Floor Statements

Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive Calendar No. 537, Cole Finegan, of Colorado to be United States Attorney for the District of Colorado for the term of four years; No. 538, Kenneth L. Parker, of Ohio, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio for the term of four years; No. 553, Cindy K. Chung, of Pennsylvania, to be United State Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania for the term of four years; and No. 554, Gary M. Restaino, of Arizona, to be United States Attorney for the District of Arizona for the term of four years.

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the nomination of Executive Calendar No. 332, Lee Satterfield, of South Carolina, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Educational and Cultural Affairs).

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 144, H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I understand that multiple of my colleagues have objections to all of the nominees that the Senator from New Jersey is going to offer this evening. So I will be here to object on their behalf and also on my own behalf with regard to a few of them.

Mr. President, I want to address one of those nominees, Julianne Smith, the President's nominee to be United States Ambassador to NATO. This is a nominee to whom I object myself, and I want to explain why, briefly.

Before I do that, however, I just have to make one comment on the Senate majority leader's remarks about his own inability to get these nominees confirmed.

Now, I agree that many of these nominees are important, and that is, in fact, one of the reasons we should have a vote on them. The Ambassador to NATO, for instance, as I am about to argue, is a very important position. And the positions that she takes, the arguments that she makes are very important, which is why we ought to go on the record and actually have a vote.

But the Senate majority leader's comments--as if he has no control over the calendar. He is the majority leader of the United States Senate. He decides when we vote. He decides what we vote on.

What are we doing now?

The floor is empty. We could be voting.

What are we doing later this week?

He is gavelling us out of session so that Members across the aisle can go on a field trip to Glasgow, Scotland.

We could be voting.

It is getting a little rich to hear the Senate majority leader, who is doing almost nothing--have we brought up the defense bill?

No action. Multiple major issues--no action from the Senate majority leader.

If these nominees are so critical, he ought to be putting them on the floor for votes. He doesn't want to do that because, apparently, he can't control the floor or he just doesn't want to work for very long or he doesn't want to work very hard. I mean, I leave that to him. But it is quite ridiculous for the majority leader to blame Republicans, who cannot prevent votes.

Can I just be clear? Republicans do not have the ability to prevent votes on any of these nominees. The filibuster for these nominees doesn't exist.

We can vote whenever the majority leader wants. It is his decision when to bring them to the floor.

Now I want to comment on one just briefly. On Julianne Smith--one nominee tonight to whom I object--this is the President's nominee, as I said a moment ago, to be the next United States Ambassador to NATO.

I think the Senator from New Jersey and I can agree that this is a very important position. I am sure the Senator believes that, and I agree with him 100 percent. And I just want to take a minute and say why I think it is important and why we need to vote--actually vote--on her nomination.

A decade ago almost, 2014, after the Russian invasion--incursion into Ukraine, NATO allies finally recognized that they were not spending enough--our NATO allies--on their own defense and on our common defense. So they pledged as a group to commit at least 2 percent of their respective GDPs to their own defense and to meet that target by 2024. So far, large numbers of them are not on track to do so.

In fact, Ms. Smith said, in response to my own questions about this, that it is clear that a group of allies will fail to deliver on this pledge by 2024; and, currently, another group are not close to meeting it, although they say they hope to make up the difference.

Here is my point: The security situation has not improved since 2014. It has deteriorated. Russia, as we speak, is still menacing Ukraine. And now China is menacing Taiwan.

The United States is already facing hard choices, and we are going to face harder choices yet about how we allocate our defense resources, which are scarce; how we allocate our force posture, how we structure our force posture in a world that is growing more dangerous. And the China threat, in particular, is one that is going to make us make difficult choices in what we prioritize in the Asia-Pacific versus what we prioritize in Europe.

The bottom line is we need our allies to meet not only their 2- percent commitment, but we need them to do more in Europe for their own defense because we must focus on the deteriorating security situation in the Indo-Pacific and in the Asia-Pacific with regard to China and its imperial ambitions in Taiwan.

I asked Ms. Smith for her commitment that she will press our NATO allies not only to meet their 2-percent commitment, but to revise that commitment so that we can have a truly common defense in this era of multiplying challenges and deteriorating security. She has refused, unfortunately, to give me that commitment.

I can't block her nomination, but I can ask that we take a vote on it. And so for that reason, in a moment here, when Senator Menendez brings her nomination to the floor, I will object and ask for a vote on her, in particular; and I will, as I said, object to others on behalf of my colleagues. With those comments, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I object.

Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I object.

Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues, I object.

Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I object.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I object.

Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues, I object.

Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues, I object.

Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 412, Rahul Gupta, of West Virginia, to be Director of National Drug Control Policy.

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive Calendar Nos. 392-399, Jessica D. Aber, of Virginia, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for the term of four years; Carla B. Freedman, of New York, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York for the term of four years; William J. Ihlenfeld II, of West Virginia, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia for the term of four years; Christopher R. Kavanaugh, of Virginia, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia for the term of four years; Darcie N. McElwee, of Maine, to be United States Attorney for the District of Maine for the term of four years; Breon S. Peace, of New Jersey, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York for the term of four years; William S. Thompson, of West Virginia, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia for the term of four years; and Damian Williams, of New York, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York for the term of four years, vice Preet Bharara.

Reserving the right to object, I appreciate the earnestness on this issue from my friend and colleague the Senator from New Jersey. He mentions that something could happen in the world, that something will happen in the world. Something, I submit to you, has happened in the world, and today we have been learning about it. I am talking about the crisis in Afghanistan, the debacle in Afghanistan.

All day, the Senate has been hearing testimony in the Armed Services Committee from Secretary Austin, from General Milley, and from General McKenzie about how it came to be that 13 American servicemembers are dead, 169 civilians killed, and hundreds of Americans left behind enemy lines there as we still speak--the greatest foreign policy crisis that this country has seen since Vietnam. And those aren't my words; those are the words--the comparison of the Democratic members of the committee who repeatedly referenced today Vietnam, the fall of Saigon. That is the level of crisis that we are dealing with.

What accountability has there been for this crisis, for this debacle? Because ``crisis'' isn't even quite the right word. That sounds like a natural disaster, as if it accidentally happened. That is not the case. This is a debacle, a failure of leadership in the first order, and what accountability has there been for it? Who has resigned? Who has been fired? Who has been relieved of command? Nobody. What actions have the administration taken? None.

What does Secretary Austin say today? He says: Well, we will take a hard look at ourselves, and we will ask some tough questions.

Mr. President, that is not nearly good enough. Americans are dead. Americans are stranded behind enemy lines. Our foreign policies are in a state of collapse. Our national security is in a state of collapse. Enemies around the world are watching what is happening in Afghanistan, are seeing an opportunity as the United States shows weakness and disarray and chaos. There must be accountability.

Let me say something more about what we learned today because we did learn quite a lot, and all of it is frightening. We learned that the President of the United States lied. He lied when he said to the American people in an interview on television just a few weeks ago that he was never told by any of his military advisers--never told that a drawdown on this timetable, his timetable, would result in catastrophe.

He was asked by George Stephanopoulos:

Your top military advisers warned against withdrawing on

this [timetable]. They wanted you to keep about 2,500 troops.

President Biden:

No, they didn't.

Stephanopoulos:

They didn't tell you that they wanted troops to stay?

President Biden:

No.

Stephanopoulos:

So no one told--your military advisers did not tell you,

``No, we should just keep 2,500 troops.''

President Biden:

No. No one said that to me that I can recall.

Today, we heard from General Milley, General McKenzie, and Secretary Austin, who--each of them said that they advised the President--it was their considered military judgment that the President's plans were mistaken. They advised against it. They advised him against it. Yet he said: No, no one ever told me. I am not responsible. No one ever told me.

We also learned this: We learned that the President lied when he said that he had no idea that the Taliban would take over the country in such a short time period.

From the same interview, George Stephanopoulos said to President Biden:

Back in July, you said a Taliban takeover was highly

unlikely. Was the intelligence wrong, or did you downplay it?

Biden said: No. I think that there was no consensus. If you go back and look, they said it is not going to happen.

Stephanopoulos:

[But] you didn't put a timeline on it when you said it was

highly unlikely. You just flat out [said], ``It's highly

unlikely the Taliban would take over.''

President Biden said:

Yeah.

We learned today, in fact, that his commander on the ground, General Miller, warned as early as March, March of this year, that the military situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating rapidly; that the Taliban was on the offensive; that the drawdown of American troops would likely result in the collapse of the Afghan Government and the Afghan security forces sooner rather than later. It was going to come fast is what General Miller said. Yet

the President says no one ever told him that. He never knew about it. In fact, his own commanders on the ground warned him about it.

What was the consequence of this? Well, the President is either forgetting or ignoring or just outright lying about what he was advised by his own commanders.

His administration was failing to plan for the collapse of the Afghan security forces. We learned that today too. Secretary Austin said: We just didn't plan for a scenario of an Afghan security forces collapse. We didn't plan for it.

Why didn't they plan for it? Why isn't somebody being held accountable for it?

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan has been warning for years that the Afghan security forces were not ready, that they were not well equipped, that they were not well trained, and that they would not likely stand on their own. We know that the commander on the ground shared the same assessment. Yet the administration did not plan for--by their own admission did not plan for the collapse of the Afghan security forces or the collapse of the Afghan Government, which also meant that they did not order the evacuation of American civilians in time. They dilly-dallied. They waited. They dithered. They did not order the evacuation in time. They waited until the middle of August to undertake an evacuation of civilians in earnest, after American troops had withdrawn from the country. No wonder there was chaos in Kabul. No wonder there was a total disaster. That is the administration's fault. They waited because they hadn't planned. They waited because apparently they were fighting among themselves--the State Department, Defense Department, the White House--all fighting because President Biden wasn't leading. It was a total debacle, total chaos.

My friend the Senator from New Jersey quite reasonably wants to know, what is the connection? Why I am objecting to these nominees? Why do I want a vote?

Here is the connection: It is about accountability. No one has been held accountable. I note the Senator wants to hear from Secretary Austin in his committee. He should hear from the Secretary in his committee because what we learned today contradicts quite a lot of the testimony that the Secretary of State gave to the Senator from New Jersey and his committee earlier--quite a lot of contradictions. He is quite right to want to hear from Secretary Austin.

We need to do more than hear from him; we need to have accountability for what has happened. Until we get that accountability, until someone is held responsible, until there is some turn, some change, some shift in policy--and I have called for the resignations of General Milley, Secretary Austin, Secretary Blinken, and the national security advisers, all of whom planned and executed this operation. Until there is accountability, I think the least the Senate can do is actually vote, take at least a vote on this floor for nominees to leadership position at the State Department and the Department of Defense.

Mr. President, I object.

I object.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I object.

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

Mr. President, I am here to talk today about a subject of urgency for our Nation but a subject that many Democrats in this body don't want to talk about. I mean Afghanistan.

Thirteen American soldiers, dead; 169 civilians, dead; hundreds more American civilians left behind to the enemy; billions of dollars in military equipment abandoned to the enemy, like you see in the images right over my shoulder. Yet, nearly a month after this disastrous evacuation, the worst foreign policy disaster in this Nation's history since Vietnam, there has been no accountability. No one has been fired. No one has resigned. No one has been relieved of command.

Instead, what we have heard is the most incredible and, frankly, insulting parade of excuses and evasions from the President of the United States and the rest of his leadership team. They have said the evacuation debacle was an ``extraordinary success.'' That is a quote. That is from the mouth of the President himself. Let that just sink in for a second.

Thirteen American soldiers, including from my State of Missouri, lost--13--169 civilians dead; hundreds of Americans left behind enemy lines to fend for themselves, left to the Taliban, left to ISIS. Has an American President ever--ever--left behind American civilians on the field of battle--hundreds of them--and then called it an extraordinary success? I can't think of a time in American history.

It was a disgrace, what the President said. It was untrue, what the President said. Yet he goes on and on and on. And now President Biden and his team say they didn't leave any Americans behind. They said, in fact, Americans weren't abandoned to the enemy.

I mean, this is simply insultingly false. By their own estimates, hundreds of American civilians were left behind and are still there. Americans are still trapped in Afghanistan, trying to get out, trying to be rescued, left to their own devices. Yet the President of the United States insists that it never happened; it was all a success; all is well.

The President said it had to be this way. Those soldiers--what?--had to die? I mean, what does that even mean--that the military had to abandon billions of dollars of equipment to the enemy; that civilians, hundreds of them, had to die; all those Americans had to be left behind? I mean, is he serious about that? Does anyone honestly believe that? Does anyone honestly believe that this was the only possible outcome, that the death of American soldiers and the loss of civilians was the only possible outcome, the only way to withdraw?

It is absurd, and an honest leader would acknowledge it. In fact, an honest leader would never have said it. Yet President Biden and his team continue to say it day after day.

Joe Biden has blamed other people. He has pointed the finger at the people of Afghanistan. That is remarkable. These people now suffering under the rule of the Taliban--they are at fault, apparently. He has blamed and his administration has blamed the intelligence Agencies. They cast aspersions at the commanders on the ground. And remarkably-- remarkably--many Democrats in Congress seem to be fine to go along with all of this, with these excuses and these evasions, this attempt to whitewash what has happened in Afghanistan and is happening as we speak, as Americans remain behind enemy lines.

The Democrat leader has stood on this floor and praised Joe Biden's handling of this crisis, applauded it. Just yesterday, he said right here on the floor that my efforts to get accountability for this crisis in Afghanistan were a waste of the Senate's time. Those were his words: waste of the Senate's time. He also said it is something that only the far right is interested in. His words: ``the far right.'' What an insult to the American people.

All I can say to that is: Why don't you come to Missouri? Why don't you talk to the families of soldiers who are serving? Why don't you talk to the families of those who have served in this 20-year war? Why don't you talk to veterans? Why don't you look the people in the face who are grieving and who are demoralized and who are shocked at what happened over the last few months in Afghanistan, shocked at the abandonment of American civilians? For that matter, why don't you just talk to this administration's own officials who rushed to tell reporters, off the record, that they were horrified that the President had left behind American civilians--horrified.

To brush all of that aside, to pretend that none of that really matters--that is all a distraction; there is nothing to see here--that is insulting, and it is wrong.

Until there is accountability, I will force the Senate to actually vote on Joe Biden's nominees for leadership positions in the State Department and the Department of Defense. In the face of this crisis, in the face of this debacle, the least the Senate can do is vote.

But the Senate ought to be doing a lot more than that. While grieving families are still waiting for answers, while Americans are still left behind enemy lines, we should be getting the truth. That ought to be our focus. We should be demanding accountability, not sweeping it under the rug.

So let me just pose a few--a few--of the questions that I think need answering: Why was the administration so unprepared for what transpired during its evacuation? Why didn't it plan for the potential fall of Kabul, for the potential surge of the Taliban, for the potential collapse of the Afghan Security Forces? Why weren't they prepared to withdraw while keeping Americans safe?

Joe Biden and his team didn't coordinate the drawdown so American citizens could leave the country; they ignored them. They told us the Afghan Security Forces were 300,000 strong; they were never that large. They promised the security forces were well trained; they weren't.

Has no one bothered to read the reports of the inspector general for Afghanistan? I commend them to you. They are harrowing. It is harrowing reading. The inspector general has been warning for literally years that the Afghan Security Forces were unprepared and unreliable. He has warned that our own Defense Department has, for years, concealed the true state of the Afghan Security Forces and their inability to carry out their mission. These aren't secrets. These are reports, many of them published in the Nation's leading newspapers.

Yet the administration didn't factor them into their planning, didn't seem aware of the facts on the ground, didn't seem able to prepare to deal with the realities, even as Americans were put into harm's way. It really does make you wonder: What was the Biden administration actually focused on? I mean, what was it doing with its time? What was the President doing with his

time for all of those months--or Secretary Blinken or Secretary Austin or the National Security Advisor? What were they doing while Afghanistan collapsed into chaos?

I think the facts suggest an answer. Rather than focusing on protecting Americans from the enemy, rather than focusing on getting Americans safely out of Afghanistan, they were focused on fighting a phony culture war that they invented and that appears to be their top priority.

Just consider: On June 11, when Secretary Austin was asked if he thought that the U.S. military was a fundamentally racist organization--this was at a hearing in the Armed Services Committee here in the Senate: Is the U.S. military a fundamentally racist organization?--he said: I can't give you an answer. And, instead, he talked about the military's urgent support for ``equity''--his words. One week later, 21 districts in 9 Provinces had fallen under Taliban control in Afghanistan, and the Afghan Security Forces began to abandon their posts.

On June 21, Secretary Blinken announced the ``Progress flag'' would fly at the State Department, a special flag that celebrates, in Blinken's words, ``diversity and intersectionality''--that famous catchphrase of critical race theory. The very next day, the Taliban seized the main Afghan trade gateway as the enemy's advance began to pick up pace.

On June 23, General Milley said in his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee: ``I want to understand white rage.'' That is his quote. And he defended the administration's recent focus on White extremism in the military. The very next day, U.S. intelligence assessed that the Afghan Government would collapse within 6 months of our withdrawal.

On July 1, Secretary Blinken was busy changing U.S. passports to create new selections for nonbinary, intersex, and gender-nonconforming categories. The very next day, American troops withdrew from Bagram Air Base, what had been the hub of American power in Afghanistan, leaving it for the final time.

On July 14, Secretary Blinken invited the United Nations to formally investigate ``the scourge of racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia'' in the United States. He invited the United Nations, that frequently corrupt body, to investigate his own country for racism, xenophobia, and racial discrimination. Meanwhile, at the very same time, even as Blinken spoke, the Taliban offensive was surging across Afghanistan.

On August 9, Secretary Austin was busy crafting a new, controversial COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all of our servicemembers. The very next day, U.S. intelligence officials warned that the Afghan Government would collapse within 90 days or sooner.

On August 17, Jake Sullivan--that is the National Security Advisor-- said that the Taliban were helping to provide ``safe passage'' for Americans fleeing Afghanistan. Well, one week later, the terrorist attack at Kabul left 13 American soldiers dead, at least 169 civilians wounded, and, shortly thereafter, hundreds of Americans left behind as our last transport lifted off.

Facts are facts. These are the facts, and they tell the story. Joe Biden and his team were more focused on their culture war than they were on protecting Americans. That is the long and the short of it. They were more interested in imposing a radical left social agenda than in getting Americans out of Afghanistan.

They were interested in using the military as a social experiment rather than respecting it as the warfighting institution it was built to be. Rather than making decisions that were sound in tactics and sound in strategy, Joe Biden and his team were aiming to please their radical, woke, progressive base. And the American people paid the price.

Now the American people deserve accountability for what has happened. They deserve accountability for the lives lost. They deserve accountability for the civilians killed, accountability for the Americans left behind.

And that is what this body is for. That is this body's responsibility. It may be an inconvenience to the Democrat leader; it may be an unwanted responsibility for supporters of the President; but it is our job nonetheless.

Americans have died. Americans have been abandoned. The Nation deserves an accounting, and it is not too much to ask the Senate to do its job. It is not too much to ask the Senate to get the truth, and it is not too much to ask the Senate to force accountability for this terrible crisis that this President has disgracefully led us into.

I can say, for my part, I will do everything I can to get that accountability, to get that truth, and to give the American people the answers that they deserve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I, along with Senator Moran and Senator Murray, be permitted to complete our remarks before the scheduled rollcall vote.

Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the crisis in Afghanistan and to honor the distinguished service of those who gave the last full measure of their devotion protecting Americans there.

For the last month, Americans have watched, horrified, at the scenes of chaos and terror and bloodshed: Americans trapped at the Kabul Airport, terrified as the enemy closed in; innocent civilians fleeing for their lives, abandoned by their government; a young man desperately clinging to a departing plane's landing gear, he was so desperate to escape, only to fall then to his tragic death; 13 marines, the pride of our Nation, cut down by terrorists, never to see home again; and, then, as American planes finally departed, hundreds of American civilians left behind to the enemy.

Let me say that again: hundreds of American civilians left behind to the enemy.

And after all of that, who can forget the image of the President of the United States, declaring this mission that he planned, that he executed, that he oversaw--this mission that left 13 marines dead, that left hundreds of American civilians behind enemy lines; this mission that resulted in chaos and terror and bloodshed--who can forget this President saying that this mission was, and I quote, ``extraordinarily successful''?

An extraordinary success--really? Has a Commander in Chief in American history ever before uttered words like that? Has a Commander in Chief ever celebrated as ``successful''--``successful''--the abandonment of American civilians to an enemy, the death of American soldiers, terrorizing of American citizens and American allies?

I hope I will not live to ever hear again in my lifetime such shameful and disgraceful words from a President of the United States.

And make no mistake, this President is a disgrace. His behavior is disgraceful. He has dishonored this country with his shameful leadership in this crisis, and it is time for him to resign. And if he had the responsibility of leadership, he would resign for the crisis that he has himself led this Nation into and the responsibility he bears for the lives that have been lost and for the American citizens who are, even now as I speak, trapped in Afghanistan, left to the enemy because of his failures and his shameful, disgraceful leadership.

Even the shameful performance of America's leaders cannot disguise or cover over the heroism of America's soldiers, and I want to talk about one of those soldiers now. He was Marine Corps LCpl Jared Schmitz. He was from Missouri.

He was from Wentzville, in St. Charles County, to be exact, and he had wanted to be a marine since he was a teenager. Lance Corporal Schmitz was only 6 months old when terrorists attacked this country on September 11, 2001. He wasn't old enough to remember the beginnings of this long war in which he would go on to so valiantly serve. He had only graduated from high school, from Fort Zumwalt South High School, in 2019.

Jared signed up to join the Marines shortly before his 18th birthday. He had dreamed of it since before his sophomore year. He began training with recruits even before he enlisted. He wanted to serve this Nation because he was a man who served others. His father said Jared was always smiling nonstop. He brought light and hope to every place he went, and he wanted to bring those gifts and service to his country-- and he did.

He was a fine marine. He was sent on his first deployment to Jordan earlier this year and then received orders to Afghanistan. Jared Schmitz, Lance Corporal Schmitz, was there on August 26--there at the Kabul airport, doing his duty, serving his country, smiling nonstop when the enemy attacked. And it was there that Lance Corporal Schmitz, age 20, gave his life for the

people he loved and for the Nation he served. He died so that others might live.

I had the privilege of speaking to Lance Corporal Schmitz's family just hours after we learned of Jared's death. I said this to them, and I promised that I would say it for the whole Nation: that Jared Schmitz lived a life of honor, he lived a life worth living, and his sacrifice was not in vain.

Jared didn't have to serve. He didn't have to deploy halfway around the world. He didn't have to stand protecting Americans and other innocent people as disaster unfolded. He didn't have to do any of it. He chose to do it. He chose to serve. He chose to give his life for others. That is a hero. That is an American.

Lance Corporal Schmitz deserves this honor. He deserves this recognition. Frankly, it is the least of what he deserves. And so, today, I am introducing in this body a resolution to honor Lance Corporal Schmitz and all the Missourians who made the ultimate sacrifice during the war in Afghanistan. They will not be forgotten.

Over the last 20 years, we have often heard numbers used to describe the costs of this long war: $2 trillion spent, over 20,000 soldiers wounded in action and thousands more who came home with invisible wounds, and 2,461 American personnel who gave their very lives. But each of these numbers was a son, a daughter, a husband, or wife, or father, or friend. They have names. They have lives. And they deserve to be honored.

As this chapter of American history concludes, I want to recognize in the Congressional Record each of my fellow Missourians who, during the war in Afghanistan, made the ultimate sacrifice serving this Nation. I ask that each of us reflect together and pray together for each one of the fallen, and also their families who have sacrificed so much, who have sacrificed all they have to sacrifice. These men and women will live in our hearts and in the memory of this Nation.

They are Christopher Michael Allgaier; Michael Chad Bailey; Michael Joe Beckerman; Brian J. Bradbury; Paul Douglas Carron; Jacob Russell Carver; Joseph Brian Cemper; Robert Keith Charlton; Richard Michael Crane; Robert Wade Crow, Jr.; Justin Eric Culbreth; Robert G. Davis; Edward Fred Dixon III; Jason David Fingar; James Matthew Finley; Zachary Michael Fisher; Jacob Rudeloff Fleischer; Blake Wade Hall; Nicholas Joel Hand; James Warren Harrison, Jr.; Jonathon Michael Dean Hostetter; James Roger Ide V; Issac Brandon Jackson; Christopher M. Katzenberger; Jeremy Andrew Katzenberger; William Jo Kerwood; Daniel Leon Kisling, Jr.; Donald Matthew Marler; Matthew David Mason; Richard Lewis McNulty III; Bradley Louis Melton; James Douglas Mowris; Michael Robert Patton; Joseph Michael Peters; Robert Wayne Pharris; Ricky Linn Richardson, Jr.; Charles Montague Sadell; Charles Ray Sanders, Jr.; Ronald Wayne Sawyer; Patrick Wayne Schimmel; Jared Marcus Schmitz; Roslyn Littman Schulte; Billy Joe Siercks; Adam Olin Smith; Tyler James Smith; Christopher Glenn Stark; Sean Patrick Sullivan; Philip James Svitak; Phillip David Vinnedge; Matthew Herbert Walker; Jeffrey Lee White, Jr.; Matthew Willard Wilson; Vincent Cortez Winston, Jr.; Sterling William Wyatt; and Gunnar William Zwilling.

Mr. President, the sacrifices of so many brave men and women demand that we in Congress bring all the facts of this long war to light. These sacrifices demand that we in Congress prioritize transparency and full accountability. And these sacrifices demand that we hold responsible those who bear the blame for the failure of the last month and of all the months that preceded it.

For 20 years, our soldiers who fought in Afghanistan did what we sent them there to do. They went after al-Qaida, killed Osama bin Laden, and prevented terrorists from using Afghanistan as a base for attacking our homeland. They did their duty, and they did it honorably.

But by now it is abundantly clear President Biden has not done his. President Biden turned an orderly evacuation into a disaster; that much is painfully clear.

First, Joe Biden pulled our troops out; then he sent thousands back in. He failed to protect Americans still in the country. He failed to account for lethal American military equipment he left behind. He failed to anticipate worsening conditions on the ground. He failed in his judgment that the Afghan security forces would hold their own when our own intelligence estimates said that they wouldn't. He failed to anticipate a new offensive by the Taliban. He failed again and again and again until American blood at the Kabul airport paid the price for that failure. Then he celebrated it as an ``extraordinary success.''

Joe Biden's team is responsible too. Men like Secretary Austin; Secretary Blinken; Jake Sullivan, the National Security Adviser, they overestimated the Afghan security forces' willingness to hold the line; and instead of planning for the worst, they planned for the best. Because of them, we have Americans stranded behind enemy lines and over 100,000 Afghan refugees arriving now to this country at this eleventh hour without vetting or precautions.

This was never necessary. It did not have to be this way and it shouldn't have been. Joe Biden is responsible for today's failure and now there must be accountability. Instead, the President's team is even now coming to Capitol Hill and blaming others, shirking responsibility. That is cowardly.

I, for one, am not willing to look the other way. Let me be clear. I will not consent to the nomination of any nominee for the Department of Defense or for the Department of State until Secretary Austin and Secretary Blinken and Jake Sullivan resign. Leaders take responsibility for their failures. And the failure of these individuals, the failure of this administration has cost Americans their lives and has left American civilians to the enemy. There must be accountability and there must be a new start.

I believe that a century from now, when the history of this long war is written by our children's children, they will note the heroism and the honor of our soldiers and veterans who, in the aftermath of the worst attacks on our Nation's soil in a century, stood steadfast and resolute in unity; and who, despite the grave mistakes of their leaders over many years, served their country with bravery and distinction and defense of our freedom.

The great Winston Churchill, who was himself the veteran of one war and leader of another, said this almost 70 years ago:

We have surmounted all the perils and endured all the

agonies of the past. We shall provide against and thus

prevail over the dangers and the problems of the future,

withhold no sacrifice, grudge no toil, seek no sordid gain,

fear no foe. All will be well. We have, I believe, within us

the life-strength and guiding light by which the tormented

world around us may find the harbour of safety, after a

storm-beaten voyage.

Mr. President, I believe, as Americans, we have that life-strength. I believe we have in us the light and the hope to survive this troubled time and to provide the world around us the harbor of safety after a storm-beaten voyage.

God bless our troops.

I yield floor.

Mr. President, I ask that my amendment be called up, No. 2734, and that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of hiring more law enforcement officers across this country--100,000 more, to be precise. And here is why. We are in the midst of an unprecedented crime wave in this country, a crime wave of violent crime, and our families and our children are in the crosshairs.

This past year, the murder rate in this country rose, year over year, higher than anytime in six decades. This past year, the FBI reports that fatal felony attacks on law enforcement officers spiked by over 50 percent. In St. Louis, MO, my home State, 262 residents were killed in 2020. That is the highest number in over half a century.

Cops are being targeted. Families are being targeted. Children aren't safe on the streets. We need to take action now to put more law enforcement officers on our streets to protect our families.

Now, I recognize that my friends across the aisle say they don't want to defund the police. That is outstanding. Let's go a step further. Let's fund them. Let's put 100,000 new cops on the streets right now to protect our families, to protect our children.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 158, Robert Peter Silvers, of the District of Columbia, to be Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans, Department of Homeland Security.

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

I rise today, Mr. President, to talk about the challenges facing the cattle ranchers in my State and across the country, challenges not just to their day-to-day operations but to their very livelihoods, and I rise today to talk about what we can do about it.

I have a simple message: We can take action today that will work and we can take action that will make a difference and we should take it now.

The situation that faces our cattle ranchers in Missouri and around the country, and, for that matter, many other livestock producers, is very, very serious, and the situation is, frankly, untenable. Let me tell you what I am talking about.

Just in the last year, the cost to consumers for beef has increased by double digits. That is year-on-year, from 2019 to 2020, a double- digit increase. What has happened, though, to cattle ranchers, to those who actually raise the beef, who raise the cattle, and then sell it to market? The price for them, has it gone up? No, it has gone down. In fact, over the last decade, cattle ranchers have seen their share of profits decline by double digits.

So what is happening here? Cattle ranchers are getting less, much less, in some instances--and, by the way, so are other producers of livestock--and yet the cost to consumers is going up. Somebody is getting wealthy in this transaction, and that ``somebody'' is the packers, the processing companies.

In America today, our meat processing supply chain, equipment--the entire apparatus--is owned by just a small handful of companies.

Here is what I am talking about: Four companies--four--together control over 80 percent of this country's beef processing operations, 80 percent. Even more remarkably, three of the giant meatpacking companies control 63 percent of pork producing, 46 of beef packing, 38 of poultry producing. That is just three of them. And two--two--are based in Brazil and China. So you have got four major packers that control 80 percent of the market, two of them based overseas.

This market concentration is squeezing out the farmers and the ranchers. It is enriching the packers, and it is ultimately hurting consumers. So I say, again, in this system, the only people who seem to win are the monopolists. We have got to do something about it.

It is made even worse--the situation--by the fact that these same monopoly packers have been found guilty or otherwise pled to criminal violations, criminal uses of their monopoly status.

For example, Pilgrim's Pride, a subsidiary of a Brazilian-owned company called JBS, received $107 million in criminal fines for price- fixing in chicken markets. JBS separately paid out at least three multimillion-dollar settlements over the past year, while Smithfield, which is owned by China, has paid $83 million to settle pork price- fixing allegations.

So here we have these monopoly companies, two of them foreign owned, that are controlling the meat processing industry, controlling the entire supply chain, squeezing American farmers and ranchers, raising prices on consumers, and committing criminal violations while they do it.

Now, many have called, including me, for antitrust investigations. Some have called, including me, for antitrust prosecution. And I stand behind those positions.

But I am here today to say that we must do more. And, specifically, it is time for this administration, the Biden administration, to do more because they have the tools to do so at their disposal.

Under Federal law, the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, has the authority to refuse to provide or to withdraw inspection services from any of these monopoly packers or anyone who is reasonably connected to them who has been convicted of a felony or any other act or circumstance that indicates a lack of integrity as it concerns public health.

That is a broad grant of authority. What it means is that USDA could, right now, begin to suspend the inspection services for these monopoly companies, to say to these companies: We are not going to allow inspections to go forward; we are not going to allow your production to go forward until you come to the table and agree to resolve and desist any criminal misconduct and to get a better deal to ranchers and farmers across this country.

This authority is already existing under Federal law. I want to be clear. It is already on the books. It is already provided for by Federal statute. And our ranchers and our farmers need it to be used, and they need it to be used now.

So, today, I am calling on the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, to invoke these authorities, say to the major monopoly companies that

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Rubio, Peters, and I be allowed to complete our remarks before the scheduled rollcall vote.

Mr. President, I am here today to talk about those things that unite us as Americans, and I am here to talk about those things that divide us.

For centuries, public service has been something that unites Americans, drawing us together. Citizens from all walks of life serve in our military. They serve in Federal and State and local governments. They serve in police units and in fire departments across our country. They serve as teachers and coaches. And we as a nation are better off for their service and for their sacrifice.

Those who serve our Nation do it not because they have to but because they want to. They do it because they believe this Nation is worth serving. They do it because they believe this Nation is worth defending. They believe it is worth celebrating. And they are right to think all of those things. Service to this country is an act of selflessness that affirms our Nation is a place worth believing in.

But I am concerned that the present administration and this President, President Joe Biden, do not share this point of view. I am worried that President Biden is nominating for Federal office individuals who do not share a view of America as a good and decent place, who do not believe that the history of this Nation is worth celebrating; nominating, instead, people who believe that this is a country founded in racism and shot through with corruption.

Many of these nominees are partisans of a viewpoint that goes by different names but shares several features in common--a view that America is a systemically racist place and systemically unjust; a view of America as corrupt; a view of American society as one that needs to be deconstructed, that needs to be pulled apart, torn down, and then rebuilt in a fundamentally different way.

Now, this broad ideology has become known in public as critical race theory or sometimes just critical theory. And let me tell you, as someone who has taught in our Nation's universities, someone who has seen our institutions of higher learning up close, I would say to those in the media and elsewhere who now deny that there is any such thing as critical theory, that critical theory is, in fact, very real, it is very influential, and it appears to have become the animating ideology of this administration. That is cause for great concern.

Critical theory is an ideology that says the United States is rotten to its core. The leaders of this movement think our society is defined by White supremacy. They think our leaders are complicit, at best.

They think that all Americans are either oppressors or oppressed. In our world-class military, these critics see a vehicle for discrimination. In our American flag, they see propaganda. In our family businesses, they see White supremacy. In our police officers, they see agents of racial oppression.

These critics allow no room for merit, for experience, or for grace in our life together. They pit Whiteness and Blackness against each other in a manner that reduces every American, no matter their character or their creed, to their racial identity alone.

One of these critics, Dr. Ibram Kendi wrote this:

The only remedy to past discrimination is present

discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is

future discrimination.

That is right. That is what he said. Think about that for a moment. He is saying he is opposed to equality under the law. He is opposing our merit-based system for Federal employment. Dr. Kendi and his followers are in no uncertain terms advocating for State-sanctioned racism in the United States of America.

Now, it is a free country. Dr. Kendi and these other authors can write their books and debate their views and put them out in public. It is absolutely their right to do so. They are welcome to do so. But what we cannot allow--what we must not allow--is our Federal Government to affirm and sanction and advocate this critical race theory. We cannot allow the United States of America, the greatest Nation on Earth, to legitimize a new era of racial engineering.

In the past few years, critical race theory has gained new prominence in the giant corporations, in the media, in the military, and even in our children's schools. We are seeing this across the country. We have seen too many of our children exposed to a curriculum like the 1619 Project and its derivatives that encourage division rather than unity, that rewrites our history in the service of an ideological agenda rather than in the service of truth.

Young children set off to school with eyes full of hope and hearts, full of pride in our country, only to be taught that White privilege defines the Nation, that subjects like mathematics are inherently racist, that the Christian faith is oppressive. They are taught that the nuclear family perpetuates racism.

Now, imagine for a moment if you were taught the same. Imagine if you were taught that your dreams were unjust or unfair, that your family were oppressors, that you were at fault for the problems of our society today. These are just children. We should be nurturing their dreams. We should be nurturing their hopes. We should be giving them a great hope for the future, for the future of this great Nation known as the United States of America, a hope for the future of the greatest Nation in the history of the world, rather than teaching them to mistrust their classmates and to distrust their own history.

It doesn't end there. Last year, we discovered that Federal agencies and other organizations funded by taxpayers were holding workplace training sessions where Federal employees were told that ``virtually all White people contribute to racism''--that is a quote--or where civil servants were required to say that they ``benefit from racism.''

Now, President Trump put an end to this divisive curriculum, and he was right to do so. Workplace diversity training should focus on bringing people together, not on driving them apart. But under this new administration, I fear that critical theory is making a comeback.

In March, President Biden rescinded the former President's ban on this divisive curriculum, and now, he has nominated Kiran Ahuja to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management. That is a key position that runs human resources for the entire Federal Government and millions of its employees. Ms. Ahuja's nomination is before the Senate today. I am concerned that Ms. Ahuja is a disciple of radical theorists. She has frequently promoted Dr. Kendi. She called him a ``thought leader'' at her confirmation hearing back in April. Just last year, Ms. Ahuja wrote that we must free the Nation from the ``daily trials of White supremacy.'' Those are her words.

She appeared to endorse Dr. Kendi's claim that the election of President

Trump in 2016 was an example of ``racist progress'' in this country, and she declared that we must do everything in our collective power to realize Dr. Kendi's vision for America.

I am concerned that, as the Federal Government's HR director, Ms. Ahuja could use her platform to promote radical ideologies that seek to divide rather than unite people. She could bring critical race theory back into Federal Government training and to every level of Federal personnel, stronger than ever. And I am not alone in this concern. All of my Republican colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee opposed Ms. Ahuja in a vote back in April

Two weeks ago, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association--they represent 100,000 Federal police officers that protect and defend our Nation every day--they announced that they were also concerned about Ms. Ahuja's nomination because of her advocacy of critical theory.

I have to say, I agree with Federal law enforcement. I agree with what they said in their letter. We should nominate candidates for public office that are committed to ideological neutrality, to fairness, and to impartiality under the law. I want to be clear, I do not for a moment question Ms. Ahuja's sincerity or integrity. In fact, I thank her for her willingness to serve the Nation; but I cannot agree with what appears to be her fundamental ideology. At the end of the day, this is not about politics or personalities; this is about ensuring that the Federal Government stands for unity, not division, harmony, not hate.

As the Reverend Dr. King famously said, and he was right, we should judge our fellow citizens by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. We need a strong nation with strong citizens who see each other as Americans, not as oppressors or oppressed.

Now, I have heard a lot of criticism about my position here today. I have heard the corporate media and those on the left say that I misunderstand critical theory or that it is not real or that it is not a real problem. I have heard many say the United States is indeed built on oppression and remains a systemically racist place.

All I can say is that is not the America I see, that is not the America I know. The working people of this country who have rallied to this Nation's flag in every hour of danger, who are the first to help a neighbor in need, who coach our Little Leagues and volunteer at our churches, who go to work day in and day out to provide for their families and protect the place they call home, these are not oppressors; these are liberators. These are not oppressors; these are great people. They live with a spirit of liberty that has made this country the greatest country in the history of the world, and they want to see that liberty extended to every member of the American family. That is who the American people are. That is what makes them great. That is what they believe--because they are a great people. Our future is a cause for hope and not despair.

The advocates of critical theory tell us we have to dismantle our culture, our history, our families, our Jewish and Christian heritage and beliefs because they are all oppressive. They say the future of this Nation will be defined by racial division and racial strife. I reject that prophecy of our future, and I take my stand on the goodness of the American people and the God who guides us. I take my stand on hope.

It is not oppression that defines the American story. It is hope. From the minutemen at Lexington and Concord, to the pioneers who found a new life in the West, to the heroes of the Underground Railroad, to the Union soldiers at Little Round Top, to the workers who fought the old monopolies for fair pay, to the women who fought for suffrage, to the young men who twice liberated Europe, to the civil rights demonstrators likes of Bull Connor, to the firemen and police officers who rebuilt New York and gave this country confidence again in the years after 9/11, it is love for one another and love for our country that we call home that has defined our story and given us hope; and that love and that hope will define our future once again. I am confident of it.

In this Nation, we are not united by ethnic creed or race or religion--and proudly so. We are united by our shared history. We are united by what we love together. We are united by the radical belief that those who liberate others, those who practice grace and mercy, those who call forth the best in those around them, they are the ones who changed the world; and that principle, that truth, that hope, is what drives our history. And we are not done building that history yet. The greatest Nation in the history of the world is not done yet.

Critical theory in all of its guises distorts our history, it destroys our common love, and it would leave us hopelessly divided, at enmity with one another and alone. To this dark vision, we must say no. To radical hope, we must say yes.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on Ms. Ahuja's nomination.

I yield the floor.