Floor Statements

Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive Calendar No. 660, Ryan K. Buchanan, of Georgia, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia for the term of four years; No. 661, Jason M. Frierson, of Nevada, to be United States Attorney for the District of Nevada for the term of four years; No. 663, Mark A. Totten, of Michigan, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Michigan for the term of four years; No. 739, Marisa T. Darden, of Ohio, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio for the term of four years; No. 740, Delia L. Smith, of the Virgin Islands, to be United States Attorney for the District of the Virgin Islands for the term of four years; No. 805, Jane E. Young, of New Hampshire, to be United States Attorney for the District of New Hampshire for the term of four years; and No. 859, Vanessa Roberts Avery, of Connecticut, to be United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut for the term of four years.

Had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 803, Paul Monteiro, of Maryland, to be Director, Community Relations Service, Department of Justice.

Madam President.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I find myself here on the floor again as my friend the Senator from Virginia, whose sincerity and urgency on this issue I don't doubt for a second, tries to move a whole slate of nominees to which multiple Republican Senators have objections. And let me give you a sense of why.

One of the nominees that my friend is attempting to move here, let's be clear, to do this without a vote--we could be voting on these nominees. The majority leader could schedule votes on them any time, but he hasn't done that. He hasn't done it in some of the cases for months.

This is an act--this is a request to suspend the regular order of the Senate and to confirm these nominees without a vote. Well, I, for one, am not going to consent to confirming without a vote people like Ravi Chaudhary. He is being nominated for Assistant Secretary of the Air Force.

Mr. Chaudhary, who appeared before the Armed Services Committee, on which I sit, as does my friend from Virginia--Mr. Chaudhary has proposed using AI technology--artificial intelligence--to track members of the military, identify them as extremists, and then have them expelled.

He said:

The key to disrupting them--

Meaning ``extremists,'' his word, people whose views he doesn't agree with.

The key to disrupting them is uncovering and understanding

their initial behaviors, elements that are contained in their

electronic footprints.

What Mr. Chaudhary has proposed to do is to use surveillance on members of the U.S. military to determine whether they might, in the future, commit acts that he might disapprove of and then to take action against these members of the military.

In 2015, he wrote this: that the military exhibits a ``culture of xenophobic cronyism.'' And he went on to say that there was a ``xenophobic command climate'' in the U.S. military today.

I said to Mr. Chaudhary, at the time when we had our hearing, that I cannot

believe that he would propose to use surveillance on members of the U.S. military to track their speech, to track their activity online, to track their movements online, all in an effort to decide if they might, in the future, commit acts that he disagrees with.

I submit to you, Madam President, not only is that wrong; it is blatantly unconstitutional--blatantly unconstitutional--and it is frightening. What is further frightening is that he would be nominated for a leadership position in the Department of Defense.

I call on the President of the United States to withdraw this nomination today, just as he should withdraw his unconstitutional disinformation board that he is attempting to force on the American people as we speak. This is the most radically anti-free-speech administration in American history. Their actions are an affront to the basic constitutional values of this Nation, including and especially the First Amendment.

I am appalled--appalled--at what this administration is doing-- censoring American citizens, surveilling them--and now advocating it in the U.S. military, to the men and women who put their lives on the line?

So, no, I will not consent to have this individual, who never should have been nominated for this position, fast-tracked to be confirmed without a vote, without a single, solitary vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

I think you have the floor, Senator; so, yes, I think----

Can I respond to that?

On all eight of them, Senator?

To have a vote on the floor?

I would be happy to take a vote on the floor on all eight nominations.

Is this a recorded vote on the floor, Senator?

Senator, you want to vote on all eight at one time; you don't want to vote on each one?

What I propose to do here is--there are multiple Senators on this side of the aisle besides myself who have objections to different multiple of these. What I propose to do is object to this now, but I think we can work something out on this going forward.

So I think--do I have the floor now?

OK. So I object.

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the Motion to Instruct Conferees from Mr. Menendez that moves that the managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4521 be instructed to insist upon the provisions contained in section 73003 of the Senate amendment (relating to establishment of an Inspector General of the Office of the United States Trade Representative).

Will the Senator yield?

Reserving the right to object, now that I have the floor, will the Senator from Hawaii answer a question?

Do you agree with this administration's policy to denying MiGs to the Ukrainians?

Well, the Senator doesn't want to answer any questions. I see. He denied my request to ask a question a moment ago.

I object.

Mr. President, thank you for finally giving me an option to speak. It is interesting, the Senator will come to the floor but doesn't want to engage in a colloquy or answer questions.

Let's talk a little bit about the policy--disastrous policy--that he is supporting. This is the White House's latest talking points that their failure in Ukraine is now due to some logistics problem and the Department of Defense--they, of course, can't be responsible for what they are doing, just like they are not responsible for anything. They are not responsible for what happened in Afghanistan--their policy. They are not responsible for what has happened in Ukraine--their policy.

Let's talk about their policy in Ukraine.

So what has President Zelenskyy been asking for for weeks, indeed, months on end? He said: ``Send us planes.''

What has this administration done? No. Actually, first they said yes, then they said maybe, then they said no.

Today, the Secretary of Defense testified before the Armed Services Committee, under oath, that even though this Congress has appropriated $3 billion in military lethal aid to the people of Ukraine, the Defense Department has so far given them less than one-third of it. Why, because of logistics? No. He was asked that. No, because of policy. His comment was: We are giving them what we think they need.

I would just point out that that is not what the Ukrainians think. If you listen to President Zelenskyy, if you listen to the Ukrainian parliamentarians who have been here, if you talked to them, what they will say is they need more military aid; they need more help.

This administration won't give it to them, not because of logistics but because of policy. We don't have a logistics problem; we have a Joe Biden problem, and we have had that problem in Ukraine from day one.

This administration's policy was to deter a Russian invasion of Ukraine. It failed. Why did it fail? It is not hard to see. President Biden came to office, what did he do?

When Ukraine asked for military assistance, he denied it.

Can we have order?

When Joe Biden came to office, the people of Ukraine asked for military assistance a year ago--a year ago. Did he give it to them? No. He denied them military stance. He denied them lethal aid. What did he do, though, for Vladimir Putin? When he came to office, he green-lighted Vladimir Putin's pipeline. He turned their pipelines on. He turned our pipelines off. What did he do with American energy production? He throttled it down. He turned it off.

His first actions in office were to, among other things, cancel the Keystone Pipeline, halt the leasing program in ANWR, issue a halt to new oil and gas leases and drilling permits on Federal lands, impose tougher regulations on oil and gas and methane emissions, and a host of new regulations on other energy production.

And that had the desired effect. Russian energy production--up. Russian revenues--up. What has happened since then, since the invasion of Ukraine? It has been one gaffe after another. He won't send them planes.

Today, the Secretary of Defense also confirmed that this administration has, in fact, not been sharing intelligence with the Ukrainians. In fact, today the Secretary of Defense had to admit that the administration was going to be forced to change policy--his words-- change policy in Ukraine because of the fact we had not been sharing all the intelligence we might have with Ukrainian soldiers and the Ukrainian military despite their request for that. Whose decision was that? Joe Biden's. It is his policy.

The President hasn't been entirely silent. He did have this to say:

For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power.

Now Joe Biden doesn't appear to know whether we are fighting or struggling to help the Ukrainians defend themselves or whether we are launching a war of regime change in Russia, itself.

You know, the bottom line is this: On one issue after another, when it comes to Ukraine, this President has been wrong. On every aspect of policy that has mattered, he has been wrong. Is it any wonder the Ukrainians are saying: Change policies, share your intelligence, send us the aid that we have requested.

I say again, we don't have a logistics problem. The White House shouldn't point fingers and shift the blame. We have a Joe Biden problem. That is the nub of the issue here.

There was Joe Biden's comment sounding like we are going to send ground troops:

You're going to see when you go there--

He said to servicemembers.

And you . . . some of you have been there. You're going to

see--you're going to see women, young people standing . . .

in front of a damn tank, just saying, ``I'm not leaving. I'm

holding my ground.''

The President--it is one gaffe after another. It is one switch in policy after another. It is disaster from beginning to end. And let's not forget where these foreign policy disasters really kicked off in a big way. Yeah, I was in Afghanistan. Am I concerned about Afghanistan? You are darn right I am. Thirteen servicemembers were killed at Abbey Gate, including one from my home State. I will never forget talking to his father as soon as we learned of the attack--before, in fact, the official notice of his son's death had been released. His father asked me to do everything in my power to hold this administration accountable, and that is exactly what I am going to do.

Has anyone been held accountable yet for Afghanistan? Has somebody been fired? Has somebody been relieved of command? No. Has somebody been shown the door? No. Has there been a change in policy at the Department of Defense? No.

We just stumble from one crisis to another. Why? Because we have a Joe Biden problem. This administration is doing exactly what their Commander in Chief wants them to do and it is wrong, again and again and again and again.

Until we see some change in policy from this administration, until this Senate gets serious about its oversight responsibilities at the Department of Defense, I am going to ask that for senior defense leaders, we at least observe regular order. I can't block a nomination. I can't halt it, but I can ask that regular order be followed. That is exactly what I am going to ask with regard to this nomination and other senior leaders until there is accountability, until we have a change in policy, and until this administration admits that on issue after issue, in virtually every aspect of its foreign policy, it is just dead wrong.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 863, Erik Kristopher Raven, of the District of Columbia, to be Under Secretary of the Navy.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to take action to crack down on child pornography offenders and to protect our children. This is a growing crisis, and it is one that is near to the heart of every parent in America. I can attest to that as a father of three small children myself. I have got a 9-year-old, a 7-year-old, and a 16-month-old baby at home.

But I can also attest to it as a former prosecutor. As the attorney general for the State of Missouri, one of the first things I did was establish a statewide anti-human trafficking initiative and task force because what I saw as attorney general of my State was that human trafficking, including, unfortunately, child sex trafficking, is an exploding epidemic.

In my State and around our country, children are exploited, children are trafficked. And those who work in this area and those who prosecute in this area--law enforcement who work day in and day out--will tell you that the explosion of child pornography is helping to drive this exploding epidemic of child sexual exploitation and child sex trafficking.

The problem is that child porn itself is exploding. A New York Times investigative reporter found that in 2018, there were 45 million images of children being sexually exploited available on the internet--45 million. Just a few years before, it had been 3 million and in 2018, 45. Then, last year, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children found that that number had grown to 85 million--85 million images on the internet of children being brutally sexually exploited.

And as every prosecutor and every law enforcement advocate and every law enforcement agent who works in this area will tell you, that explosion of this material--which, by the way, is harmful in and of itself, is exploitative in and of itself--is driving a crisis of child exploitation and child sex trafficking in this country.

Now the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court has helped bring this issue front and center. Her record of leniency to child sex offenders has been much at the center of her hearings, and it has startled the public. A recent Rasmussen survey found that following her hearings, 56 percent of all respondents said that they were troubled by her record on child sex offenders. That included 64 percent of Independents.

And they are right to be troubled. Her record is indeed startling. In every case involving child pornography where she had discretion, she sentenced below the Federal sentencing guidelines, below the prosecutor's recommendations, and below the national averages.

We now know that the national average for possession of child pornography--the national sentence imposed, on average, is 68 months. Judge Jackson's average is 29.3 months. The national average sentence for distribution of child pornography: 135 months; Judge Jackson's average, 71.9 months.

In fact, it is true for criminal sentencing across the board. The national average of all criminal sentences imposed in the United States, 45 months; Judge Jackson's average, 29.9 months.

This is a record of leniency. In the words of the Republican leader, leniency to the ``extreme'' to child sex offenders and on criminal matters in general.

But--but, but, but--we are told, and have been told for weeks on end now, it is not really her fault. We were told by the White House and Senate Democrats that it is not her fault because those Federal sentencing guidelines that she, in every case where she could went below--those guidelines aren't binding. Thanks to the decision by the Supreme

Court, by Justice Breyer and Justice Stevens, those guidelines are only advisory. And so we were told, repeatedly, that if we really want to get tougher sentences for child porn offenders, then we are going to have to change the law.

In fact, I see my friend Senator Durbin here today, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He said this to me multiple times during the committee.

On March 22, he said to me:

I hope we all agree that we want to do everything in our

power . . . to lessen the incidence of pornography and

exploitation of children. . . . I . . . want to tell you,

Congress doesn't have clean hands. . . . We haven't touched

this for 15, 16 or 17 years.

Senator Durbin went on:

We have created a situation because of our inattention and

unwillingness to tackle an extremely controversial area in

Congress and left it to the judges. And I think we have to

accept some responsibility.

And he went on:

I don't know if you--

Meaning me--

have sponsored a bill to change this. I will be looking for

it. . . . If we're going to tackle it, we should.

Well, I agree with that 100 percent. I agree we should tackle it. This is the time to tackle it, and I am here to do that today. I am proud to sponsor and introduce legislation along with my fellow Senators Mike Lee and Thom Tillis and Rick Scott and Ted Cruz to get tough on child porn offenders.

Now, let's be clear. When Congress wrote the child pornography Federal sentencing guidelines, and it is Congress that wrote them substantially, way back in 2003--when Congress wrote them, they wanted them to be binding. Congress meant for these guidelines to bind Federal judges. The Supreme Court struck those guidelines down.

Now it is time to put it back into place. My bill would put a new mandatory--mandatory--sentence of 5 years for every child porn offender who possesses pornography, 5 years. If you do this crime, you ought to go to jail. It would make the guidelines binding for any and all facts found by a jury or found by a judge in a trial, restore the law to what Congress intended back in 2003, take away discretion from judges to be soft on crime, and get tough on child sex offenders. That is what this bill would do.

Now, I called this bill the Protect Act of 2022 because it is modeled on the PROTECT Act of 2003, when Congress wrote these guidelines. And I would just note for the record that I believe every Senator voted for it back in 2003, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Durbin, and every member of the Judiciary Committee, Republican and Democratic, who was serving at the time.

That act back in 2003 toughened penalties for child porn offenders, made the guidelines mandatory, and explicitly took away discretion from judges to sentence below the guidelines.

I think it was a pretty good law, and I think now is the time to act. Our children are at risk. The epidemic of sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and victimization is real.

And let's be clear what child pornography is. It is an industry--an industry that feeds on the exploitation of the most vulnerable members of our society, that feeds on the spectator sport of child abuse and child victimization.

If you have a lot of images of child pornography, you ought to go to jail for a long time. If you possess child pornography, you ought to go to jail for at least 5 years. And, yes, it is time for every judge in America to get tough on child porn. That is what this bill would do, and I urge the Senate now to take this opportunity to act.

So as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 3951, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, the Senator asks: ``Why now?'' Why act now?

It is because it is a crisis now, because there are 85 million images of children being exploited on the internet now, because child exploitation is exploding in this country now.

Today, the Senator lays bare on this floor the bait and switch that he and his colleagues have employed.

They say: Oh, Judge Jackson--it is not her fault. You should act on the law to change the law.

But when we come to change the law and do what this Congress did in 2003, to do it now in 2022--a measure that Senator Durbin supported in 2003--he says: Oh, no, no, we don't need to act now. Why do it now? It is rushed. It is too hurried. Let's do it later. Let's think about it longer.

Then we hear recited again the bizarre claims that somehow child pornography is a conspiracy theory. This is something that Senate Democrats, including the chairman, have repeated over and over and over, led by the White House--the idea that child exploitation is a conspiracy theory.

I would just invite you to look any parent in America in the eye and tell them that the exploitation of children is a conspiracy theory--or any law enforcement agent or any prosecutor or anyone who is working on the exploitation, to combat the exploitation of children in this country. No. It is a crisis, and it is real. The fact that the Senate hasn't acted until now is, I think, shameful for the Senate. But why wait another day?

Now, I look forward, if the Senator is serious. He does hold the gavel in the Judiciary Committee. We could mark this bill up. We could hold hearings. We could take action. I would invite him to cosponsor this bill. He voted for it in 2003. Let's have hearings, then, if we can't vote on it today, if we can't debate it today. Let's have hearings. Let's mark it up. Let's take it seriously. I will wait. I suspect I will be waiting for an awfully long time.

Here is the bottom line: I am not willing to tell the parents of my State that I sat by and did nothing. I am not willing to dismiss child exploitation as just some conspiracy theory. I am not willing to abandon the victims of this crime to their own devices and say: Good luck to you.

No, I am not willing to do that--nor am I willing to excuse Judge Jackson's record of leniency that does need to be corrected. She should not have had the discretion to sentence leniently in the extreme, as she did, nor should any judge in America, in my view. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We should fix it for everybody across the board, and we can begin by acting as we did in 2003.

So I am disappointed, but I can't say that I am surprised that this measure has been objected to today. All I can say is that I pledge to my constituents--I pledge to the parents of my State and, yes, to the victims of my State--that I will continue to come to this floor and that I will continue to seek passage of this act until we get action from this Senate to protect children and to punish child pornographers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois says that Congress hasn't acted in two decades; that is true. I haven't been here for two decades; he has.

There is no excuse to not take action now. There is no excuse to not act on this problem when we know what the solution is.

So, listen, if the Senator is saying today, if he is committing today, to holding hearings and marking up a bill to toughen the child pornography laws, to make mandatory the sentencing guidelines, that is fantastic. I will take him at his word. I look forward to seeing those hearings noticed and to seeing that markup noticed, and I hope it will be forthcoming.

I am here to make a prediction. I think we will be waiting a very long time, because let's not forget what his party and the Sentencing Commission, stacked with members of his party, have been recommending. It has not been to make child sentences tougher--child pornography sentences tougher. They have wanted to make them weaker.

What the Sentencing Commission has recommended, with its liberal members for years now, is to make them weaker. That is what Judge Jackson has advocated. She also wants to change the guidelines--to make them weaker.

I think that is exactly the wrong move, and that is why the Senator was here to block this effort today. He doesn't want there to be tougher sentences. He doesn't want to talk about this issue. He wants to sweep it under the rug. I am here to say I won't let that happen. I will be here as long as it takes. I will be advocating for this in the Senate Judiciary Committee as long as it takes, until we get justice for the victims of child pornography and child exploitation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, it is now March. It has been 7 months since the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Thirteen servicemembers lost their lives in the attack on Abbey Gate along with hundreds of civilians. As a result of the botched evacuation operation, hundreds, if not thousands, of American civilians were left behind to the enemy.

We hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that my insistence that we actually vote on nominees is unprecedented. I would humbly suggest that the Afghanistan crisis into which this President led our country was unprecedented.

And who has been held accountable for that disaster? No one. Who has the President fired? Who has offered their resignation? Which of the planners at the Department of State or the Department of Defense or the National Security Council have been relieved of duty? No one.

Until there is accountability, I am going to ask that the Senate do the simple task of its job, which is to actually vote on these nominees. The least we could do is observe regular order and vote on these leadership positions at the Department of Defense.

My colleagues say that we have got to put national security first. I agree with them about that. But I believe that begins at the top, with the President of the United States and the leadership of the Department of Defense and the Department of State. I, for one, am not going to stand by and look the other way while this administration systematically endangers our national security, imperils the American people, and watches the sacrifice of our soldiers go by without any accountability, without any change in direction.

Accountability for the Afghanistan disaster is all the more urgent given revelations last month from the U.S. Central Command investigation of the Abbey Gate bombing. The investigative report makes clear that the Administration had ample warning prior to mid-August that Kabul could collapse rapidly in the face of the Taliban's offensive. It shows further how the Administration refused to acknowledge those warnings and act in a timely manner to prepare for Kabul's fall. And it shows in astounding detail just how chaotic the final evacuation effort was, with U.S. servicemembers often left without clear guidance, the State Department constantly missing in action, and the Administration itself intent only on evacuating as many people as possible, regardless of whether those individuals were eligible for evacuation or might pose a threat to America's own security.

I am not willing to look the other way and just pretend that Afghanistan didn't happen, which seems to be the posture that many in this body have adopted. I am not willing to do that. I can't do that because I promised the parents of the fallen that I wouldn't do that.

I am going to discharge my responsibility. And as long as it takes, I will continue to draw attention to what happened at Abbey Gate and to demand accountability for the disaster that this administration has pushed upon this country and upon the people of my State.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thank the Senator from Virginia for accommodating me here and allowing me to come to the floor, and I thank him for his remarks. I only got to hear the second half of his remarks, but I thank him for his remarks and am sure that he is in earnest about this nomination.

Let me tell you why I am here, and I will be brief. I know we have a vote that is about to kick off. But let me tell you what I am in earnest about.

The crisis in Afghanistan--the attack at Abbey Gate this past August that cost 13 American servicemembers, including 1 from my home State, from the State of Missouri, their lives--is a catastrophe unparalleled in our foreign policy in my lifetime. It is my firm conviction and it is also a promise that I made to the family of the fallen marine from my State that we should do--this Senate should perform its oversight functions related to the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan and in particular the events leading up to that attack at Abbey Gate that resulted in the deaths of those servicemembers and the deaths of hundreds, I am afraid--hundreds--of civilians and many hundreds of other Americans left behind.

I have come to this floor before many times now to ask the Senate to hold accountable those who planned and led or failed to lead, in some instances, this operation leading to the attack at Abbey Gate, leading to that catastrophic loss of life, and leading, I am afraid, to the disastrous turn in our foreign policy, the effects of which we continue to feel.

So it is my humble but earnest request that the Senate perform its basic oversight functions, and, very briefly, let me mention one.

U.S. Central Command ordered a report of the events leading up to the Abbey Gate attack that we learned of in February. February 8, I believe, we learned that that report had been completed. It is several thousand pages long. I have the barest summary of it here.

My staff and I have been through all of it, the thousands of pages. They had over 169 interviews that U.S. Central Command conducted, again, to try to understand how we got to this crisis point leading up to and including Abbey Gate.

We have not had a single hearing in the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on this report. Now, I applaud Central Command for carrying out the report, for ordering it, for putting it together, but we should be learning what we can and holding accountable those who need to be held accountable. Who has been fired? No one. Who has been relieved of duty? No one. And if you read the report--and I commend it to my colleagues. If you read the report, you will see individual after individual, commanders on the ground warning that we are not prepared, that the administration was not prepared to get civilians to safety in Kabul; warning that the planning was not adequate; warning that there were dangers.

So, Mr. President, I ask again that the committee do its basic oversight job, perform its basic function, hold a hearing on this report, hold accountable those who failed in that catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Until that time, I am going to continue to ask that the Senate observe regular order in leadership positions in the Department of Defense.

And for those reasons, I object.

Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 789, Mallory A. Stewart, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State.

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 472, Rachel Jacobson, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army.

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 776, Peter J. Beshar, of New York, to be General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to say at the outset that it is always a privilege to work with Senator Reed on the Armed Services Committee in every capacity we get to work together, and I look forward to that going forward.

What we are being asked to do--the Senate is being asked to do today, however, is to fast-track nominees for leadership positions in the Department of Defense to carry out a foreign policy that is manifestly failing. This administration is careening from one crisis to another, endangering the security of the American people, endangering the security of the world.

When the Senator mentioned just a moment ago the situation in Ukraine, you don't have to look any further than there to see the crisis--the latest crisis that the Biden administration has led this Nation into.

To begin with, the administration failed to deter Vladimir Putin and his Russian invasion before it happened. They failed to actually check Putin when it would have really mattered.

How did they do this? Well, for starters, when President Biden came to office, he opened up Russia's pipelines, and then he shut down America's pipelines. He handed our energy independence that the Senator was just mentioning--he handed our energy independence away. He gave it away. And who stepped in to fill the void? The Russians.

What is Russia? It is not so much a country as it is a gas station, and Putin is pumping and pumping and pumping. What is financing his war in Ukraine? It is not least our energy policies that are giving away our energy independence, giving away our energy dominance, and green- lighting his energy production. That is what Joe Biden did when he first came to office--green-lighting his production, shutting down our production.

But what else? President Biden had the opportunity to provide lethal military aid to Ukraine last spring when the Ukrainians first requested it. He said no. In fact, I believe he said no repeatedly for much of the year last year. That turns out to have been a very poor decision.

Now, today, deterrence having failed, the Russians engaged in an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, threatening the stability of Europe, the security of Europe, and, of course, endangering our own national security, what is the President doing? What is President Biden doing? Is he turning back on American energy production? Is he sanctioning the Russian energy sector? No.

Just today, finally, he was dragged kicking and screaming to finally agree that this country will no longer import Russia's blood oil. Remember, he had us importing over 670,000 barrels of Russian oil every single day. Today, he announced finally, belatedly, we won't do that anymore. But what is he doing instead? He is going to every petty dictator on the face of the map and begging them to make up the difference. We learned that the President's team has been in touch with Maduro's regime--the murderous Maduro regime--in Venezuela and is preparing to offer them a special package that will ease the restrictions, ease the sanctions, ease the punishment on that outlaw regime and get them to make up the difference in oil production from Russia.

We learned that the President is potentially planning a trip to Saudi Arabia to ask the Saudis to increase their oil production to make up the difference from the Russians. I wonder if the topic of Jamal Khashoggi will come up in those meetings. I certainly hope it will.

President Biden once said that he would make Saudi Arabia ``pay the price, and make them in fact the pariah that they are.'' I guess that is no longer the policy of the U.S. Government because here is what we are reduced to under this administration: We are reduced to begging our enemies--our enemies, the dictators of the world--we are reduced to begging them to bail out a foreign policy that is failing, not least because this administration will not allow American workers to turn on American energy.

I take it from the President's remarks and from the President's policy that he has no objection in principle to pumping more oil and gas. Apparently he doesn't, so this can't be about climate change. He is fine with more oil production but not in this country, not by American workers. Heaven forbid American workers be put back to work. Heaven forbid American workers actually earn more. Heaven forbid the American people be able to pay less at the pump, as Joe Biden's prices drive gas prices through the roof. No, this is the policy of weakness, fecklessness that this President has given us.

Let's not forget where it began. It began with Afghanistan. And that is the reason I am here on the floor today in particular.

It has been months now--months--since the fall of Afghanistan. This administration has lost two nations in the space of barely 6 months. The Afghanistan debacle is the worst foreign policy debacle in this country's history since Vietnam--although stay tuned, the way this administration is going--and what has this Congress done about it? Who has been held accountable for it?

I have come to this floor over and over and over to ask for accountability. Has someone been fired? No. Has someone been relieved of duty? No.

I was here just a few weeks ago after the Washington Post reported on a 2,000-page investigation done by Central Command into the fall of Afghanistan. Since that time, my team and I have been through all 2,000-plus pages.

I would just like to point out that we learned about this investigative report not from a hearing conducted by this body but from an investigative report by a newspaper. I am glad somebody has some interest in what happened in Afghanistan. Sadly, it seems not to be this Chamber.

Here are some of the things that we learned in this 2,000-page investigative report about Afghanistan:

We learned from GEN Scott Miller, who was the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in early 2021, that he was extremely worried from May 2 onward as he saw key districts fall. In fact, General Miller testified to us that he warned Secretary Austin and General Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as early as March or April that the Afghan security forces might collapse rapidly once we withdrew forces.

Now this report documents it and says, indeed, there is evidence that he was very worried, that he was warning that the collapse of Afghanistan would come quickly, he was warning that it would be imminent. But what did the Biden administration do? Did they order the evacuation of our civilians? Did they plan for the possible fall of the Afghan Government? No. The report goes on to detail that the National Security Council and the State Department showed a total lack of urgency right up until the final hours before the fall of Kabul.

We learned that RDML Peter Vasely, who took over for General Miller last spring and commanded U.S. forces in Afghanistan during the final stages of the withdrawal, provided assessments weeks before the fall of Kabul that the trajectory of Afghanistan was in a downward spiral--this is a quote from the report--and was likely not recoverable.

The report goes on to say this: Rear Admiral Vasely ``was trying to get the Ambassador to see the security threat for what it really was.'' There were as many as 10 districts falling every day, getting closer and closer to Kabul. ``The embassy needed to position for withdrawal, but the Ambassador didn't get it.''

These are just a few of the details in this 2,000-page report showing that our military commanders warned over and over and over that Kabul was on the

verge of collapse, that the security dangers were mounting, that civilians needed to be evacuated, and that we needed to change course, and this administration did nothing. What happened as a result? Thirteen servicemembers are dead, including one from my own State.

I will never forget talking to his family, his father, less than 48 hours after this young man, LCpl Jared Schmitz, lost his life, along with 12 others who bravely served this country, giving the uttermost of their devotion. But it didn't have to be that way.

Here is my point: This body should be hearing from these commanders, from these men and women who have testified in this report, who have given evidence about what happened in Afghanistan. We should be hearing from them in public, under oath--no more private briefings; no more closed-session briefings. We should hear from Secretary Austin. We should hear from General Milley. We should hear from the commanders-- General Miller--under oath. They should come and testify about this report.

We should do our job, and until we do, I will not consent to allow the Senate to bypass regular order and fast-track the nominations of yet more leadership positions to continue carrying on a failed policy. I will not do it.

There is a crisis in Ukraine. There is a crisis in Afghanistan. Crises multiply across the world at the hands of this administration, and still, this Congress refuses to reverse course and refuses to provide the most basic oversight that it is charged with providing.

I don't think it is too much to ask, in the face of this, in the face of these disasters, that we have the curiosity to at least have an open hearing, to at least ask who should be accountable and what should be done.

So I want to say again, I appreciate Senator Reed's earnestness on this issue. I appreciate the fact that he doesn't control the floor.

My final point, I would note, as I look toward the clock here, last week, if my memory serves, of the 4 days we were in session, we took a total of four votes in the U.S. Senate last week. If these nominees were as important as they say they are, we could have voted last week. We could have voted earlier today.

Now, Senator Reed doesn't control the floor, but I might just note to the majority leader that maybe instead of taking a vacation tomorrow, which I gather is the plan, that maybe the Senate ought to be here and working, and maybe we ought to be here and voting, because until there is some accountability for what happened in Afghanistan, for what is happening with this administration's foreign policy, I am going to ask the Senate to observe regular order and do its job and to vote.

With that, I object.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to this administration's dangerous policy of American weakness and in support of the strong men and women of the United States' energy sector, who are ready to step forward to return this Nation to energy independence, to burnish this Nation's strength, and to show the Russians what the United States is capable of.

It will be lost on no one that we are approximately a week into the largest conventional military attack in Europe since 1945. Vladimir Putin's brutal war of choice against the Ukrainians continues as we speak. It grows worse, more devastating, and more brutal by the hour, and it is time that, in the midst of this war, we confronted a basic fact: that Russia isn't so much a country as it is a gas station, and Vladimir Putin's gas station is open for business and pumping away, and this administration--this administration--has made the decision to make this country more dependent on Russian oil, to make the world more dependent on Russian oil, to embolden and empower Vladimir Putin at a time when the world can ill afford it, and it is time to change course.

And we can change course. We can change our energy production policy. We can open up our energy sector to make us once again the dominant energy producer in the world, to make us truly energy independent, to make us energy strong, to put Russia in its place, and to put the United States at the head of the energy sector worldwide.

But that is not where we stand right now. Today, the United States is importing--in the midst of this conflict, in the midst of Russian aggression, the United States is importing--buying from Russia to the tune of 670,000 barrels of oil every single day. It has nearly doubled just in the past year.

Now, I would submit to you that whatever you think about this administration's geostrategic policies--this is, after all, an administration that has managed to lose two sovereign nations in the space of 6 months--whatever you think of that record, this is not sustainable. This is not good for the world. This makes America weaker, not stronger, and this is a time for American strength.

What did Joe Biden do when he came to the Office of the President of the United States just over a year ago?

Well, among his first actions was to cancel the Keystone Pipeline, to halt a leasing program in Alaska, to issue a halt on all new oil and gas leases, as well as drilling permits on Federal lands and Federal waters. By the way, that accounts for about 25 percent of U.S. energy production.

He directed Federal Agencies to get rid of all support for fossil fuels. He imposed new regulations on oil and gas and methane emissions. He hired new SEC regulators to propose new climate regulations, and the list goes on and on.

And these policies have had their effect. I will give the President credit where credit is due. His policies to throttle down our energy production have been successful. He has succeeded in making this Nation energy dependent.

In 2019, in 2020--for the first time, certainly, in my lifetime--the United States actually exported more energy than it imported. We were energy independent, and, even better, we were becoming the energy supplier for the world.

Who is the energy supplier for the world now? It is Vladimir Putin, and that is because, at least in part, of the policies that this administration and President Biden have deliberately sought to pursue.

Look, the statistics don't lie. Why is Russia able to pursue this war of aggression in Ukraine?

Well, at least in part because of this: They supply 20 percent of Europe's oil--Russia alone, 20 percent of Europe's oil--40 percent of its gas, 20 percent of its coal. Russia supplies to the tune of 55 percent of Germany's natural gas alone--just Germany's, 55 percent. Now, can we wonder why our German partners were slow to want to sanction Russia, to provide lethal aid to Ukraine when they needed it before the invasion occurred? It is because Russia has Europe in a stranglehold.

And that should be no excuse. I am not saying that the Europeans deserve an out--not at all. But I am saying that Vladimir Putin has used his power, his energy production, to try and project new power in Europe, and, unfortunately, he is having success.

It ought to be our policy to reverse his power projection, to shut down his gas stations--his gas station of a country--by returning this country to energy independence and energy dominance, and we can do it.

This is not a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream. We have been there before. We were just energy independent, just a few years ago. We know what to do. It is actually pretty simple. All we have to do is roll back the disastrous policies that this administration imposed just a year ago, roll those back and allow the American worker to get back to work on our pipelines, on our rigs, drilling and pumping natural gas and producing biofuels like the ones that we produce, the kind that we produce in my State. Put American energy back to work. It is actually pretty simple.

Sometimes, Ronald Reagan once said, there actually are simple solutions, not easy ones but simple ones. This one is simple, it is direct, and it is time that we took it.

And that is why I have introduced legislation, along with Senator Grassley and Senator Hagerty and Senator Tuberville, that would do just this. It would reverse the disastrous energy policies of this administration, the policies that have emboldened and enabled and empowered Vladimir Putin and the Russian military, and return this country to energy strength, return this country to energy dominance.

I can't put it any better than this: If you will give--if the President of the United States would give--the American worker a chance--give the folks who man those pipelines, give the folks who work the oil rigs--give them a chance to show what they can do, and I will tell you what they will show you: They will show you that they are the best in the world. They will show you that they are the strongest in the world. They will show you that this country is the strongest in the world, and they will put the Russian energy sector to shame.

And, by the way, Joe Biden's policy was to green-light the Russian pipeline, Putin's pipeline, Nord Stream 2. He lifted sanctions on it when he came to office; imposed limits on our own energy production but lifted them on the Russians.

Here is a suggestion: Shut down Putin's pipelines. Shut down Putin's energy sector. Open ours up. Do just the opposite of what President Biden did a year ago. Shut down the Russian energy production, open up American energy protection, and show the world what the American people can do.

And that is what the bill that I have introduced, along with my cosponsors, who I am proud to have with me--that is what it would do. It is very simple, Mr. President, and I would suggest to you that the time is of the essence.

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of S. 3714 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Delaware for his remarks, which I appreciate. It is a privilege to serve with him, as we do, on the Homeland Security Committee, and work with him as we do--as I have--and I look forward to working together, hopefully on this issue, and others in the future.

We do disagree on this issue. We have an honest and, I think, principled disagreement. It is one that we ought to talk about. I am glad we are talking about it here today, and I suspect it is one, ultimately, that the American people are going to have to weigh in on

because the differences are pretty significant. And that is fine. That is democracy.

But I just want to highlight two things where I think we have a principled disagreement. The first is the idea that, if we produce more energy in this country, it won't have any effect on prices, energy prices, or make us energy independent.

I would just ask the American people, I mean: Does gas cost more today than it did before Joe Biden became President? Yes, it does. Are you paying more for groceries? Are you paying more, if you are a farmer, for fertilizer? Are you paying more for every input that is associated with energy today than before Joe Biden was President? Unfortunately, yes, you are.

Inflation is out of control in this country. Inflation associated with the fuel that Americans use to fill up their trucks and their vans and that they use to heat their homes is out of control, and there is a reason for that. This is the reason for that. We are not producing energy in this country like we were. We were energy independent in 2019 and 2020. It is not as if it can't be done. It has been done. Prices were lower. It is basic supply and demand.

But there is also a national security aspect to this. Why would we want to be dependent on a totalitarian state that is invading its neighbors and is seeking to establish energy control of Europe and beyond?

Why wouldn't we seek to thwart it? And why would we ask the American people to pay more, day in and day out, to heat their homes, for fuel for their cars? Why would we put them through that? Why would we ask them to do that?

I just submit to you that there is a real tradeoff here, and the administration has chosen the wrong side of the tradeoff. Put the American energy sector back to work.

One other comment. I know that the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, former Senator Kerry, has expressed similar concerns about climate change and has said recently that he fears that the crisis in Ukraine will distract from the urgency of climate change.

Well, I submit to you that the crisis in Ukraine--the existential threat to that proud and sovereign nation which is now in danger of being extinguished, the threat to stability in Europe that Russia now exerts, and the threat that China will exert to the world--yes, indeed, that may distract from climate change, but that is just reality. It is time we face the most pressing security threats that we have. And putting Americans back to work and lowering their gas prices and their fuel prices, making American families safer and more secure and making our enemies less secure, that is a good policy, and it is one that I hope we can have.

So, again, I thank my colleague and my friend, the Senator from Delaware, and I suspect it won't be the last time we talk about this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 693, John F. Plumb, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense.

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 694, Melissa Griffin Dalton, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense.

Mr. President, I object, and will submit a statement for the Record.

Mr. President, it is now February. It has been nearly 6 months since the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Thirteen servicemembers lost their lives in the attack on Abbey Gate, along with hundreds of civilians. As a result of the botched evacuation operation, hundreds, if not thousands, of American civilians were left behind to the enemy.

We hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that my insistence that we actually vote on nominees is unprecedented. I would humbly suggest that the crisis into which this President has led this country is unprecedented. In my lifetime, it is unprecedented.

And who has been held accountable for this disaster? No one. Who has the President fired? Who has offered their resignation? Which of the planners at the Department of State or the Department of Defense or the National Security Council have been relieved of duty? No one.

Until there is accountability, I am going to ask that the Senate do the simple task of its job, which is to actually vote on these nominees. The least we could do is observe regular order and vote on these leadership positions at the Department of State and at the Department of Defense.

My colleagues say that we have got to put national security first. I agree with them about that. But I believe that begins at the top, with the President of the United States and the leadership of the Department of Defense and the Department of State. I, for one, am not going to stand by and look the other way while this administration systematically endangers our national security, imperils the American people, and watches the sacrifice of our soldiers go by without any accountability, without any change in direction.

Accountability for the Afghanistan disaster is all the more urgent given new revelations from the U.S. Central Command investigation of the Abbey Gate bombing. The investigative report makes clear that the administration had ample warning prior to mid-August that Kabul could collapse rapidly in the face of the Taliban's offensive. It shows further how the administration refused to acknowledge those warnings and act in a timely manner to prepare for Kabul's fall. And it shows in astounding detail just how chaotic the final evacuation effort was, with U.S. servicemembers often left without clear guidance, the State Department constantly missing in action, and the administration itself intent only on evacuating as many people as possible, regardless of whether those individuals were eligible for evacuation or might pose a threat to America's own security.

I am not willing to look the other way and just pretend that Afghanistan didn't happen, which seems to be the posture that many in this body have adopted. I am not willing to do that. I can't do that because I promised the parents of the fallen that I wouldn't do that.

I am going to discharge my responsibility. And as long as it takes, I will continue to draw attention to what happened at Abbey Gate and to demand accountability for the disaster that this administration has pushed upon this country and upon the people of my State.