Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, for three decades, the Violence Against Women Act has been at the forefront of our efforts to support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. This legislation provides survivors with access to programs and resources that promote safety and healing. It bolsters our criminal justice response through protections for survivors and provides critical training for law enforcement officials. It prioritizes programs and grants to prevent domestic violence and sexual assault from occurring in the first place.

I have been a longtime victims' rights advocate, dating back to my time as attorney general of my State, and I am a proud supporter of the Violence Against Women Act.

And I think that is a common sentiment in this Chamber. Republicans and Democrats alike agree we must do more to provide services and protection for victims of domestic violence, even though we don't always agree on just exactly what those changes should look like.

Unfortunately, like many good bipartisan ideas, this became a political football over time. When the time came to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act in 2019, it was dragged through the gutter of Washington politics. Some of our friends across the aisle prioritized controversial partisan provisions over sound bipartisan policy. They even opposed a short-term reauthorization of the existing law when we couldn't agree. Ultimately, the Violence Against Women Act expired.

Here is the good news: For 3 long years, a bipartisan group of our colleagues has continued to work on a longer term reauthorization, and for a while it looked like we were making good progress.

Our friend from Iowa, Senator Ernst, is an unshakable advocate for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and she has led efforts on this side of the aisle to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. She has worked with a bipartisan group of Senators to come up with something that is acceptable to both sides, but they have never been able to move past the controversial sticking points until now. Apparently, the tides have shifted, and I am grateful for that. After 3 years of waiting, we have seen real progress on efforts to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

Last week, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced legislation to extend and modernize that legislation, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of that. Senator Ernst from Iowa and Senator Murkowski, our Alaska colleague, have

led this effort on the Republican side, and I want to commend our colleagues for their leadership. They have put in countless hours over the last few years to reach this compromise. Obviously, it was not easy. The fact that this bill already has more than 20 bipartisan cosponsors speaks volumes about their success.

We couldn't have gotten to this point without the dedication of our friend, the senior Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, who has been engaged in these discussions from the beginning. I appreciate the hard work that she and Senator Durbin, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, have put into this bill and their willingness to make sensible compromises so we can, hopefully, get this signed into law without further delay.

Like all legislation, this bill is not perfect, but as the saying goes, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Throughout the negotiating process, I have raised concerns about some of the provisions, and I have seen our colleagues work in good faith with us to address many of those issues. There is no question, in my mind, that this is a good bill that will go a long way to modernize the Violence Against Women Act and ensure that it continues to serve survivors.

The VAWA Reauthorization Act extends this legislation through 2027 and builds on the advancements made in previous reauthorizations. It improves access to services, especially those in rural communities with fewer resources. It promotes partnerships with law enforcement and victim services organizations to provide victim-centered training for law enforcement officers. It improves grants that help school-based professionals connect students with victim services, and it strengthens existing campus grant programs for colleges and universities. It establishes a pilot program to support domestic violence victims seeking employment. It takes aim at relatively new threats, including cyber crimes, by establishing a national resource center on cyber crimes against individuals.

This legislation also invests in a broad range of grant programs, trainings, and resources to support survivors of domestic violence and prevent similar crimes from occurring in the future.

I am glad this legislation includes provisions from a number of bipartisan bills that I have introduced with colleagues here in the Senate.

One example is a bill that the Presiding Officer will appreciate, which I introduced with Senator Coons, called the NICS Denial Notification Act.

If someone attempts to purchase a gun--in other words, they lie about their legal qualification to purchase a gun--but is denied when the NICS background check system comes back with a hit, indicating that they are disqualified for one of a variety of legal reasons, right now, local law enforcement is not notified that somebody tried to buy a firearm and lied about it and was denied access to that firearm because of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Under current law, Federal officials are notified when individuals, including convicted felons and domestic abusers, fail a background check, but they are not required to notify State and local law enforcement--the people in the best position to actually be on the lookout for people who may be a danger to their communities and to themselves.

This legislation will change that. This legislation will require the Department of Justice to notify the relevant State and local authorities within 24 hours of a failed background check.

Now, there are some organizations that are disparaging this particular provision. They are basically misrepresenting what it does. So I want to be clear about what it does do.

What it does do is address somebody who lies in the course of filling out a background check, indicating that they are not disqualified, only to find out, when checking the system, that they, in fact, are. Obviously, these folks are up to no good if they are lying about their ability to purchase a firearm under current law. It just makes sense, in addition to Federal officials being notified of convicted felons and domestic violence abusers, that State and local law enforcement be notified as well. This notification would include the name of the individual as well as when and where they attempted to purchase a firearm. This information gives law enforcement the ability to investigate and intervene before a potentially deadly attack occurs. It should set off all sorts of alarms when a convicted felon or domestic violence abuser lies when attempting to purchase a firearm.

The Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act also includes legislation that I introduced with Senator Durbin, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is called Supporting Access to Nurse Exams Act.

Sexual assault nurse examiners, known as SANEs, are on the frontlines of our fight to support victims of sexual assault. These are the nurses who perform the forensic examinations on rape victims and who help to identify and convict sexual offenders.

This provision improves an existing grant program that funds sexual assault forensic exam programs. We don't have enough of these SANEs, or nurse examiners. This bill will put more money into the field in order to train more of these SANEs, to provide for their salaries, and to increase access in areas of the country that need SANEs more, particularly in rural areas.

These men and women are crucial to our efforts to deliver justice, and this is an important step we can take to address the nationwide shortage of sexual assault nurses.

Over the years, the Senate and the Congress have done a lot to eliminate the rape kit backlog, which at one point totaled a reported 400,000 in backlog rape kits. These rape kits are forensic examination kits that contain DNA, which is so essential in identifying the perpetrators of sexual assault and which has the miraculous ability--or seemingly miraculous ability--to actually exonerate some people who may be misidentified through visual identification.

It also helps, over a period of a long time, to identify people who may have evaded prosecution because of the statute of limitations. Many of these individuals who commit these sexual assaults will do so on a serial basis. So once we have been able to identify them through successful rape kit evaluations, we can bring them to justice.

Once again, I want to commend Senators Ernst and Murkowski for their tireless efforts, on behalf of victims nationwide, to get us to this point.

The Violence Against Women Act has changed the lives--improved the lives, actually--of countless survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. So it is time for us to come together and reauthorize this crucial program.

I am proud to support this legislation, and I hope Senator Schumer, the majority leader, can find time to put it on the Senate's calendar and vote it out without delay.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today--I should say, these days--the United States is breaking all kinds of records and all the wrong kinds. In 2021, illegal border crossings hit a new high, with more than 2 million border encounters along our southern border, 1,200 miles of which is the U.S.-Texas border with Mexico.

Other numbers: the worst inflation in the last 40 years, 7\1/2\ percent--meaning that your paycheck is worth 7\1/2\ percent less than it was before this inflation rocket took off. A number of major cities are experiencing their deadliest year as the murder rates have spiked. A combination of inflation, open borders, and rising crime rates is a dangerous combination.

Drug overdose deaths reached a grim new milestone as well. For the first time on record, more than 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses during a 12-month period. That is 100,000 families who lost their children, parents, siblings, and loved ones to an entirely preventable cause.

Our country has been fighting this scourge of the opioid epidemic for years now. In 2018, we celebrated incremental progress, as overdose deaths dropped 4 percent--dropped 4 percent--from the previous year, the first decrease in three decades. Unfortunately, that trend did not last. Overdose deaths increased in 2019, and they absolutely skyrocketed in 2020. We are still waiting for complete data for 2021, but it is not looking good.

The isolation, the anxiety, and the financial stresses of the pandemic have taken their toll on virtually every American, but our most vulnerable friends and neighbors are the ones who have been hit particularly hard. On top of the physical and financial struggles of the pandemic, many individuals are battling substance use disorders and lost access to treatment centers and outreach facilities.

There has never been a more important time for us to examine our response to the opioid epidemic and to take decisive action to stem the tide.

Last week, the Commission on Combating Synthetic Opioid Trafficking released its report, which analyzed the state of the synthetic opioid crisis and offered recommendations. The Commission referred to illicit synthetic opioids as ``a slow motion weapon of mass destruction in pill form.'' Now, that may sound a little dramatic until you consider how much death and destruction this crisis has created. Since the Centers for Disease Control began collecting overdose data in 1999, more than 1 million Americans have died from drug overdoses. If you combined the number of servicemen who died in battles throughout our country's history, the number of overdose deaths would still be higher.

We all know there is no silver bullet when it comes to addressing this crisis. But it is not a matter of diverting illicit drugs or stopping overprescription or breaking the cycle of addiction; it is all of the above. But one of the most important places to start is by addressing the flow of illegal drugs across our border. Reducing the supply of drugs that eventually reach our streets is critical.

As we have discussed the crisis at the border that has been going on in its current form for a year now, I have talked about the cascading impact of the migration surge.

Customs and Border Protection deserves a lot of credit for their good work. The Agency plays a major role not just in migration or intercepting illegal immigration but also a major role in stopping illicit drugs. But when thousands of migrants flood our borders each and every day, their anti-drug mission stumbles because, frankly, the cartels know that if they flood the zone with so many migrants that the Border Patrol has to manage those, it leaves open avenues, veritable avenues and expressways across the border into the United States to bring in illegal drugs. If Border Patrol is changing diapers and passing out meals, as they have done throughout this humanitarian crisis, they can't be on the frontlines combating illegal drug smuggling; they can't interdict dangerous drugs or deter the cartels from moving their poison across our borders.

One of the most effective ways to avoid overdose deaths is to prevent those drugs from entering the country in the first place, and Customs and Border Protection is literally on the frontlines of that fight.

In recent years, Customs and Border Protection has seen an alarming amount of drugs coming across our border, one of the most concerning of which is fentanyl. Fentanyl is a uniquely dangerous drug because it is so potent; it is so strong. Depending on a person's body size, 2 milligrams can be lethal. A kilogram of fentanyl, 2.2 pounds, could kill 500,000 people--2.2 pounds of fentanyl could kill half a million people.

A few years ago, CBP seized about 2,800 pounds of fentanyl in a year. The next year, it jumped to 4,800 pounds. The following year, Customs and Border Protection seized more 11,200 pounds of fentanyl, enough to wipe out the entire U.S. population many times over. That is how potent it is.

Once it reaches the United States, this synthetic opioid, fentanyl, often makes its way into other substances, such as in combination with methamphetamine and heroin, which, too, can also lead to deadly consequences.

Cities across America are experiencing waves of overdose deaths caused by counterfeit opioids laced with fentanyl. In Texas, authorities recently seized more than 100,000 counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl--a haul with a street value of more than a million dollars.

Mexico, our neighbor to the south, is the principal source of illicit fentanyl, and unfortunately the Biden administration has made it incredibly easy for the drug cartels to ply their trade. Now, it is true that many of the precursors to make that fentanyl come from places like China, but ultimately it ends up ending in Mexico and making its way into the United States.

As the border crisis has grown to unprecedented proportions, it has become easier for fentanyl, heroin, and other illicit drugs to cross the border and reach communities throughout our country. There is a beyond-urgent need for the administration to address the border crisis--not just to stem illegal immigration, not just to stop criminals from preying on our country by mixing among economic migrants and making their way into the country; it is also about stopping the trade in illegal drugs that are literally killing men, women, and children in communities all across our country.

Until action is taken to alleviate the humanitarian crisis and get the Border Patrol back on the frontlines, we are not going to make a lot of progress. We have to stop the drug cartels and criminal organizations in their tracks, and we can't do that if law enforcement officers are on diaper duty.

We need a comprehensive approach to address this crisis and address additional support for those who are already struggling with addiction.

Last year, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill that I introduced with Senator Whitehouse, the Senator from Rhode Island, called the Residential Substance Use Disorder Treatment Act in order to help incarcerated individuals break the cycle of addiction and

transition safely and productively back into society. This legislation updates the residential substance abuse treatment program and expands access to treatment in jails and prisons across the country. The program already provides incarcerated individuals with access to treatment for substance use disorders. That treatment is coupled with programs to prepare them for reentry and provide community-based treatment once they are released. The changes included in this current legislation will give incarcerated men and women the best possible shot at living healthier and more productive lives once they are released.

I am sure it is no surprise that this bill has strong support both here in the Senate and among outside organizations that do a lot of good work in this area. More than two dozen organizations have endorsed this bill, including those in law enforcement, criminal justice, and behavioral health.

The bill passed the Senate with unanimous support last year, but it is still lingering on the House calendar. It is unclear when or if Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats will allow this bill to pass so we can invest crucial resources in the fight against drug abuse.

There are a number of challenges that we face that transcend politics here in Congress and inside the beltway, and this definitely is one of them. Fighting the opioid epidemic is a cause everyone in this Chamber should get behind because each of our States and indeed the entire country have been impacted. Families across my State and the rest of the 49 States have lost children, parents, siblings, and friends to the opioid epidemic. In 2020 alone, we lost more than 4,000 of my fellow Texans to drug overdoses. Unless we take action to thwart the slow- motion weapon of mass destruction, our communities will face even more suffering and more deaths.

I am tired of the pain and suffering the opioid epidemic has inflicted on families across the country. I am angry. I am fed up. And I believe we need a call to action because there is an urgent need to address drug addiction in America. I am committed to being part of the solution, and I would hope every Member of Congress in the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, would join us in becoming a part of the solution.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, folks in Texas and across the country are looking to their elected officials for sound leadership. Family budgets are being clobbered by the worst inflation in 40 years. From gas stations to grocery stores and everywhere in between, people are spending significantly more money on their basic expenses. Inflation has outpaced wage growth, giving the average worker a pay cut. That is what inflation does. It erodes and undermines your standard of living by charging more for basic goods and services.

Families aren't just stressing about their finances; they are also worried about their safety. The shocking surge in violent crime that began in 2020 hasn't just continued. In many places, it has accelerated, and last year several major cities had their deadliest year on record.

With the safety and well-being of their families at the forefront, our constituents want to know what is being done to address these problems. They are pretty basic.

What types of solutions do their representatives have in the Senate and the House? What actions are the White House contemplating and how long will it be before they can experience some relief? Unfortunately, when the voters gave Democrats the leadership of the White House and both Houses of Congress, the responsibility has largely been up to them to provide that leadership when it comes to the agenda.

Unfortunately, the real problems that my constituents in Texas are experiencing, like inflation and crime, those were the last things for our leaders here in Washington to consider. Forget real problems and real families; Democrats' governing strategy was dictated by partisan ambitions.

Our colleagues tried to give the Internal Revenue Service the unprecedented authority and manpower to snoop on the finances of virtually every single American. Now, we are accustomed to the fact that the IRS knows how much you make; that is how you calculate your taxes. But our Democratic colleagues went so far as to inquire for every family: How much money do you spend and what do you spend it on? That sort of invasion of privacy is unprecedented.

Then our colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to get involved in the childcare business and dictate what sort of childcare and where you would be able to get that childcare and how much it would cost. Basically, saying to those who are motivated to help support families when it comes to childcare, that if you are a faith-based organization, you are not going to qualify. And because of the huge influx of money that the Democrats were planning to put into childcare, excluding a huge segment of the childcare providers was going to result in scarce supply and run up the price, further exacerbating inflation.

Then we saw when it comes to the wealthy--our Democratic colleagues like to be the party of the average working person and complain about Big Business and millionaires and billionaires. But what do they do when it comes to tax proposals? They propose to give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut by eliminating the cap on deductibility of State and local taxes in high-tax jurisdictions like New York and California. Who would have to pick up the responsibility or deficit? Well, you guessed it; it would be the middle class.

Then we saw our colleagues on the left use the last year to attempt a Federal takeover of State-run elections. Some even proposed to blow up the rules of the Senate and eliminate the filibuster, the one thing that forces us to do what doesn't come naturally, which is to work together and build bipartisan consensus.

There were proposals from the majority leader himself and others saying we are going to blow up the Senate because we cannot get our way, and the main reason we can't get our way is because we are unwilling to work with the other side of the aisle. Thank goodness two of our colleagues, the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Arizona, tapped the brakes, and we have not yet found ourselves in that situation.

So every one of these examples I mentioned has been tried and failed in this last year. But there is, of course, what economists call opportunity costs. We can't take back the last year that we wasted on these partisan efforts. A lot of the damage has been done. Invaluable time has been wasted on partisan legislation that was sure to go nowhere, while the most basic responsibilities of governing had been tossed aside.

Last year, our Democratic colleagues nearly dropped a debt bomb on our economy. We had to spend a lot of money during the COVID pandemic. And during the last year of the Trump administration, we did that on a bipartisan basis. But even after the imminent need for that help was subsiding, our colleagues decided to spend another $2 trillion in the first months of the Biden administration. Only 10 percent of that was COVID-19 related and

less than 1 percent had to do with people getting access to therapeutics and vaccine.

Our colleagues allowed the National Defense Authorization Act to sit on the shelf, to linger on the calendar for months, leaving it until the very last minute. And then we find ourselves just 9 days away from a shutdown of the Federal Government. Our colleagues in the majority have yet to pass a single appropriations bill on a regular basis. And unless Congress takes action here in the next week and a half, the American people can add a government shutdown to the list of crises that we are facing.

Unfortunately, this is a familiar story. We found ourselves in this position on more than one occasion over the last several months. Congress's deadline to pass funding bills doesn't just pop up out of nowhere. It hits at the same time every year, September 30. Back in September, it was clear that a yearlong funding bill was nowhere in sight, and so our colleagues in the majority kicked the can down the road for 2 months. Rather than use that time to try to pass annual appropriations bills, they wasted week after week on unserious, partisan bills.

By the time the new deadline rolled around, nothing had changed, and so our colleagues had to punt again, setting up a new deadline of February 18. And based on the way things look right now, it doesn't appear that we are any closer to an annual funding agreement than we were last September or last December. There is some rumor of a top-line funding level agreement but no real progress on the underlying substance of these appropriations bills.

So you can't help but wonder, how has it taken so long to accomplish so little? Our colleagues are steering the ship of state, both Chambers of Congress, and the White House, and still we can't seem to come up with a way to do the basic function of governing, which is to fund the government. We managed to avoid government shutdowns, to be sure, but that is a pretty low bar to clear.

The Democratic majority has introduced yet another short-term funding bill that would carry us through March 11. I sincerely hope that progress can be made before then. I am just not sure how long the conversation should continue when we know what the job is that remains to be done and what the sticking points are.

But that is where we are. Our colleagues haven't just punted critical responsibilities. In some cases, they have ignored them completely.

In 2021, for the first time on record, there were more than 2 million people who attempted to enter the United States without a visa, a passport, or legal immigration papers--2 million people--and those are just the ones that the Border Patrol encountered. It doesn't count the so-called ``got-aways,'' which is what the Border Patrol calls the drug smugglers and other criminals who come across the border at the same time.

Two million people is larger than the population of a dozen individual States. That is how many new people have come into the United States during a pandemic, without being vaccinated, without proof of a negative COVID test, and at a time when people are concerned about their jobs.

The Biden administration has allowed this crisis to grow and grow and grow without any substantial action. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of Homeland Security and other members of the President's Cabinet have actually made it worse. Border Patrol will tell you there are two main things that they look for when it comes to illegal immigration. They look for the push factors, which are things like violence and poverty in some of the states and places people are coming from. We all get that. We understand those being the push factors, but they also talk about the pull factors, which puts a big sign out that you are free to come to the United States without any real consequence. You don't need to get in line. You don't need to comply with our immigration laws. You can just come as fast as you can get here.

One of the biggest pull factors is the misguided guidance from the Secretary of Homeland Security himself. I call it nonenforcement guidance. Basically, Secretary Mayorkas has said Border Patrol will not detain anyone whose only offense is entering the country illegally.

That sends a big welcome sign to anybody who wants to come to the United States without going through our legal immigration system. And the transnational criminal organizations that benefit from this financially make millions and millions--including billions--of dollars by smuggling people and drugs into the United States.

And while an open border's message may appeal to some elements on the left, it is creating serious burdens for law enforcement in border communities.

Over the last year, I have spent a lot of time listening to my constituents and the professionals in the Border Patrol about the many challenges that this crisis has created. Border Patrol agents are pulling double duty as childcare providers because our laws incentivize unaccompanied minors to come to the United States.

Now, nobody actually believes they get here on their own, but once they are here, under our current laws, they have to be placed with the State, with a sponsor, and told to show up for a hearing--for your asylum hearing--months, maybe years, in the future. And nobody is surprised when as many as half of those individuals don't show up for their asylum hearing--same thing for the adults in the family units.

But while you may think that this is primarily a problem for border States like Texas and Arizona, California and New Mexico, and others, it actually extends throughout the country. One of our colleagues from Montana tells me that his sheriff in one of his major cities said that one of the biggest problems they have is methamphetamine that is smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border.

You can't get much farther north, and you can't get much farther away from the southwestern border than the State of Montana, but that is what the ripple effect of this uncontrolled illegal immigration, along with the drugs being smuggled across the border--those are the consequences of those failures by the administration.

Leaders in my State have constantly sought for the administration to take some action. This is a Federal responsibility, not a State responsibility. They have asked for more staff, better resources, and better policies to put an end to some of these pull factors.

But the Biden administration has done nothing to make it better. I would argue that they have actually made it worse with policies like the nonenforcement policy that Secretary Mayorkas issued months ago.

Senator Sinema--a Senator from another border State and a Democrat-- and I offered the Bipartisan Border Solutions Act, along with a Democrat and a Republican House Member, with the idea that if maybe we came up with a bipartisan, bicameral proposal, the Biden administration would say: Well, why don't we start there? Why don't we start the discussions there?

Well, the Biden administration refused to take any action, and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee here in the Senate has refused to even hold a hearing on that bill.

Now, our Democratic colleagues may control all levers of government, but, for sure, that is a far cry from actually governing. Our colleagues can't seem to accomplish the bare minimum, let alone craft policies that address the needs of families.

Our colleagues seem to think that these partisan victories are the only way they can prove to voters that they know how to govern, but they got it backward, and they don't have much to show for it. The reality is, our colleagues' burning focus on partisan legislation has kept them from achieving much of anything at all.

Our colleagues have been so distracted by their own partisan ambitions that they have allowed the Senate to skate from crisis to crisis without meaningful action.

I can only hope that our colleagues will recognize that what they have been doing is not working and engage in some sort of midcourse correction in the coming months.

The truth is, our country deserves a government that works for the American people, not for just one political party or for any constituency within that political party, like the progressive left.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, many Americans are watching the news, reading the newspaper, watching cable news, and they are seeing the Russian buildup of troops on the border of Ukraine.

So I thought what I would do is take just a few moments to speak about what is at stake in Ukraine. Why should Americans care, and what should we do in response?

Tensions along the border are high. Shuttle diplomacy is occurring and is the order of the day. But more than 100,000 Russian troops are in position should an invasion of Ukraine be ordered by Russian Federation President Putin.

Reports indicate that Russia has created a graphic propaganda video, something called a false flag operation, to serve as a pretext for invading and cyber attacks like those that might precede a planned invasion are already underway.

Not surprisingly, the Kremlin is engaging in a disinformation campaign, making every attempt to blame the United States--or any other country for that matter--for its own aggressive actions.

This kind of gaslighting might work in a totalitarian state, but in the rest of the world, where we have access to more complete and accurate information, we know better. There is no question that Russia and Russia alone is responsible for the military buildup on Ukraine's border and is also threatening peace in Europe.

As Frederick Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has written:

This isn't primarily a Ukraine crisis. It's a Russia

crisis. More precisely, [it is] a Putin-created crisis aimed

at destroying [the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,

otherwise known as] NATO.

It's Putin's attempt to drive the [United States] and its

West European allies to put ourselves in a time machine, [to]

abdicate our alliance obligations, expose countries

previously occupied, brutalized, and exploited by the Soviet

Union to Putin's continued aggression, demonstrate our

unreliability as partners, and show our unseriousness

about defending our own vital national security interests.

In return for a promise of nothing at all.

The United States has played no part in creating this crisis, but I do believe we have some responsibilities--not just a treaty obligation to our NATO allies--because Ukraine is not yet a member of NATO, so that obligation under article 5 does not apply to Ukraine, as I will discuss in a moment.

But I do believe that we have a responsibility to support the Ukrainian people as they fight to defend their own sovereignty, despite the fact that they are not members of NATO.

With so many challenges on the home front, though, and around the world, it is easy for folks in Texas or Massachusetts or anywhere else around the country to wonder, why should we care what is happening in Ukraine? Americans are experiencing the highest inflation in 40 years; there is growing concern about violent crime; we have a humanitarian crisis on our southern border; and let's not forget the ongoing fight against the pandemic. We know families are struggling to face the challenges right in front of them, let alone those on the other side of the globe.

Americans want to know, how does a conflict on the other side of the globe actually impact the United States and, importantly, why should we help? I think those are fair questions. The human and financial costs of armed conflicts are very high. And we have learned the painful lesson during many times in our Nation's history, twice in the last century in Europe alone, where there were World Wars centered.

But we also know how much the free world depends on the United States and its leadership and strength to provide stability and prevent wars and promote peace, if we can, while safeguarding freedom and democracy around the world.

The United States is a global power, but we are no longer the only one. That day has passed. Our leadership role and responsibilities in a rules-based international order were earned by the sacrifices of generations of Americans who defended our freedoms and our way of life and those of our allies.

Believing, as Ronald Reagan said, that peace comes through strength, America's role in the world has been achieved by our military might, by our strategic alliances, our commitment to free markets and trade around the world that have produced the economy that has allowed us to defend ourselves as well as an unwavering dedication to our values. And whether we like it or not, our unique role in the world brings with it certain responsibilities.

We can't give anyone--adversary or ally--a reason to doubt our commitment to freedom, peace, stability, and security. Unfortunately, our reputation for reliability has suffered some damage recently. The botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example, caused our NATO allies to doubt the future of American leadership and our commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty.

Our friends and adversaries alike are wondering if the Afghanistan debacle is a one-time misstep or the beginning of dwindling U.S. commitment and power. Of course, Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi will not miss an opportunity to disparage America's credibility as a reliable ally.

Our urgent task, by our actions as well as our words, should be to convince friend and foe that we will remain a credible friend and ally.

But either way, Putin is an opportunist, and today the eyes of the world are on the United States to see how we will respond to this threatened Russian aggression. Will we stand strong in support of Ukraine or will we sit passively on the sidelines?

Make no mistake, Russia is doing far more than just threatening Ukraine. President Putin told the world in a speech in 2005 that the collapse of the Soviet empire--the Soviet Union--was what he called ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'' That is his mindset.

Putting that empire back together was clearly on his mind when Russia invaded the nation of Georgia in 2008, formerly part of the Soviet Union, and when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, also part of the Soviet order.

And, of course, we can be confident this is foremost in his mind as he threatens to invade Ukraine, another country that used to be part of the Soviet Union.

So Putin is trying to get away with as much as he can, and it would be naive to think that he will stop at Ukraine.

If the United States fails to support Ukraine at this pivotal moment, other authoritarian governments, like those in China and Iran, will take note.

Today's New York Times had a story that said, ``Both Sides of the Taiwan Strait Are Closely Watching Ukraine's Crisis,'' in other words, the People's Republic of China--mainland China--as well as Taiwan, the independent democratic state right across that thin band of water known as the South China Sea.

Here is what one of the representatives of Taiwan said in this article. He said: ``If the Western powers fail to respond to Russia, they do embolden the Chinese thinking regarding action on Taiwan.''

So this is not just about Ukraine. This is not just about Europe. This is about America's credibility and that of our friends and allies around the world and our willingness to stand up for our values and defend our freedoms.

If our adversaries see that the United States responds merely with passivity or words, they too will inevitably see opportunities for them to exploit. That would risk further geopolitical instability and the cause of peace. It would inevitably diminish America's leadership position in the world, the global order of which we are what Elbridge Colby has termed the ``cornerstone balancer,'' a powerful country anchoring the coalition of freedom-loving nations.

So, yes, Ukraine is on the frontlines of the current crisis, but the security of Europe is also in question. The reach of Russia's aspirations for reestablished empire are, as well, and, as I said, there are global repercussions to however we choose to respond.

I am not suggesting that President Biden send American troops to Ukraine. I want to be clear on that point. I know of no one calling for American troops to be deployed to Ukraine.

There are, however, concrete steps we can take to help Ukraine defend itself without putting American lives on the line, and, fortunately, there is precedent for that.

In the early 1940s, Nazi Germany was making dramatic advances across Europe, and Great Britain was being pummeled by the blitz, a bombing campaign by the German air forces. While Britain was hanging on by a thread, Prime Minister Churchill asked President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for help from the United States.

This ultimately resulted in a very creative and successful solution known as the Lend-Lease Act. In the words of President Roosevelt, this legislation transformed the United States into the ``arsenal of democracy'' by supplying Great Britain with the materiel it needed to fend off German attacks.

He compared it to lending your neighbor a garden hose if his house was on fire. It wouldn't just protect the neighbor's home; it would protect your home as well.

Congress and the American people agreed with President Roosevelt's logic, and this legislation was signed into law in March 1941.

Soon after, American warships, aircraft, weaponry, oil, food, and other critical resources made their way across the Atlantic to Allied forces fighting against Germany.

I think this is part of the response we need to provide today to provide the Ukrainians with the ability to defend themselves under a modern version of the 1941 Lend-Lease Act.

With the inspiration of President Roosevelt in the 1941 act, I have worked with a number of my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats alike--to draft a 2022 version of that legislation, called, not surprisingly, the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, which will ensure that Ukrainian forces and the Ukrainian people will have what they need to deter and defend against Russian invasions.

As it stands today, the President of the United States has a menu of options to support our international friends in times of conflict. In some cases, such as the loan of equipment, the United States will eventually retain end use. In others, such as grants and emergency aid, we do not recover the funding or the assets sent to our friends.

This bill would provide an additional option to that menu, allowing the United States to provide assistance that may otherwise be unfeasible unless we could retain end use.

This legislation would authorize President Biden to enter into lend- lease agreements directly with Ukraine and provide military equipment necessary to protect the Ukrainian people.

In an ideal world, access to this materiel will help the Ukrainians defend themselves and deter Russia from mounting an invasion in the first place. Knowing that Ukraine has access to the ``arsenal of democracy'' could help prevent Putin from risking a deadly war. But if Putin makes a bad decision to move forward, Ukrainian forces will have the lethal weapons that they need to defend their sovereignty.

They will also have the support of the United States and our NATO allies.

In the Senate, there is clear support for this sovereignty of Ukraine, and I am glad to have worked with my colleagues on this legislation that includes this lend-lease component.

I want to thank Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Risch on the Foreign Relations Committee and a larger bipartisan group of our colleagues who have been working on a comprehensive approach to counter this threatened aggression by Russia. We have discussed my lend-lease bill, as well as additional security assistance and lethal aid for Ukraine. And, as we have read, Senator Menendez and Senator Risch are negotiating a limited but immediate sanctions response to this aggression, including cyber attacks, as well as the threat of additional sanctions in the event of an invasion.

As the chairman and the ranking member have said, negotiations are making some progress, and I hope we

can wrap things up quickly and bring the bill to the Senate floor without much more delay.

The fact is, we are racing against the clock. Putin could invade Ukraine at a moment's notice, and he is not going to wait on the U.S. Senate to act. That is why time is of the essence.

Ideally, the lend-lease agreement, military assistance, sanctions, and other provisions included in this package will cause Putin to think twice about invading. But that can only happen if we act before Putin acts.

So the clock is ticking, and we need to move. I am encouraged by the bipartisan support we have seen for Ukraine and for this effort, and I hope we can take action soon to reaffirm America's position as the lead defender of global peace and security.

I yield the floor.

I would yield my----

Madam President, in the summer of 2020, the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, and I introduced the CHIPS for America Act to reshore semiconductor manufacturing here in the United States.

I didn't know much about semiconductors when we got started, but I have learned a lot, and what I have learned is that this is an essential commodity that we have over time offshored to places like Asia that we need to reshore or bring back to America for our economy and for national security.

Currently, 90 percent of the semiconductors in the world are manufactured in Asia. Sixty-three percent of the semiconductors in the world come from one place: Taiwan. If COVID has taught us one thing, it has taught us how vulnerable our supply chains can be. And the truth is, semiconductors have become so critical to our way of life, to our economy, and to our national security, to everything we do, that if that supply were blocked for some reason--either as a result of another pandemic or a natural disaster or, Heaven forbid, a military conflict-- it would be devastating to the United States and our economy and our national security.

That is why, when our bill was introduced as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, it passed 96 to 4. Clearly, we had strong, bipartisan support here in the Senate. It took less than 7 months from the time we introduced the bill until it became law, and then 6 months later, the Senate passed the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, with $52 billion in funding for the CHIPS Program.

Had this legislation been introduced years ago, before the pandemic, I don't think it would have received either such quick action or such broad bipartisan support. That is not because this type of investment wasn't needed. There is clear data that showed a concerning trend in U.S. chip manufacturing.

We saw big investments made by other countries in their own capabilities and a business model primarily by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, which I visited along with colleagues in Taipei just a few months ago, where their business model is to manufacture chips made and designed--I should say designed by companies that need those semiconductors. But rather than build their own manufacturing capability, their own foundry, they outsourced that to Taiwan Semiconductor. So Taiwan and particularly Taiwan Semiconductor have become the focal point for the production of semiconductors around the world.

Well, there was general agreement that something should be done before COVID-19, but it certainly wasn't at the top of everyone's priority list. But, as I said, when the pandemic hit, the vulnerability of our supply chains for everything from PPE--personal protective equipment--to semiconductors became apparent.

Well, how has that affected everyday Texans, folks from Nevada or Colorado? Well, we found out that an absence or a lack of semiconductors meant empty car lots. You couldn't buy a new car. You couldn't get a computer, perhaps for your child to be able to study virtually during a quarantine period or during a period of virtual learning at schools across the country.

We saw higher prices adding to the problem with inflation. Suddenly, those concerning data points turned into real-world problems. Consumers who never even dreamed or thought about a semiconductor before found themselves impacted by this global shortage. The new car they had been saving up for wasn't available. The Christmas gift they planned to order for their children was out of stock.

While the lack of consumer products is a big problem, it pales in comparison to the security risk created by the chip shortage. Simply put, semiconductors are vital to our critical infrastructure. Our grid keeps on the lights and makes it possible to heat our buildings during the cold of winter. They run our cell towers that enable us to talk on our cell phones or download data and do

searches on the web. They are critical to our energy grid, our water treatment plants, and our agricultural sector. Semiconductor chips make it all possible.

As I said, our national defense also depends on semiconductors. When we send our troops on any mission by air, sea, land, or cyber space, they need the best equipment available, and usually what that means is the most advanced technology available. Advanced fighters, quantum computing, missile defense--all rely on semiconductors.

I asked my staff to research back when Israel was using the Iron Dome missile defense system to knock rockets out of the sky that were destined to hit population centers in Israel. I said: Find out for me how many semiconductors are in each one of those missile defense interceptors. They came back with a figure of 750 chips in each one of those missile defense interceptors.

So it is not hard to imagine we would be in big trouble if a lack of supply crippled any of these functions, and unfortunately, it is a real possibility. Over the years, domestic chip production has steadily dropped as other countries have upped their manufacturing capabilities. As I said, 90 percent of that manufacturing is now in Asia.

We had the idea--and it is not a crazy idea--that if somebody could make things cheaper overseas, then that is the most efficient way for that product to be made, but we didn't calculate these supply chain problems which COVID-19 exposed.

But we know, as I said, that if there were another pandemic or let's say a natural disaster or a military conflict, the People's Republic of China has made no secret about its plan to unify with Taiwan. President Xi has explicitly said invasion of Taiwan will happen, and he has asked that his military be ready by the year 2027. But we don't actually know what his timetable may be, and if China follows through on its threats to invade Taiwan and interrupts that supply chain of critical semiconductors, it would be dramatically bad for the United States and the world. Our national security and critical infrastructure could be hobbled by a single decision made by the President of the People's Republic of China.

I was reminded of Jimmy Carter's 1980 speech at the State of the Union when he spoke about instability in the Persian Gulf and Soviet threats to the movement of Middle East oil through the Strait of Hormuz. President Carter said at the time--when we were so dependent on imported oil from the Middle East--he said any attempt to gain control of the Persian Gulf and to block the Strait of Hormuz would be ``regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America.''

You could say the same about a blockade that prevented us from getting semiconductors from Asia. Just as the Soviets could have blocked the Strait of Hormuz and choked off the global supply, the People's Republic of China could seize Taiwan's supply of chips and its manufacturing facilities and hold the rest of the world at risk. The United States and our allies would be left fighting for the crumbs, what was left over.

Our country isn't the only one, fortunately, that spotted this blinking red light. Other countries are pouring tens of billions of dollars into new semiconductor foundries. The European Union is now investing up to $35 billion. South Korea is investing $65 billion. The People's Republic of China is reportedly investing $150 billion in semiconductor manufacturing.

The United States cannot be left behind, and we can't drag our feet. Unlike PPE--personal protective equipment--or hand sanitizer shortages, this one cannot be solved quickly. Companies that make other technologies can't just adjust to the lack of semiconductors. In order to build a single chip, you need very expensive, highly advanced equipment, you need very skilled workers, and you need a lot of time. It can take literally months to build a single chip, and that is assuming you have the facilities and the expertise to do so.

So it is not hyperbole to say that there are life-or-death consequences to a reliable semiconductor supply chain, which is why this has been such a high-priority item on a bipartisan basis here in the Senate.

The U.S. Innovation and Competition Act included $52 billion to fund this program and ensure that, once again, we could maintain a strong supply of advanced semiconductors. That legislation, which included an emergency appropriation, passed by a vote of 68 to 32, which is pretty impressive these days with the polarization that we are all dealing with--a strong, bipartisan vote.

Unfortunately, the momentum that bill had ended when it got to the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House had other priorities, and months and months went by. Our House colleagues said they wanted to pass their own version of this legislation, and they have every right to do so, but time is not on our side, and they need to act quickly. Every day that goes by is a day that China inches ahead of the United States and that we fall further behind.

We need to get this funding out the door and to begin that construction of these fabs, which take a considerable amount of time to build, underway as soon as we can.

In a year's time, Senator Warner and I introduced the CHIPS Act, it became law, and the Senate funded the program we created. We are not ordinarily known for our speed, and the quick timeline is indicative of how urgent this problem really is.

I don't have any excuse for the House's failure to address this issue for 7 months, but now it sounds like they are beginning to think about addressing it.

Well, I can understand why the process would take so long if the House was actually engaged in a bipartisan negotiation, but, unfortunately, it looks like they are going to pass a partisan bill with no Republican support because they were not included in the discussions. The Democratic committee chairmen refused to consult with the Republican ranking members, and it looks like they are going to produce a partisan bill.

Well, that bill I do not believe would pass the U.S. Senate. The House bill contains $8 billion for an unaccountable U.N. climate slush fund, which has provided more than $100 million for the People's Republic of China.

What we are talking about--what we should be talking about--is countering threats from China, not helping China.

The partisan bill from the House has also added provisions related to immigration, from creating new types of visas to removing green card caps. Immigration is an important issue. We ought to be talking about it. We ought to be doing something about it, but not on a partisan basis.

These changes should not be tacked on to this legislation at the last hour. They need to be debated and marked up by the appropriate committees and given the sort of careful consideration that they deserve.

The House bill also includes additional handouts to favorite political constituencies, from massive slush funds to burdensome new labor requirements. Organized labor would be the big winner in the House bill, but not rank-and-file Americans.

It is not just what is in this bill that is a problem. I am talking about the House bill, now. It is what was left out. The bill's trade title is completely inadequate. It extends and expands trade adjustment assistance, but it completely excludes trade promotion authority. We know that trade promotion authority is critical to negotiating strong trade agreements without lengthy delays.

So I regret and I am very disappointed that the House has wasted available time, particularly when this vulnerability to the semiconductor supply chain is so grave and so urgent.

We have a responsibility to secure our most critical supply chains while creating thousands of high-paying American jobs and boosting our global competitiveness. So I hope that once the House does pass a bill that we quickly form a formal conference committee in order to make the final product look a whole lot like the Senate bill that we passed with strong bipartisan majorities.

Let me just comment in closing that I am a big fan of the Wall Street Journal. I read it or, at least, parts of it every day. But I was concerned that a treatment of this legislation in the

Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday--actually, it was this morning--either was unclear or provided misinformation about the importance of these semiconductors.

The title of the editorial was ``The Be More Like China Act.'' And suffice it to say, they were not fans of either the House or the Senate bill.

But they made this statement. They said: ``[T]he Pentagon is already providing incentives to make advanced chips in the United States, and [Taiwan Semiconductor] is building a $12 billion plant in Arizona.''

To the second issue, the reason why Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company is building a fab in Arizona is in the expectation that the Senate will pass this $52 billion incentive program, and through the Department of Commerce, grants will be made which will level the playing field. When it comes to the cost of building these fabs in the United States, it costs roughly 30 percent more to build a manufacturing facility, a fab, in the United States than it does in Asia, which is the reason why they are mainly there.

But I think what the Wall Street Journal was talking about was something very different than what we are trying to do here with reshoring manufacturing of semiconductors.

The Wall Street Journal, I believe, is talking about the Department of Defense's zero-trust semiconductor purchasing model. In other words, we needed a trusted foundry to build semiconductors for our most important weapon systems and aircraft, like the F-35, and so this is not a manufacturing facility that will supply the semiconductors that are needed by our growing economy and for national security. This is a very narrow, targeted program at the Department of Defense, and, like I said, the Department of Defense's secure foundry or trusted supplier program is not a substitute for what we are trying to do here.

Finally, let me say that there is broad bipartisan agreement about how important it is that we get this CHIPS Act passed.

Secretary Raimondo, the Secretary of Commerce, whom I have come to know and come to work with and respect, said to CNBC yesterday: ``The U.S. is dangerously dependent on Taiwan's semiconductor manufacturing, which is in a fragile situation, which I have tried to describe.''

I agree with Secretary Raimondo. This is something that the President wants done. This is something the Senate has spoken to and passed on a broad bipartisan basis, and this is something that we need to do without further delay.

So I hope the House will pass the bill if for no other reason than to give us a bill that we can conference the Senate bill with. But in the end, the Senate bill needs to be the template for what is ultimately done by the conference committee and what is ultimately passed by the U.S. Congress.

Madam President.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, due to the winter storms that are shutting down airports around the country, Senator Lee, the Senator from Utah, who objects to this unanimous consent request is not here, and I had the bad luck to be here when he communicated to me his desire that I make an objection on his behalf.

I would say to my friend from Colorado, I am a noncombatant on this issue. I didn't hold his bill. But I know Senator Lee does have an amendment, I believe, he wants to offer, and certainly he wants to be here to participate in the discussion and vote on the bill. So on his behalf, I object.

Mr. President, I want to recognize and congratulate Gary Kelly, the CEO of Southwest Airlines, as he hands over the reins of this great Texas-based company and transitions to a new role as executive chairman.

Southwest is a remarkable success story that captures the spirit of Texas--bold, innovative, and unafraid to take risks, while also warm, hospitable, and focused on people. Those words describe Southwest, and they equally describe the company's devoted leader, Gary Kelly.

Gary is a seventh-generation Texan who has served the people of Southwest in various capacities since 1986, including nearly two decades as CEO. Looking back on those years, it is incredible to recall the many storms Gary and the people of Southwest navigated--years of depressed travel demand following the September 11 attacks, the great recession, and now a global pandemic. Through it all, Gary provided steadfast leadership and support to the airline's more than 56,000 employees and countless beloved customers.

I've been proud to work with Gary and his incredible team over the years, most notably on the Payroll Support Program, which protected the jobs of airline employees during the most turbulent days of the pandemic. Throughout its 50-year history, Southwest has never laid off employees--a point of great pride for the airline's people-focused CEO. It's abundantly clear that the love flows both ways. I remember visiting Southwest's headquarters in Dallas and seeing the admiration on employees' faces as they spoke about their dedicated and talented leader.

Congratulations to Gary Kelly on nearly two decades as the CEO of Southwest Airlines. As he transitions to a new leadership role, I have no doubt that he will build upon his legacy of dedicated service to Southwest and its employees.

Mr. President, during the last break in our voting schedule here in Washington, DC, I was grateful to have the time back home talking with my constituents about the challenges they are facing on a day-to-day basis and, like we all, I think, try to do, figuring out how we can be helpful to them here in the Senate.

I must note that there is usually a huge disconnect between what seems to obsess the news media and folks living in the bubble of Washington, DC, and what I hear from my constituents back home, and this time wasn't much different.

When I was back in Austin, I received a briefing on the ongoing pandemic response efforts. Like the rest of the country and the rest of the world, COVID-19 hasn't gone away, and we are trying to slowly but surely both adapt and deal with the pandemic.

Thanks to an overwhelming response by the Federal Government initially back during the Trump administration, during Operation Warp Speed, we have access to vaccines on the fastest timeline that we have ever seen. Medical science and pharmaceutical companies and the government came together to produce effective and safe vaccines at a historic rate of speed. But even as the virus itself has morphed, as viruses, I understand, will likely do, we still continue to need things like personal protective equipment and additional tests and antibiotics treatments for people in my State.

Ironically, President Biden ran in large part in 2020 based on the COVID response of the Trump administration and, as we all recall, was pretty harshly critical. But now he seems to have changed his tune. When asked about things like access to testing, he says: Well, those are really State responsibilities.

Well, passing the buck is a familiar pastime here in Washington, DC, but I don't think anybody is fooled that this is an area where the Federal Government continues to play an essential role. Yes, our State leaders have done by and large, I think, a good job in their respective jurisdictions. The fact of the matter is, we still need a plan to deal with the testing and the ongoing effects of COVID-19.

Interestingly, people who wanted to get access to things like therapeutics, anti-viral drugs, and monoclonal antibiotics were told that the Federal Government would not allow the States to use those particular modalities anymore because the Federal Government had made a decision that this was not effective against the current strain. But, as we know, this virus continues to mutate. We are hoping that we don't go all the way through the Greek alphabet in various forms of this virus, but the fact of the matter is, I think we have all now gotten a little glimpse out of what Washington-run healthcare would look like, starting with rationing based on decisions being made in Washington, DC, about what should be available to people when they get sick or when they see their doctor.

I believe that those decisions are best left to individuals, in consultation with their healthcare provider to make those decisions. But we have gotten a little bit of a glimpse when Washington says no monoclonal antibiotics anymore, no therapeutic anti-virals because they don't work against the current strain of COVID-19, the Omicron.

As I said, the virus is probably not going to stop mutating, and unfortunately, I think the Federal response--rationing access to these therapies and treatment--could well backlash on the government.

I am appreciative of the dedicated work of all of our frontline healthcare workers. As we all know, they have been pushed to the limit, dealing with COVID-19. They are exhausted and, in many instances, burned out.

There are not enough frontline healthcare workers currently. What that means is that many hospitals and healthcare providers have to contract with nursing services, which really are national organizations that hire nurses and then contract out as needed to local hospitals. What that usually means is, because there are not enough local nurses available at the going rate, they have to contract for prices for those nursing services that are many multiples of what ordinarily they would have to do, causing a lot of pain and strain on healthcare providers across Texas and across the Nation.

On my travels, I went to Fort Worth, where I visited with the University of North Texas Health Science Center to discuss legislation that I have introduced, along with Senator Leahy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, called the Justice for All Reauthorization Act. As the name suggests, this is a reauthorization of very important tools that are needed at the local level to support victims and deliver justice and avoid wrongful convictions.

This really focuses on the use of forensic techniques to test DNA and other samples--for example, in a rape kit, which is collected following a sexual assault, by a forensic nurse examiner who can collect a rape kit. Assuming it is done properly and it is provided to a lab that performs the appropriate test, you can identify with almost 100 percent certainty who the assailant is or was. So it is really important for us to make sure those tools remain available, including eliminating further that rape kit backlog.

It used to be that the rape kits were not tested when the identity of the assailant was not in question, because, in fact, many times the identity of the assailant is known to the victim of that assault. But, as we found out, the power of these forensic tests is immense. And we can rule out somebody based on the DNA test. We can identify people who have perpetrated multiple sexual assaults because many of these sexual assault predators are serial offenders. And what we found out is even when the statute of limitations has run, let's say, against a particular sexual assault, many times you will be able to identify with virtual certainty the individual who committed a subsequent sexual assault for which the statute of limitations has not run. So that remains very, very important.

In Houston, which is, we like to say, the energy capital of the world, I sat down with leaders to discuss legislation that I have introduced with Senator Coons, the Senator from Delaware, to expand the use of hydrogen technologies in energy-intensive sectors. Hydrogen is a unique energy source. As a matter of fact, Toyota, I believe, has developed a fuel cell technology where, if you use hydrogen in the fuel cell, you will not only get propulsion of a vehicle, you will actually get water out the tailpipe. So it is very clean, and it is very safe.

But the problem is, of course, the expense of this new technology and trying to get it used in places where it makes the most sense because the infrastructure is critical both for the storage and the delivery of the hydrogen for use in these energy-intensive sectors.

Texas is already the epicenter of energy production. We believe in all of the above when it comes to energy, and these investments in new clean energy like hydrogen can help us grow and diversify our State's energy portfolio even further while continuing to reduce emissions in many sectors that are currently big emitters of carbon and other emissions.

So it was great to be back home, as I know we all feel when we get back home, and to listen and to learn from your constituents--not just the official talking points and the subjects that are always on cable news or social media but about the challenges and the needs and the hopes and the dreams of the people we represent, real people, the 29 million people I am privileged to represent in the Senate from Texas.

We also hear about some of their problems that they are dealing with like inflation, and we are hearing more about rising crime. And my constituents are looking to Congress for some leadership and some action. They want to see clear and decisive steps made to address the problems that Texas families confront on a regular basis. But, as I said, there isn't a whole lot of overlap, it seems, with the agenda here in Washington by the current majority in the House and the Senate and the priorities of my constituents back home.

So the debates in Congress have largely been detached from their reality. It is like living in an alternate universe, where we spend more time talking about manufactured crises or political agendas than solving real problems.

This year, it began with the $2 trillion partisan spending bill. Our colleagues abused the rules of the Senate to pass this legislation without a single Republican vote, and clearly they were hooked because partisan legislating became the rule and not the exception last year. Our colleagues scheduled votes on legislation that would exploit the cause of pay fairness in order to help trial lawyers, even though wage discrimination based on sex has been illegal for nearly 60 years.

They scheduled a number of votes on varying versions of legislation to hijack America's elections because of an alleged voting rights crisis, even though last November 2020 94 percent of respondents to a Pew poll said it was either easy or very easy to cast a ballot in the 2020 election.

Now, I had an interesting exchange with the majority leader on this. I actually had a chart that talked about that Pew poll. And he said: Well, yeah, we agree everything was hunky-dory in November 2020, but then it all went down the tubes when States began passing new election laws.

But I pointed out to him--or I asked him: Well, what is your primary concern?

He said: Well, ballot harvesting.

He thought that there ought to be more permissive ballot harvesting than is allowed in some States. But he didn't talk about the things like eliminating voter ID or making it harder to protect the integrity of the ballot by making sure that the person, whether they were mailing in their ballot or whether they were voting in person, was who they say they were and legally entitled to vote. But, again, we spend a lot of time on those multiple attempts to pass that takeover of State-run and local-run elections.

And then there was the so-called Build Back Better bill. I am sure that was focus group-tested so that it would be appealing to people who maybe didn't know exactly what was in it, but then we found out that it was massive tax increases and massive spending at a time when inflation was as bad as it has been in my lifetime and where the dollar earned by working families goes less and less far and, in fact, diminishes their standard of living because of the effect of inflation.

So the BBB bill--some have called it Build Back Better; I prefer ``Build Back Broke'' or ``Build Back Bankrupt''--which clearly would have thrown gasoline on the problem of inflation, along with raising taxes and depress our economy and job creation, it was so expensive and unnecessary that our colleagues couldn't get all 50 Members of their own conference on board.

And that is what happens when you have a 50-50 Senate with the Vice President breaking a tie. This isn't exactly like FDR's New Deal, where he had huge majorities and could basically move the country in any direction he wanted. What you would ordinarily think with a 50-50 Senate is that requires bipartisan consensus building, not trying to go it alone in a purely partisan manner. And it is no surprise that it wasn't successful.

Well, obviously, economists have something called opportunity cost, and what that means, as I understand it, is that if you are choosing to do one thing, that means there are other things that you necessarily cannot do, and that is an opportunity cost.

And one of the obvious costs to the American people is the border crisis

that has seen more than 2 million individuals encountered at the southwestern border. It is no secret to anybody that the drugs-- including fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine, just to mention a few of the drugs--that took the lives of 100,000 Americans last year through drug overdoses, virtually all of those come across the southwestern border.

And the cartels are not dumb. They are actually pretty shrewd. And they figured out that if you flood the zone, you flood the border with massive numbers of unaccompanied children and other vulnerable people, that the Border Patrol will have to leave their station on the border keeping the drugs and the cartels at bay, and that opens up huge avenues of opportunity to smuggling drugs illegally into the United States, in addition to the billions of dollars that they earn bringing people into the United States from more than 150 different countries.

I know most people who don't live in a border State or who haven't been to the border, they think, well, these are economic migrants from Central America. That seems to be what the Vice President, who has been designated as the ``immigration czar,'' so to speak, by President Biden, what she seems to think. And, frankly, from the comments of the President himself, he doesn't understand the dynamic at the border.

But, in reality, what Secretary Mayorkas, at the Department of Homeland Security, and the Biden administration have done is to lay out the red carpet for human smugglers and drug smugglers and migrants coming from around the world. Early on in the Biden administration, I went to the Del Rio Sector of the Border Patrol, and they told us that people who they detained had come from more than 150 different countries.

So this is really a global phenomenon based on how much money you have and how much you are willing to spend--to the smugglers--to get into the United States. And, again, for everybody whom we have no record on, we don't know whether they have been sex offenders; we don't know whether they have been murderers or committed other crimes back in their home country. And we also know that, occasionally, we do catch people who have been deported from the United States because of criminal offenses who then come back into the United States because of the opportunities provided by the lack of border controls.

This doesn't take into account all of the people whom the Border Patrol calls the ``get-aways.'' In other words, we know how many people turn themselves in and try to take advantage of the asylum system by flooding our immigration courts and creating a huge backlog and then melting into the great American landscape, but there are people who do penetrate our borders that the Border Patrol never encounters, and so it is really hard to know precisely what they are up to. But I can assure you, based on my observation and experience, they are up to no good if they are avoiding the Border Patrol.

Well, in trying to be constructive, which I believe in trying to do-- Washington, DC, can be a pretty tough place, and for sure there are going to be things we disagree on, but there are also opportunities to do things on a bipartisan basis. So seeing what was happening at the border, I reached out to another border State Senator, Senator Sinema from Arizona; and she and I both reached out to a Congressman from Laredo, TX, Congressman Cuellar, and Congressman Tony Gonzales-- Cuellar, a Democrat, and Gonzales, a Republican.

So we had, literally, a bicameral, bipartisan effort to come up with a piece of legislation that we thought that, assuming the administration wanted some help, this might be a good place to start. It is called the Bipartisan Border Solutions Act. But I am sorry to report that the administration--indeed, the Democratic leadership, particularly on the Judiciary Committee that has jurisdiction over immigration matters--has shown absolutely zero interest in any kind of measures to stop or to reduce the flow of migrants into the United States and solve this problem.

Well, obviously, crime is still a big problem in America, and the border is part of the problem because of the unrestricted flow of people coming across the border. But we know last year, in 2020, murders--that is 2 years ago now, 2 calendar years ago now--murders rose by nearly 30 percent from the year prior, the largest single-year increase on record. So crime has definitely spiked, for whatever reason, and requires a forceful and effective response. We are still waiting on data from 2021, but so far the picture doesn't appear to be much brighter. A number of major cities have experienced their deadliest years on record.

And Americans are taking notice. A poll in November found that more than half of those surveyed believe local crime has gotten worse--a 13- point jump from the previous year. Concerns about national crime rates are even higher. Nearly three-quarters of Americans who were polled believe that crime is up nationally, and they are not wrong.

This, of course, is bad news for our families, our communities, our businesses, and especially for our dedicated law enforcement officials. Within a 5-day span just last week, five Harris County police officers--that is Houston, TX--as well as a police canine officer were killed or injured. During a 5-day span, five were killed.

An officer was shot and killed during a traffic stop. One was killed during a hit-and-run while off duty. Three officers were wounded in a shootout, and a police canine was stabbed with a butcher knife.

Amid this surge of crime and concerning acts of violence against law enforcement and civilians, there is a clear need for Congress to step up and act. We need to pass legislation to ensure that our police forces are well funded, transparent, and held accountable. Unfortunately, this is not a priority for the majority party. The radical left and their base want to defund the police, and most Democrats seem to be intimidated about speaking up and speaking for their constituents when it comes to stopping or abating these crimes.

As I mentioned, families are also being pummeled by the highest inflation in 40 years, and we have all seen prices going up everywhere, from the gas pump to groceries, to cars, to clothes.

Business owners, of course, have been hit with a double whammy, as supply chain issues have made it even more difficult and costly to produce and sell and ship their products.

As I mentioned, gas prices are perhaps the most easily identified area where inflation is eating away at people's paychecks. Drivers are now spending 50 percent more today than they were a year ago on a gallon of gas.

That is not just the big, headline-grabbing crises the Biden administration has failed to address.

The national defense authorization bill is one of the best examples of what we should do here in the Senate--an example of bipartisanship. A version of this bill has passed every year for 61 years, and, last summer, things appeared to be on track, even ahead of schedule. The Armed Services Committee passed a national defense authorization bill by a vote of 23 to 3. You don't get more bipartisan than that.

Unfortunately, for some reason, the majority leader refused to bring the defense authorization bill to the floor and left the bill to collect dust on the Senate calendar before moving it. When he finally allowed it to come to the floor in late November, he tried to limit the normal amendment process by blaming the calendar. But to no one's surprise, that created a lot of issues and a lot of consternation. You simply can't sit on a bipartisan bill for months and then claim there is no time for a robust amendment process.

But eventually the Senate did pass the Defense authorization bill before the end of the year. But we can't get in the habit of delaying bipartisan bills in order to meet a partisan agenda.

Then there is government funding. We are more than a year into the Democratic-controlled majority controlling the government and not a single regular appropriations bill has passed. Our colleagues have kicked the can down the road.

As soon as I am through with my remarks, I will be glad to yield.

So our colleagues kicked the can down the road when it came to keeping the lights on in the appropriations process in September and December, and now it looks like they are poised to do it again and will not meet the February 18 deadline.

So with the focus on partisan politics rather than bipartisan opportunities, our colleagues in the majority have simply ignored the basic responsibilities of governing. They put the demands of partisanship ahead of the needs of the American people. Rather than reevaluate the strategy and perhaps make a course correction, our colleagues have doubled down. They scheduled another vote on their partisan election takeover bill. And when it failed, they attempted to blow up the rules of the Senate to create an easier pathway to purely partisan legislation.

So there is a massive disconnect between what Democrats in the majority have been trying to accomplish here in Washington, DC, and what the American people are telling me--particularly my constituents-- that they actually need.

Families in Texas are struggling to pay their gas and grocery bills, and they are worried about the increase in violent crime. But our colleagues are trying to convince them that they are wrong and that what is important is a Federal takeover of State-run elections and to provide additional tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires from blue States by lifting or eliminating the cap on deductibility of State and local taxes, as they attempted to do.

So a lot of the time we have had this last year--the opportunity to pass good and meaningful legislation--has been lost, and thus the opportunity cost of this partisanship is things that really would make a difference and improve the lives of ordinary Americans.

The American people are not asking for a radical transformation of the country. That was pretty clear by the 50-50 Senate that they elected in 2020, as well as a bare Democratic majority in the House. They want safe communities. They want an affordable standard of living. They want secure borders. They want the right to decide what is best for themselves and their families and not be dictated to or mandated by the Federal Government.

So I continue to hope that our Democratic colleagues will abandon partisanship and use the remainder of this year to support what the American people actually want and need.

Mr. President, I would be glad to yield for a question.

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

Mr. President, the former leader of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin, once said:

You probe with bayonets: If you find mush, you push. If you

find steel, you withdraw.

Well, apparently, the current Russian President subscribes to this same point of view. President Putin has made no secret of his desire to restore the former Soviet Union. In 2005, he declared:

The [demise] of the Soviet Union was the greatest

geopolitical catastrophe of the century.

``The [demise] of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,'' he said in 2005.

He went on to say:

As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy.

Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found

themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.

So perhaps we should not have been surprised when, in 2008, Russia invaded Georgia--that is, the country of Georgia. Then, when it came to a global response, the Russian President found mush, so he pushed. In 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time since the end of the Cold War, taking its Crimea region. Once again, President Putin found mush, so he pushed.

Today, more than 100,000 Russian troops are massed along the Ukrainian border. An invasion could happen at any moment. This impending crisis raises a fundamental question for the freedom-loving countries of the world: Will President Putin be met with mush or steel? Will the anticipated cost of an invasion in terms of blood, treasure, and reputation become so high that he backs down or will a muted global response encourage his lust for empire?

In times like these, the civilized world looks to the United States for leadership. Ours may no longer be a unipolar world, with the rise of China and the dreams of empire of the Russian Federation, but our country remains a beacon of freedom, strength, and democracy that serves as an example for the rest of the world.

So the question the world is asking is, Will America still lead? Will we accept our responsibilities under treaties like that of the North Atlantic Treaty, which formed NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? To be sure, Ukraine is not yet a member of NATO, but will we and the other members allow Putin to dictate membership in the multilateral, rules-based order represented by NATO by threats and force? Will we aid a democracy like Ukraine in its self-defense? These are questions that lie before us, and so far, the Biden administration's response has been less than reassuring.

Last year, the administration waived sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, giving Russia the green light to continue its monopoly on the energy supply to Europe along with its ability, because of that monopoly, to weaponize energy to an even greater extent.

The administration's response led to a poorly planned and even more poorly executed exodus from Afghanistan, leaving Afghans vulnerable and at the mercy of the Taliban and leaving our friends and allies around the world aghast at the manner in which that exit occurred.

Then, a couple of weeks ago, President Biden suggested that minor incursions--minor incursions--by Russia into Ukraine may be tolerated-- a line that he would later, thankfully, walk back.

President Biden has given our allies multiple reasons to doubt the resolve and credibility of the United States as that leader of the free world. Whether out of naivete or idealism or just error of judgment, it doesn't change the fact that President Biden has repeatedly projected a lack of decisiveness and weakness, and Putin, you had better believe, has taken notice.

As it stands today, the international response to Russian aggression is disjointed and disorganized at best. France is all in on diplomacy. The United Kingdom is offering clear but limited military assistance. Germany, unfortunately, seems to support appeasement. The United States and the rest of the world are waiting for President Biden to step up to the challenge.

I believe we have a responsibility to stand with Ukraine and help its people defend its sovereignty and its democracy. Now, that doesn't mean having American troops on the ground, but there are other ways we can help Ukraine defend itself and raise the costs of a threatened Russian invasion into their country. Forceful language and threats of sanctions may be important, but they are clearly not enough. We need to take concrete steps to minimize the likelihood of a Russian attack and ensure that Ukraine, as I said, has the resources they need in order to defend themselves in the event of an invasion.

There is a historical parallel. During World War II, President Roosevelt recognized how critical it was for the United States to support Great Britain even at a time when the American people were isolationists and when America's official policy was neutrality toward the war in Europe. President Roosevelt recognized it was important to do what we could to support Great Britain during its hour of need, when it was literally hanging on by a thread, because it lacked the resources it needed to protect its people and fend off German forces. So President Roosevelt vowed to transform the United States into what he called the arsenal of democracy and worked with Congress to devise a creative solution that later became known as the Lend-Lease Act. This legislation, signed into law in March of 1941, allowed the United States to supply our allies with weapons, ships, aircraft--any materiel they needed in order to mount their defense at a critical time in the war in Europe.

Later that year, Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister, said the bill ``must be regarded without question as the most unsordid act in the whole of recorded history.'' Now, Winston Churchill certainly had a way with words, and when he calls it an unsordid act, I guess today we would say it was the most selfless and unselfish act in the whole of recorded history by the United States of America.

The circumstances today are not those of March of 1941. There is no mistake about that. Yet, if you look back at the historical parallels-- at the circumstances in 1939, when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia for similar reasons for which Putin is claiming he has a right to invade Ukraine--they are chilling. If we had stood up to Germany then, we might have avoided a global calamity and prevented the loss of millions of innocent lives.

So what best to inform our actions today but the experience of the past, to correct our mistakes, and to duplicate the successful efforts in World War II or at other times in our history. The lessons of the past must inform the present, and I believe we still have a duty to lead when it comes to protecting democracies and freedom-loving countries around the world.

Once again, America can now become that arsenal of democracy for Ukraine. To that end, I have introduced bipartisan legislation called the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act to ensure that Ukrainian forces have the resources they need to deter and defend against Russian aggression.

I am proud to have worked with senior members of the Armed Services Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee--people like Senators Cardin, Wicker, Shaheen, Graham, Blumenthal, Sullivan, and Hassan--on this legislation, which will give the administration and give President Biden more flexibility and more efficiency when it comes to being that arsenal of democracy for Ukraine.

As it stands today, the President of the United States has a menu of options to support our friends and allies in times of conflict. In some cases, like the loan of equipment, the United States could eventually retain end use. In others, this would make clear we would support grants or emergency aid where we would not recover the funding or assets sent to our allies. This

bill provides an additional option on the menu, allowing the United States to provide assistance that may otherwise be unfeasible unless we could retain end use. This legislation authorizes the President to enter into lend-lease agreements directly with Ukraine and provide the military equipment necessary to protect the Ukrainian people.

My hope is that this will send another message to Vladimir Putin that not only do you need to consider the statements and actions of the executive branch but that you also need to look at the bipartisan support that Ukraine is getting in the U.S. Congress--tangible support--in terms of weapons they can use to deter and, if not to deter, to defeat Russian aggression. Russia must know that an invasion would be met with steel and not mush. If Russian troops make the decision to move forward, Ukrainian forces would have the lethal weapons needed to defend their sovereignty. I am proud of the fact that this effort does have such strong bipartisan support, and I hope more of our colleagues will join us in this legislation.

This is one important way we can send a message to our friends and allies around the world that you are not alone, that America can be trusted, that our commitments are credible and they will be met not just with words but with action.

Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Menendez of the Foreign Relations Committee and Ranking Member Risch, I have been proud to work with this bipartisan group of colleagues to discuss not just this lend- lease legislation but a more comprehensive approach to counter Russian aggression. We have discussed the lend-lease bill, as well as additional security assistance and lethal aid for Ukraine.

The group is currently crafting a package of targeted sanctions, as well, meant to deter Russia from invading. It includes limited but immediate sanctions in response to ongoing aggression and, in particular, cyber attacks, which were a new domain unknown in World War II but which are very real in 2022.

Russia cannot operate under the illusion that it will only receive a slap on the hand for invading Ukraine. I will leave it to the chairman and ranking member to make announcements about this legislation, but suffice it to say that I am encouraged that bipartisan progress is being made.

We agree on the outlines of what is being discussed, and we are committed to striking a deal as quickly as possible because time is of the essence. Nobody knows, except Vladimir Putin, when he will order the invasion of Ukraine. But make no mistake, America stands with Ukraine, and we will do everything we can to help them defend themselves against an invasion by the Russian Federation.

This is not just a Ukraine problem. This is not just a Europe problem or a NATO problem. The potential for escalation makes this a global security problem. Russia didn't stop after Georgia or Crimea, and it likely will not stop after Ukraine.

We are confronting the scope of Russia's power and influence on the global stage, and America's leadership, as always, is absolutely crucial.

The United States has a responsibility to promote peace and security around the world. If Russia invades Ukraine and America does nothing, we show the world that our position can't be trusted, that our promises to our allies are not credible, and we also show that we will sacrifice the lives and the treasure of freedom-loving countries like Ukraine to the biggest bully on the continent.

A shifting global order would send a signal to other countries, as well--not just in Europe but around the world, in places like China and Iran--that all bets are off. They may be incentivized to mount similar pressure campaigns and not fear retaliation by the United States and our allies. If that were to happen, America would no longer be the global superpower. We would suddenly become a regional power with mere aspirations and no global reach.

Make no mistake, an attack on Ukraine is also an attack on America's global security interests and on world peace and could have cascading consequences that right now are too horrible to contemplate.

This is an existential threat to our leadership in the world and to the global order we underwrite and to our way of life and the way of life for freedom-loving democracies around the world. A Russian invasion of Ukraine is far more existential than a mere isolated and faraway quarrel.

I appreciate the hard work of Senators on both sides of the aisle to develop this response--this strong response--to Russia's threatened aggression. We need to do our part to ensure that, when Russia probes with bayonets, it shall be met with steel.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, last week when the Senate was in recess, Justice Stephen Breyer announced he will soon retire from the U.S. Supreme Court. I want to first thank Justice Breyer for his service-- more than four decades, including nearly three decades on the Supreme Court itself.

Although I have disagreed with his rulings from time to time, I maintain deep respect for Justice Breyer's commitment to the rule of law and the integrity of our judicial system.

Last year, when some of our Democratic colleagues renewed their threats to expand the Supreme Court and pack it with partisans, Justice Breyer, to his credit, spoke up. He echoed the comments of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg and warned about the potentially dangerous consequences of Democrats' Court-packing threats. As I said, I have great respect for Justice Breyer's defense of the Court and the rule of law and protecting the Court as an institution, especially at a moment when sound, principled leadership was needed.

Once again, I want to thank Justice Breyer for his service and wish him a well-deserved retirement.

All eyes are now on the White House as we await news of President Biden's nominee to succeed Justice Breyer. Although this is the President's first opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, he is standing at a very familiar fork in the road, outlining two separate and distinct paths.

One of those paths involves convention and virtuous leadership. President Biden could select an individual whose stellar credentials and experience are matched by a deep respect for the rule of law and the Constitution. He could nominate someone who agrees that Supreme Court Justices are meant to act as umpires, not as players in the game. They are supposed to call balls and strikes, not to help their preferred team score runs.

Of course, there is another path, one that was cleared and paved by the radical left. The President could listen to the liberal activists who want to select somebody who will deliver partisan wins regardless of the facts. He could nominate someone who would attempt to use a position on the Supreme Court to rule based on personal policies or preferences rather than what the law commands a Justice to do.

As I have said, President Biden has found himself looking down these two diverging paths a number of times. When he first took office, he could have worked with Republicans to build on Congress's perfect record of bipartisan pandemic relief. With the border crisis, he could have endorsed bipartisan efforts to address the virtually uninhibited flow of migrants across our southern border during this last year.

With a 50-50 Senate, he could have embraced the opportunity to work across the aisle to make progress on our shared priorities, but at every single decision point, the President basically ignored the opportunity to build consensus. Even when he supported the infrastructure bill, it was only as a last resort after his attempt, along with that of Speaker Pelosi, to join the infrastructure bill to the Build Back Better bill, which he knew did not have the support that it needed, even among Members of his own party.

The President has repeatedly bowed to the radical left's demands, and the results speak for themselves. Last spring, the American people were stuck with a nearly $2 trillion bill for unnecessary partisan spending. Illegal border crossings remain at historic highs, with more than 2 million apprehensions since January of last year when he took office.

Many of our Democratic colleagues abandoned their longstanding support for the filibuster or the bipartisan consensus-building requirement of our cloture rules and tried to blow up the foundation of the Senate in order to clear a path for even more partisan legislation.

Now we find ourselves 1 year into a Democratic-controlled government with a short list of legislative accomplishments.

Time and time again, President Biden has abandoned bipartisanship and tradition in order to appease the progressive base in his political party, and the American people are the ones who have suffered the consequences.

Once again, I would hope he would remember his inspiring words at his inauguration on January 20, just about a year ago, where he called for a healing of the divisions in our country and working together in a shared desire to improve the quality of life for Americans and to make their place in the world one of leadership and peace.

The left has already begun its campaign to replace Justice Breyer with a judicial activist. In fact, the very fact that Justice Breyer decided to retire is an indication that the radical left is successful in browbeating a sitting Supreme Court Justice into retiring rather than finishing his term of office.

But clearly these folks on the left don't want him to be succeeded by another principled jurist who evaluates cases based on the law and the facts. They want a partisan who will deliver sure political wins. Our Nation does not need a radical ideologue serving on the highest Court in the land.

We all know that the Supreme Court is a third and coequal branch of government. We also know that the role of a judge is far different from that of a legislator. Legislators are elected in order to represent their constituents and make public policy proposals that hopefully will become law which will improve their lot in life and their future.

The Supreme Court--or any judge, for that matter--is not supposed to start with a desired result and work backward from there. The Supreme Court is not a substitute for working together to pass legislation in the legislative branch with the signoff by the executive branch. The Supreme Court--or any court--is not a failsafe that can be utilized to deliver particular results that can't be secured through the legislative process.

Judges should not be legislators in black robes. They shouldn't advocate for any particular policy outcome or promote a specific agenda. Our democracy and the rule of law depends on Justices embracing not personal politics, not personal beliefs, and not a preference for a particular result in a case. The key to our constitutional Republic is a judge that calls balls and strikes, who decides each case based on the facts and the law.

It is important because, every time a judge acts as an activist and takes away an issue that should be decided by the political branches, it shrinks the capacity of the American people to make their own choices at the ballot box when they elect members of the legislature and executive branch.

In fact, that is the reason why our Constitution gives Justices lifetime tenure--so they will be insulated from politics, not so they can use that tenure in order to impose their political preferences without retribution by the voters.

Conversely, those of us in Congress are precisely elected in political elections for policy purposes, and the fact is we either listen to our constituents

and are guided by their desires or they hold the power to replace us and retire us at the ballot box. That is why our Founders gave courts the jurisdiction to apply and interpret the law, not to make the law up as they go along.

We need dedicated public servants who follow the statutes passed by Congress and signed by the President into law, and the Constitution representing the fundamental law of the land, and we need judges to make decisions based on what that law says, not, again, on what their preferred outcome may be.

So as the President approaches these two paths, I hope he will ignore the clamor on the left and make a choice that serves in the best interest of the American people and send us a nominee who respects the law and the limited role of a judge in our political system, because a judge is not supposed to substitute his or her opinion for that of the elected representatives of the people.

And surely the Constitution itself is the fundamental law of the land. And, as Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, the decisions of the Court interpreting that Constitution are the last word.

But what we need is what Chief Justice Roberts called humility; that judges understand their important but limited role under our form of government not to supersede the policy judgments of the elected officials just because they can because they are the last word. We need judges who will demonstrate that sort of humility, who understand that, yes, they have a tough and important job to do but that it is within certain guardrails and limitations about what that role should be.

As the President looks down these two divergent paths, I hope he will ignore the clamor on the left and make a choice that serves the best interest of the American people. And he would do that by choosing a mainstream nominee.

The President promised during his campaign to nominate an African- American woman to the Supreme Court, making that a historic first. As the President weighs his decision, I want to remind him and our Senate colleagues that diversity extends far beyond just gender and skin color. We need a diversity of education, background, and experience.

For example, all of the current Justices on the Court but one were educated at Ivy League colleges and universities. In fact, when Justice Barrett was confirmed, she became the first sitting Justice to attend a law school other than Harvard or Yale. It is true that the current Justices largely hail from coastal metropolitan areas, and one-third of the sitting Justices have previously served on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

So I agree that diversity on the highest Court in the land is a valuable asset, and I encourage the President to consider nominees that can bring unique experiences, education, and viewpoints of all types to the Supreme Court.

Whoever the President chooses will be evaluated based on their qualifications, experience, and ability to separate politics from the rule of law. That is the job of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am proud to serve.

I presume we would treat any nominee--regardless of ethnicity, race, or gender--exactly the same in extending to them a respectful and dignified process. Certainly, no nominee is going to get points, so to speak, toward their confirmation vote because they are of a particular race, ethnicity, or gender. Each nominee will be thoroughly vetted and questioned, just as prior nominees have been.

But unlike some of the mudslinging that we saw during the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, I expect this process to be fair and dignified. We must be careful, thorough, and comprehensive because the American people and the institution of the Supreme Court deserve nothing less.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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