop the finger-pointing. We have got to stop the excuses, and we have got to get Ukraine air defenses, drones, and anything else to shift the balance.

To date, the United States and our allies have supplied the heroic Ukrainian military with the kinds of weapons that have allowed them to hang on while their cities are shelled and civilians are massacred.

The battle for Kyiv may have been won, but the battle for the east is only going to intensify. Unless we tip the balance, this could go on for a long, long time.

We have seen how brutal the Russian occupation has been in just 1 month. Imagine months and months of this in eastern Ukraine.

I have a bill with my friend Senator Durbin to guarantee that the United States will backfill certain critical weapons transferred to Ukraine by our eastern flank of NATO allies. Many NATO countries have been very generous in handing over their weapons to Ukraine. This is leaving a security gap in those very countries. But they know that if Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, then those countries are at greater risk. As Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas says, Putin cannot even think he has won or his appetite will only grow.

Some of our NATO allies also have air defense systems and drones that could make a big difference in Ukraine.

There are rumors of negotiations to supply items needed in Ukraine, provided there is agreement to acquire American replacements. My bill with Durbin would provide that assurance up front without the redtape that seems to be involved in almost everything we do to help Ukraine.

Putin has talked constantly about what he calls ``demilitarization and denazification'' as his justification for launching this brutal invasion of Ukraine. That phrase does not make much sense on its face, but, again, we have to keep in mind that Putin has an imperial mindset.

No military analyst looking at Ukraine and Russia could possibly think that Ukraine posed any military threat to Russia. The Russian military dwarfs the Ukrainian one in manpower as well as equipment. In fact, it is clear that Putin and his military leaders underestimated the fighting ability of the Ukrainians.

The same is frankly true of NATO's military power along Russia's borders. What Putin means by ``demilitarizing'' is to shrink Ukraine's military to the point that that country is indefensible. He wants Ukraine totally susceptible to Russian threats, meaning back within Russia's sphere of influence.

Now, what about the term ``denazification''? Ever since World War II, Soviet leaders routinely labeled those in the Soviet Republics who expressed a desire for independence that they were fascist or Nazi. It is pretty clear that Putin's initial goal was to

eliminate Ukraine's current government, starting with President Zelenskyy. So despite being descended from Holocaust survivors, denazification starts, from Putin's point of view, by eliminating a Jewish President, Zelenskyy.

A recent article in a Russian state-run publication, RIA Novosti, confirmed that denazification means that the elected government must be eliminated as well as the Ukrainian military. But this article goes on to say:

However, in addition to the top, a significant part of the

masses who are passive Nazis, accomplices of Nazism, are also

guilty. They supported and indulged Nazi power. . . .

Denazification will inevitably be de-Ukrainianization.

This ought to be very chilling to all of us, especially in light of the massacre at Bucha that we saw on television this week and other Ukrainian cities.

That statement reminds me of this quote from Catherine the Great after she completed her takeover of an independent Ukrainian state just 10 years before our own Declaration of Independence:

Every effort should be made to eradicate them and their age

from memory.

``Them'' meaning the Ukrainians.

Stalin killed millions of Ukrainians by intentionally starving them to death with the same goal in the early 1930s.

Now, you know that Putin has praised Stalin and is now imitating Stalin.

The U.N. Genocide Convention defines genocide to mean ``any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.''

That sure seems to fit with what we know about Putin and his occupation of Ukraine.

There is one last lesson that we can learn from our Baltic friends. Despite the murder and deportation to Siberia of masses of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians to suppress their national identity, there were 10 years of active guerilla warfare by bands of what they called Forest Brothers. In fact, resistance never really ended until the Baltic countries threw off Soviet rule.

I will leave you with the first few lines of the Ukrainian national anthem:

The glory and freedom of Ukraine has not yet perished.

Luck will still smile on us, brother-Ukrainians.

Our enemies will die, as the dew does in the sunshine,

And we, too, brothers, we'll live happily in our land.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, Senator Johnson and I will present our third speech on the Biden investigation series.

Today, we will focus on James Biden, the President's brother. Hunter Biden wasn't the only Biden family member who had connections to the Chinese communist regime. James Biden did as well.

Before we begin our discussion, I think we will need to mention the main company once again, the Chinese company that goes by the initials

Mr. President, I thank Senator Johnson. I will just quickly say that the journalists in this town have an obligation to investigate. They ave an obligation to uncover the facts and the evidence. They have failed time and again.

What has been reported recently is simply the tip of the iceberg. The question now is: Instead of accusing us of peddling Russian disinformation, will the media actually engage in true investigative journalism? Will the media act with intellectual honesty, or will the media continue to cover all this up for the Biden administration?

Now, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to engage in oversight of the executive branch. The Biden administration has been totally unresponsive to our oversight requests; specifically, requests that relate to the Biden criminal case.

Is Nicholas McQuaid recused from the Hunter Biden case? No answer from the Department. Does the Department possess FISA information on Patrick Ho, Hunter Biden's associate? The Department told a Federal court they do. They told me and Senator Johnson that they aren't sure. Can you imagine that?

When Hunter Biden communicated with Patrick Ho, were his communications captured by our intelligence community? Is the Biden administration intentionally withholding this material from Congress out of fear of what we will find?

In light of the Biden administration's total failure to respond to our questions, these are legitimate questions to ask. The Biden Justice Department's actions have cast a cloud over the case. The American people are rightly skeptical of the impact it may have on it.

Transparency brings accountability. This week, Senator Johnson and I have done what we can to bring transparency to our oversight work for the American people. We will continue to do so.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter to the Senate Archivist be printed in the Record.

Today, I come to the Senate floor to discuss the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. This has been introduced in the House and now introduced in the Senate by this Senator and by my colleague and friend, Senator Feinstein.

This bill is a product of bipartisan work and much collaboration. I also want to thank Senators Cornyn and Klobuchar, who are true leaders in this area and also introduced their trafficking legislation this week. I look forward to continuing to work with those two Senators, as well, on this issue.

Many Americans tend to view human slavery as a thing of the past. We read about it in our history books and collectively cringe at the concept of such injustice. Unfortunately, however, the reality is that human slavery is alive and well, even today, in the form of sex and labor trafficking. According to the State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons Report, human trafficking is a $150 billion business worldwide. Through deception, through threats, through violence, the perpetrators of these crimes will do whatever--whatever-- it takes to turn a profit at their victims' expense.

With the introduction of this bill, we are acting as a voice for those human trafficking victims in the United States who cannot speak for themselves. To combat this crime within our borders, we have addressed the scourge on multiple fronts. The bill we have championed would extend several key victims' services programs that were established under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. It would promote screening of human trafficking victims, enhance training for Federal investigators, and start a pilot program for young people at high risk of being trafficked.

Our bill also includes the Survivor's Bill of Rights, a bill I developed with survivors and an advocate named Amanda Nguyen, which encourages States to ensure that survivors have, at minimum, the rights guaranteed to survivors under Federal law.

Fighting for victims has been one of my top priorities as chairman and now ranking member of Senate Judiciary. I consider it a privilege to shape the law to ensure that trafficking victims receive necessary services. I also take pride in helping law enforcement and prosecutors hold the perpetrators accountable for these selfish acts.

Lastly, this bill has the support of the National District Attorneys Association, Rights4Girls, Shared Hope International, Covenant House, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. I am grateful for all of these groups and the important work that they do.

This bipartisan bill is a strong start, and, of course, the work doesn't stop with a single piece of legislation. I look forward to marking this bill up in the Judiciary Committee and getting it signed into law.

Prescription Drug Costs

Mr. President, on another relatively short matter, as well, something I come to the floor frequently to speak about and something I waited throughout last year to see if the Democrats' approach to prescription drugs was going to become law--and it doesn't look to me like that route is going to be successful.

So I continually bring up another piece of legislation that I am working on with Senator Wyden. It is a bill that says very clearly that this Senator--and I think I speak for many, many Senators--that we want lower prescription drugs now. I said that in the Finance Committee hearing 2 weeks ago, and I say it again: I want lower prescription drugs now.

What are we waiting for? We have a bipartisan prescription drug package called Wyden-Grassley that will save seniors $72 billion and the taxpayers $95 billion.

Senator Wyden said during the Finance Committee's most recent drug pricing hearing that ``there is no question that the committee came'' forward--I am going to start this quote over again:

There is no question that the committee came together in

the last Congress and came up with a number of constructive

bipartisan reforms. Period. Full stop.

Why aren't we then advancing this bipartisan bill? What is the majority waiting for?

One of my colleagues on the other side tweeted this:

POTUS has the authority to lower drug prices all on his

own--he should use it.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is calling for this same thing, as well.

And then in the Washington Post, I read this headline:

Advocates seek other pathways to lower drug prices.

Far-left groups are pushing President Biden to bypass Congress and exert executive authority. Is that some sort of statement that we are giving up on the legislative path? Why would we, in Congress, not move ahead? It is not like all options for legislation have been exhausted.

The majority has spent 15 months attempting to pass their partisan prescription drug bill. It has gone nowhere. It doesn't have 60 votes. But that is not the only option. Has the Democratic majority given up on lowering prescription drug prices and is counting on doing it only by Executive order? Are they saying they have to do it in a way where only Democrats get credit or not do anything at all? Do Democrats really want to help seniors or would they rather have a campaign issue?

The longer we wait, patients and taxpayers are going to continue to pay those high prices, and for some families, that is a suffering position to be in.

Let's work to advance a bipartisan prescription drug bill that can pass with 60-plus votes. We can do it today. It is already negotiated and ready to go. I will work with anyone who wants to pass the bipartisan Wyden-Grassley bill. Just give me a call.

I said something about last year, that you had to sit around and wait for the Democrats to get something done on a totally partisan basis. I don't say that they didn't work hard to get a bill passed that would have reduced prescription drug prices.

But I just didn't sit around all of 2021. In the past 15 months, I want to give you some of the things that I have been doing to try to sell a bipartisan bill. I spoke with President Biden's White House staff--although I did have a short conversation with President Biden himself. I met with Speaker Pelosi. I met with Leader McCarthy. I had a phone call with HHS Secretary Becerra. I met with the 10 Democrats who were wise to this issue that you can't pass a bipartisan prescription drug bill.

These 10 House Democrats wrote to the Speaker, way last summer, wanting a bipartisan prescription drug pricing bill. I met with not all 10 of them, but I will bet I met with at least 5 of them, and they were receptive to doing what I am doing. It doesn't mean they were receptive to doing it exactly the way I wanted to do it, but they were receptive to working in a bipartisan way.

Then I met with the Republican and Democrat group that is called the Problem Solvers Caucus Healthcare Working Group.

Peter Welch, a Democrat from Vermont, has been on top of this issue for years and years. I had breakfast with him.

I met with Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers because she is the top Republican in the House dealing with this issue.

I met with Senators Sinema and Carper and other rank-and-file Members of Congress.

While Democrats talk about lowering drug costs, they haven't made any progress. The only bipartisan progress that has been made on drug pricing has been under Republican leadership. If Republicans take control of the Senate next Congress, Republicans will be lowering prescription drug prices. We shouldn't have to wait another 8, 9 months. And who knows who will control the next Congress in the first place. We don't have to wait a whole year. Let's lower prescription drug prices today.

I yield the floor.

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act

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

Yesterday, Senator Johnson and I discussed a joint investigation into the Biden family's foreign financial entanglements. We reviewed much of our earlier work and provided a brief preview of the new material.

Today, we will give our second speech on our Biden investigation series. Once again, we are going to make public and we are going to describe new financial records relating to Hunter Biden and his connections to the communist Chinese Government. Most of that focus will be on his connections to the CEFC, a company that is effectively an arm of the Chinese Government.

But first we must go back to 2015. At that time, Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma and was paid tens of thousands of dollars each month. Its owner was a corrupt Russian-aligned Ukrainian oligarch. But that is not all that Hunter Biden was up to.

In that year, CEFC International announced an agreement with Northern International Capital Holdings. Northern International is incorporated in China, and it is very much involved in the energy sector.

One of Ye Jianming's companies was a majority shareholder of CEFC International. Northern International purchased 123 million dollars' worth of CEFC's shares, binding the two companies together.

We must also mention Hudson West III and its financial connection to CEFC. Hunter Biden was an investor and a manager of Hudson West III. He was tasked with advancing its interests. Hudson West III also involved Chinese nationals connected to the communist regime, such as Gongwen Dong, whom I talked about yesterday.

Now let's look at this first poster.

I should note that Senator Johnson and I will make these documents public in full. We are providing snapshots for our presentation here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Here we have one portion of an LLC agreement from a bank. It shows the companies that have bound themselves together: Hudson West V, Hudson West III, and Owasco. Owasco is Hunter Biden's firm.

Now let's turn to the second poster.

The paragraph at the top shows the purpose for which the LLC agreement exists.

So what this tells us is that Hunter Biden and James Biden linked up with companies connected to the communist regime to assist them with finding projects for global and domestic infrastructure and energy.

As we know from my and Senator Johnson's report from last August, some energy project explorations between the Biden family and China were here in the United States. One example is a multimillion-dollar natural gas project in Louisiana.

Now let's move to the next paragraph at the bottom of this same poster, which defines the word ``affiliate'' in the agreement.

For the avoidance of doubt, CEFC China Energy Company

Limited or any of its Affiliates shall be deemed as an

Affiliate of Hudson.

Accordingly, this agreement between Hunter Biden's firm and Hudson West III and Hudson West V directly connects Hunter Biden to CEFC.

So was this agreement executed?

Let's look at this third poster, which contains a signature block executing the agreement.

Here we see Hunter Biden's signature with Gongwen Dong. As previously noted, Gongwen was an associate of Ye Jianming. Both men were connected to the communist regime, including its military elements.

Notably, Hunter Biden worked for Ye Jianming to get him involved in the natural gas project in Louisiana. That project eventually fell through.

Now let's bring up a fourth poster labeled a ``Joinder Agreement'' relating to the LLC agreement.

Again, Hunter Biden is signing with Gongwen Dong with respect to the LLC agreement. Accordingly, we can now conclude the following: Hunter Biden was financially connected to CEFC, a company that was an arm of the communist Chinese regime, for the purpose of advancing its energy interests.

This agreement also shows two additional findings: first, Hunter Biden's responsibility to advance Hudson West III's interests as of August 2, 2017; second, Hunter Biden's close association with Hudson West III, CEFC, and its affiliates as of August 2, 2017. That date is important as I will show you soon.

Let's turn to a fifth poster. On this fifth poster, look at the top.

This is a bank record showing an August 8, 2017, wire transfer from Northern International Capital to Hudson West III for $5 million. This is $5 million from a company that is connected to Ye Jianming and CEFC and its affiliates, which are essentially arms of the communist Chinese regime, and that transfer took place after Hunter Biden became closely associated with Hudson West III as the LLC agreement shows.

So what was the money for?

As noted, Hunter Biden was working with Chinese nationals linked to the communist regime to help them explore energy projects.

Now look at the bottom of this poster.

This is a paragraph from the LLC agreement. It shows that Hunter Biden was paid $100,000 per month; that James Biden was paid $65,000 per month; and that Hunter Biden will be paid a onetime retainer fee of $500,000.

Again, this is money connected to Hudson West III, a company connected to CEFC and Gongwen Dong. Both are connected, in turn, to the communist Chinese regime.

We can now conclude this with respect to James Biden: James Biden was financially connected to CEFC, a company that was an arm of the communist Chinese regime, for the purpose of advancing energy interests.

After the LLC agreement was signed, money flowed from CEFC and its shareholders into the bank account of Hudson West III, including the $5 million from Northern International. This LLC agreement was the trigger point for high-dollar financial transactions involving Hunter and James Biden.

Now let's turn to poster six and view the top.

This is a Hudson West III bank record that shows a wire transfer on August 31, 2017, for $165,000. Notably, this is the same month as the $5 million wire from Northern International. It is also the same month that Hunter Biden signed the August 2, 2017, LLC agreement. The wire is to Wells Fargo Clearing Services.

Now look at the bottom of this poster.

Senator Johnson and I have acquired more than just the bank statement; we have acquired underlying wire data.

So look at the fourth line at the bottom. It says:

Further credit to Owasco PC.

The underlying wire data shows that it went to Owasco, Hunter Biden's firm.

Senator Johnson and I have years of bank records that show multiple $165,000 wire transfers from Hudson West III to Owasco. There were also wire transfers for other amounts--some for more, some for less. Most likely, some of those payments were for expenses under the LLC agreement.

So you have an August 2, 2017, LLC agreement with Hudson West III and Owasco noting $100,000 a month to Hunter Biden and $65,000 to James Biden. Then you have an August 8, 2017, wire transfer of $5 million from Northern International to Hudson West III. After that August 8 wire, you see years of wire transfers from Hudson West III to Hunter Biden's company. The majority of these is for $165,000--the exact amount due under the LLC agreement.

Based on the timing of the transactions, Hunter Biden's and James Biden's payments under the LLC agreement came from that $5 million wire--a wire, mind you, that came from a company connected to Ye Jianming and CEFC, which is an arm of the Chinese Government.

These years of records show that Hunter Biden and James Biden were more connected to the communist regime's elements than had been previously known. These records place them at the center of Hudson West III, Gongwen Dong, and CEFC.

This is a finding that Senator Johnson and I made public in our Biden reports last Congress. These are the same reports that Members of the other political party in this body and the liberal press found fault with; that, somehow, it was Russian disinformation.

So I say this to the liberal media and our Democratic colleagues who tried to smear our work all of these years and accuse us of peddling Russian disinformation: You have seen all of

these documents that we have presented. Are these official bank records Russian disinformation?

To our Democratic colleagues and the liberal media, we deserve an answer because you made several efforts to smear our reputations as we were starting this investigation 2 or 3 years ago.

Now I am going to turn it over to Senator Johnson to discuss a name that I gave you yesterday, Patrick Ho, and related records to Patrick Ho that we have acquired.

Madam President, today, Senator Johnson and I begin a series of speeches on our investigations into the Biden family's financial deals. We will make these presentations with two themes.

First, we will refute and we will dismantle the talking points that the liberal media and our Democratic colleagues pushed onto the American people. Their talking points said that our investigations over the years advanced and spread Russian disinformation. On November 29, 2021; May 11, 2021; March 18, 2021; December 14, 2020; December 10, 2020; October 19, 2020; and September 29, 2020, I came to this Senate floor to rebut those false charges.

Now--or at least then--the liberal media and my Democratic colleagues ought to be ashamed of themselves for the outright lies that they peddled about our investigative work. As a result, Senator Johnson and I did what any good investigator would do: We gathered even more records to prove all these people wrong, which brings me to the second theme.

Senator Johnson and I will produce new records to show additional connections between the Biden family and the communist Chinese regime. Before we get to those records, I am going to discuss the background of our investigation.

We started this investigation last Congress. Then, I was chairman of the Finance Committee, and at that time, Senator Johnson was chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

It began in August 2019. I started at that time an inquiry into a transaction involving Hunter Biden that was reviewed by the Federal Government's Committee on Foreign Investment.

On September 23, 2020, Senator Johnson and I released our report. On November 18, 2020, we released our supplement to that report. Those reports were based in large part on Obama administration government records and also almost a dozen transcribed interviews of government officials.

In both reports, Senator Johnson and I made financial information public that hadn't ever been known before. Our report exposed extensive financial relationships between Hunter and James Biden and Chinese nationals connected to the communist regime. More precisely, these were Chinese nationals connected to the Chinese Government's military and intelligence service.

One of those individuals was a person by the name of Patrick Ho. According to reports, Hunter Biden said of Patrick Ho:

I have another New York Times reporter calling about my

representation of Patrick Ho--

Then Hunter Biden says the f-word--

[denoting] the spy chief of China who started the company

that my partner, who is worth $323 billion, founded and is

now missing.

We will get into more detail with respect to Patrick Ho in future speeches. We will do the same with Gongwen Dong, another close associate of Hunter Biden's who was connected to the communist regime.

Now, Hunter Biden's reference to ``my partner'' is an apparent reference to Ye Jianming. Ye had connections to the People's Liberation Army. Ye had a company called CEFC, which had multiple variations. Today and in future speeches, Senator Johnson and I will simply refer to that company as CEFC.

Documents show that CEFC's corporate mission was ``to expand cooperation in the international energy economy and contribute to national development.'' Now, let me emphasize that word ``national'' in that quote, ``national development.'' CEFC existed for the communist state. Indeed, records show that CEFC is dedicating itself to serving China's national energy strategy, developing national strategic reserves for oil, and ``partnering with centrally-administered and state-owned enterprises.''

Records prepared by one of Hunter and James Biden's business associates, James Gilliar, say the following about this company, CEFC:

At the time, China was hungry for crude, but its state-

backed companies were having difficulty closing some deals

abroad. The optics of China's state-backed giants marching

into a country to buy and extract oil weren't great for

central Asian politicians. This paved the way for private

firms like CEFC, which can strike oil deals in Europe and the

Middle East where Chinese State Owned Enterprises could bring

political liabilities.

Documents also show that CEFC ``is building an energy storage and logistics system in Europe'' to connect China, Europe, and the Middle East. You may ask, why? Plainly, to serve ``China's ambitions to have overseas storage locations connected with world markets.''

The document further states that CEFC's investment bank division has investments in the energy sector ``which are in tandem with the government's 4 trillion dollar One Belt One Road foreign investment program.''

Then CEFC operated under the guise of a private company but was for all intents and purposes an arm of the Chinese Government.

Hunter Biden and James Biden served as the perfect vehicle by which the communist Chinese Government could gain inroads here in the United States through CEFC and its affiliates.

And these inroads were focused on Chinese advancement into the global and U.S. energy sector. Hunter and James Biden were more than happy to go along, of course, for the right price.

So now let's turn to the first poster, which shows bank records that haven't been made public before now. This is a portion of a document that we--meaning Senator Johnson and I--will release in full.

The topic of this poster shows a wire transaction on August 4, 2017, from CEFC to Wells Fargo Clearing Services for $100,000.

Now, look at the bottom of the poster. This is the underlying data of this transaction. It states:

Further credit to OWASCO.

OWASCO is Hunter Biden's firm.

Now, there is no middleman in this transaction. This is $100,000 from what is, effectively, an arm of the communist Chinese Government direct to Hunter Biden.

So a second question, a question to the liberal media and my Democratic colleagues, who accused us, over the last 2 years, of distributing Russian disinformation: Is this official bank document Russian disinformation?

Now, beyond this document, in future speeches, Senator Johnson and I will show you more transfers between and among such companies as CEFC, Northern International Capital, Hudson West Three, Hunter Biden's OWASCO, and James Biden's Lion Hall Group.

In doing so, please keep in mind the players in this game: Hunter Biden, James Biden, Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, Mervyn Yan, and Patrick Ho, to name a few. All of these individuals mixed and mingled with related corporate entities over a period of years and with respect to millions of dollars.

Now, the next poster, those connections are illustrated by this second poster which I made public last November. It is an original bank record with one typographical error and all. Here

you have Hunter Biden, Gongwen Dong, and Mervyn Yan executing an assignment and assumption agreement together.

Now, a third question to those who accuse us of disseminating Russian disinformation, so especially to the liberal media who are the ones who ought to be policing our government system to make sure that everything is done honest--they shouldn't have to have Members of Congress giving all this information out--but is this official record Russian disinformation?

In our next speeches, we will show you more records that haven't been seen before, records that undeniably show strong links between the Biden family and communist China.

Today is just a small taste. I would like to note one thing before Senator Johnson takes over. He is going to describe to you the ridiculous attacks that we received, claiming that our reports were Russian disinformation.

On March 16 of this year, the New York Times unwittingly substantiated our reports by reporting on Hunter Biden's connection to foreign corporations and his potential criminal exposure.

So what Senator Johnson and I made public last Congress is now a prevailing fact pattern that even the liberal media can't ignore any longer and falsely label ``Russian disinformation.''

I will turn it over to Senator Johnson to provide additional examples of the media's attack last Congress.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I introduced a statement into the Record which indicated my intent to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of Mayor Eric Garcetti to be U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of India. I did so because I had received multiple whistleblower complaints that Mayor Garcetti witnessed and was aware that his deputy chief of staff, Rick Jacobs, sexually harassed city employees. In my statement, which I have copied below, I made clear that I needed to investigate the allegations being made by whistleblowers and that I needed to review the investigation that the city of Los Angeles had commissioned which supposedly cleared Mayor Garcetti of any wrongdoing.

At the time, I instructed my staff to complete this investigation in no more than 2 weeks, since it is not my intent to drag this out. My staff spoke with additional whistleblowers and subsequently made three separate requests to representatives of the mayor to send us the city's investigative report--on March 11, 18, and 21. The mayor's staff provided me with a copy of the report on March 21. However, we were just notified last night, March 23, that there was also an updated report, along with a summary that was completed several months after the original report that my office received on March 21.

While I am still reviewing this report, my staff informs me that the report is focused exclusively on allegations made that Mr. Jacobs sexually harassed an LAPD officer. It does not address other allegations made, including allegations that Mr. Jacobs had sexually harassed the mayor's senior staff and made racist comments toward staff in front of the mayor.

Due to the extremely narrow scope of this report, the fact that many of the allegations brought to my office were not investigated in that report, and the fact that we only received the updated report last night, I have instructed my staff to continue investigating these allegations.

As I said earlier, it is not my intent to drag this out and I anticipate that my investigation will be concluded in the near future.

[Prior Statement]

Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent

request at the present time relating to the nomination of

Mayor Eric Garcetti, of California, to be the U.S. Ambassador

to the Republic of India.

I will object because I have received numerous credible

allegations from multiple whistleblowers alleging that Mr.

Garcetti, while Mayor of Los Angeles, had knowledge of sexual

harassment and assaults allegedly committed against multiple

city employees and their associates by his close advisor, and

that he ignored the misconduct. The allegations involving the

mayor's office have been the subject of public reporting and

a purportedly independent investigation. However, serious

questions remain regarding the alleged misconduct, as well as

the mayor's knowledge of that misconduct.

First, whistleblowers who have spoken with my office have

not previously spoken to the Foreign Relations Committee, and

are presenting new allegations that must be fully

investigated.

Second, the investigation of the Los Angeles mayor's office

reportedly found no wrongdoing by the mayor or his staff.

However, information provided by multiple whistleblowers

strongly suggests that this investigation was incomplete at

best. The extent to which the investigation was truly

independent is also not clear, and the report has not been

made public.

The United States owes it to the Republic of India to send

them a qualified Ambassador that will represent the values of

the United States. Mayor Garcetti may very well be fully

qualified, but at this time, the Senate needs to look into

these allegations further.

So until my staff and I have conducted a thorough

investigation and are able to speak with everyone involved I

cannot vote to confirm Mr. Garcetti.

Mr. President, tomorrow will be 1 month since Putin started his war in Ukraine. Every day, we get a chance to see that war being fought on our TV, so I want to tell you what I have seen in 1 month of viewing the war in Ukraine or what I have heard from people who report on that war in Ukraine.

Putin is a child killer.

Putin kills hospital patients.

Putin is a bully.

Putin kills elderly people.

Putin kills pregnant mothers and their babies.

Putin has uprooted at least 10 million people.

Putin deliberately shells residential areas.

Putin shells shopping centers.

Putin shells apartment buildings.

Putin destroys historic buildings.

Putin bombs theaters.

Putin bombs hospitals.

Putin destroys cultural heritage.

Putin threatens world peace.

Putin silences dissent.

Putin threatens nuclear war.

Putin starts war to boost his popularity.

Putin jails his political opponents.

Putin jails citizens speaking against the war.

Putin twists history.

Putin is consumed with power.

Putin feeds off corruption.

Putin is acting like a true Nazi.

Putin kills to feed his ego.

Putin lies to his own people and the world.

Putin admires Stalin.

Putin acts like Stalin.

Putin forcefully deports civilians, like Stalin.

Putin is intentionally starving Ukrainian civilians, like Stalin.

Putin is destroying families.

Putin reintroduced mass graves to Europe--no different than the executions of 20,000 Polish generals and soldiers at Katyn Forest in 1940.

Putin lies to mothers of Russian soldiers.

Putin poisons with impunity, particularly people whom he considers traitors.

Putin came to power by bombing Russian apartments and blaming Chechens.

Putin is still KGB.

Putin lied before invading Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula.

Putin lied about Russian troops in the Donbas.

Putin lied that he would not invade the rest of Ukraine.

Putin lies that NATO had anything to do with his decision to invade.

Putin thinks Ukraine isn't a real country.

Putin thinks other Eastern European countries belong to Russia.

Putin thinks Ukrainians are lesser people than Russians.

Putin is afraid of his own people.

Putin imprisons political opponents.

Putin is afraid of Ukrainian democracy.

Putin got rich by stealing from Russians.

Putin is destroying his own country.

Putin has damaged the global economy.

Putin uses banned weapons against civilians.

Putin kidnapped Ukrainian mayors.

Putin tries to assassinate Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.

Putin has troops fire on humanitarian corridors.

Putin is in bed with organized crime.

Putin supports America's enemies.

Putin has made the Russian Orthodox Church a tool of state power.

Putin oppresses religious minorities.

Putin has forced labor camps for prisoners.

Putin has people who support him or just follow orders or who are afraid to speak up, just like Hitler did.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.