Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to speak for just a few minutes here.

No. 1, the judge we just confirmed, I think to the 11th Judicial Circuit, Ms. Abudu, is an example of the system being broken. This nominee, whom I voted against in committee, is way beyond what I think the market should be bearing. This is, in my view, a partisan's dream.

It is OK to be a litigant in causes I don't agree with. It is OK to represent organizations that I differ with. I don't hold a client against a lawyer, but I do hold positions against the lawyer when it comes to cause-driven litigation.

This nominee, at every turn, has taken the left fork in the road, to the point of being in the ditch. As a lawyer, she sued a Florida community that was trying to protect children from sexual predators by having requirements of notice but also being away from schools certain distances, and she sued the community basically claiming that was unfair to the sexual abuser.

It is moments like this that should be a wake-up call for this body. Her record as an advocate is not just representing liberal causes, but the rhetoric used and the arguments made convinced me in committee that this is an activist on steroids.

I have tried to work with my Democratic colleagues, voting for circuit and district court judges, understanding that Democrats would pick someone I would not choose. That is the way the system works. But, in this case, it was a partisan vote. Not one Republican voted for this nominee, and her record, I think, is one of activism and stridency that will, in my view, shape her time as a judge and shape the court in a way that is inconsistent with the rule of law as I know it.

So to my Democratic colleagues, you have confirmed this nominee, but I am sure this is not the last we will hear about Ms. Abudu.

Today, it was announced that Rachael Rollins, the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, is going to resign, I think. She is under investigation for unethical behavior and using her office for revenge.

She is one of the few and may be the only U.S. attorney that I voted against in this Congress. There may have been one other. But it was pretty obvious to those of us on the committee that the warning signs regarding Ms. Rollins were rampant and that we were buying a problem.

The point I am trying to make to my colleagues is, after we changed the

rules of confirmation--you don't need one vote from the other side if you have the majority, and there will come a day, maybe, when we find ourselves in that situation--I always have worried that doing away with the collaborative process to get a nominee to move forward--judges or U.S. attorneys--is going to create a problem where you are down to picking people who have the most vocal support from the most active, extreme elements in both parties. And I think this is a case: Exhibit A, Ms. Rollins.

And to my colleagues, all of us are going to have to understand that I respect the home State Senators' ability to nominate district court judges. The blue slip process I will honor for district court judges, U.S. attorneys. But it puts pressure on us to up our game, and Ms. Rollins I voted against in committee, and it was obvious that our concerns were justified.

Mr. Delaney, nominated for the First Judicial Circuit, performed poorly in the committee. He represented a private school that was sued for allowing sexual harassment to be unchecked and to be covered up.

It is OK to represent unpopular causes. Everybody needs a lawyer. But his answers about how he engaged one of the plaintiffs--a minor at the time--were terrible, and it seems to me that he should have been better prepared. He had a lot of support from people in New Hampshire, some on our side of the aisle. But I guess my point is that you have to be prepared to answer hard questions, and Mr. Delaney was woefully unprepared.

And to my colleagues on the Republican side, I think you have done a very good job of asking hard, relevant questions to the nominees before our committee, and we have had a lot of bipartisan support for judges, and we have had some opposition.

As to moving forward, I hope the White House will prepare these nominees better--a basic understanding of the Constitution, of a litigant practice, basic concepts of the law, like Brady motions, and just how the Constitution is set up. That is not too much to ask the people who want to be a judge for the rest of their life.

So, to the White House, this process needs to change. You need to up your game. Your goal, I think, should be to try to find people who some of us can vote for on the Republican side and, when they get in front of the committee, make a good impression. I am not saying we did it all right on our side when we were in charge. There are probably examples where we didn't. But I tried to make sure that some people who were nominated didn't make it because some of us on the Republican side said no.

There are more than a handful of judges coming out of the committee that I think should not be on the bench, and I say that with the understanding that my inclination is to vote for judges nominated by the other side, assuming that that is what I would like to have happen when it comes our turn--that if we all vote against the other party's judges, then you are going to put the judiciary in a world of hurt if you have a President of one party and a Senate made up of the other. And that is sort of--we will be there one day, and given the behavior of the body, I don't know how we deal with that.

But between now and then, I am hoping that there will be more serious deliberation by colleagues on the Democratic side to make sure that the people we are putting forward can answer basic questions. And sometimes, maybe, we ask bad questions, but I don't believe that the questions being asked of these nominees are unfair. And it just is stunning that people have been in the law as long as some of these nominees have and can't answer the basics.

So this idea that you are going to come through the Judiciary Committee and not be asked hard, relevant questions, I hope that has gone by the wayside. The idea that I will support Democratic nominees is real up to a point. And there have been several of us on this side who have probably voted for more Democratic nominees than we have opposed, and I would try to continue to honor the process.

I want to keep the blue slip in place. I am asking colleagues from red States to work with the White House to see if they can find consensus. When I was chairman, there was a lot of pressure on me to do away with the blue slip so we could nominate anybody we wanted to at the district court level. If you had two Democratic Senators in the State, the blue slip would go away; we could nominate anybody we wanted to.

I think that is bad for the Senate, and I think that, over time, would be bad for the judiciary. I didn't change the process; I don't want it changed now. And I do expect us on the Republican side to collaborate with the White House and find consensus where you can.

But, having said that, the last several months have sort of been a disaster for the committee in the sense that people are not prepared, and you are picking folks who really shouldn't have lifetime appointments, from my point of view. And we can pass them all on party lines and make this problem worse, or you can get a handful of Democrats to do what I have done in the past: not only vote yes but sometimes say no.

And Mr. Delaney, I think, will probably fall by the wayside. And I say that with no animosity toward him. I just think that is the right outcome here. So if that does happen, I would want to applaud the White House for understanding that sometimes you can't go beyond what the market would bear.

I have shown a disposition and a willingness to work with you, but the recent nominee we just passed is way out of the mainstream, and I am hoping that we can get back on track and have nominees come before the committee who are prepared to make it, quite frankly, easier to find consensus. And if that doesn't happen, we are going to have less consensus. And there are a handful of nominees waiting to come to the floor whom I would vigorously oppose because I think they are not qualified.

So, with that, Mr. President, I wish you a great break and hope we can go home and do our business at home and abroad--wherever that takes us--and come back safely.

With that, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

I will be very brief. To my colleague and good friend Senator Schumer, I want to let you know that 99 Senators agree with what you said about Senator Feinstein. We all hope--I am the ranking member of the Judiciary. She is a dear friend, and we hope for her speedy recovery and return back to the Senate.

But with all due respect to my colleague Senator Schumer, this is about a handful of judges that you can't get the votes for. I have been a pretty consistent vote in the Committee on the Judiciary in a bipartisan fashion. I understand you won the election and we lost. I want to make sure we process judges fairly.

The reason this is being made is to try to change the numbers on the committee in a way that I think would be harmful to the Senate and to pass out a handful of judges that I think should never be on the bench.

With that in mind and with all due respect to Senator Feinstein, I object.

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

Madam President, we will be voting about 5:30, about 30 minutes from now, to end debate and tomorrow have some amendments, then go to final passage on legislation to repeal the authorization to use military force for 2002 directed against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

The problem I have with what we are doing is that we are repealing the authorization to use military force because Saddam is dead and that threat is gone, but we are not replacing it with an authorization that our troops desperately need, which is to create an AUMF to allow our military to go after Shiite militias that are attacking them routinely inside of Iraq. There have been over 78 attacks since 2021 directed at U.S. forces by different groups, mostly Shiite militias controlled by Iran, in Iraq and Syria. A couple days ago, there was an attack on an American base in Syria. An American contractor was killed. God bless him and his family. And we retaliated, and they retaliated back. The bottom line is that our response to aggression against U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria is woefully inadequate. Seventy-something attacks since 2021. Clearly, nobody feels afraid to attack our troops over there, and we need to create some deterrence that we don't have today.

So I had an amendment that failed that would allow authorization to use military force to exist where the Congress blesses the use of military force against Shiite militias that are operating in Iraq because they are a threat to about 2,500 troops that we have stationed in Iraq.

The forces in Syria--about 900--are there to finish the counter-ISIS mission, and I hear people, particularly on my side, say that we shouldn't be in Syria.

You know, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is insanity. The last time we pulled all of our forces out of Iraq, it was President Obama with the support of then-Vice President Biden, the ISIS JV team became the varsity team. They took over great parts of Syria and Iraq. They destroyed the city of Mosul. They set up shop in Raqqa, Syria, and they launched attacks from Syria, ISIS directed, at United States and Europe throughout the world, killing thousands of people.

President Trump authorized our military to take down the caliphate. And this idea that if you leave, they won't come back is stupid. You know nothing if you believe that. You may be tired of fighting radical Islam. They are not tired of fighting you. I would rather fight in their backyard than ours. They are going to destroy us if we don't destroy them.

Here is the good news. They are on the run. As long as we keep some of our forces in place, working with people in Syria and Iraq who do not want to live under ISIS rule, we will be relatively safe. If you pull all the troops out, you are going to get the same outcome. People who keep arguing this, you really are doing a great disservice to the country, and your arguments make zero sense. You don't understand the enemy. You have no idea what this war is about.

This is a religious struggle. They have declared war on every faith but their own. They want to purify Islam in their own image--ISIS and al-Qaida. They want to destroy the State of Israel and eventually come after us. Leaving them alone doesn't guarantee you much. In 2001, before 9/11, we didn't have one soldier in Afghanistan. We didn't even have an embassy. We totally abandoned Afghanistan, and the attack against our country on 9/11 originated in Afghanistan.

When will you learn that these people are out to get you? And when I say ``you,'' I mean Americans. Anybody who believes in diversity in faith, they have a world view that has no place for you. The good news is most people in the Mideast are not buying what they are selling, but they are very lethal and dangerous left unattended.

Now, when you create the right mix of U.S. forces and local forces, you pretty well keep them on the run and keep them at bay. So to those who suggest we shouldn't be in Syria with 900 U.S. forces to prevent ISIS from coming back, you are setting the stage for a reemergence of ISIS, and once is enough, folks.

They destroyed the Yazidi population, raped women by the thousands and created carnage all over Syria and Iraq and projected attacks against American Western allies from a safe haven in Raqqa, Syria.

Now, the theory of the case here is that we as Congress need to take back authority, and this authorization to use force no longer needs to be in place because the war against Saddam Hussein is over. We can argue about Iraq being a good idea or a bad idea. We did have bad intelligence. But here is what I would say 20 years later. Saddam being dead is a good thing, from my point of view, because he was a thug and a dictator on steroids. And the people of Iraq are on their second or third election. It has been messy, but they are moving in the right direction. And we have 2,500 troops back in Iraq to make sure ISIS doesn't come back and destabilize the region and try to have some influence against the Iranians.

So if you want to repeal the AUMF, I think you owe it to the troops to follow it with something. So the people who want to do this say: Article II, which is the inherent authority of the Commander in Chief, allows President Biden to protect our troops in Iraq. There is truth to that. But the whole idea is for us as a Congress to have a say in foreign policy and not sort of give a blank check. So if you want to cancel the check to go after Saddam because he is not around, I think you owe it to the troops to lend your voice because the enemy sees this as retreat.

No matter what you want the enemy to believe about what is going on here, all they understand is the American Congress is making a step to get out of Iraq, and that is good news for them.

After Afghanistan--the disaster there--don't you think we should be more clear in our thought?

The Biden administration was wrong to take troops out of Afghanistan. They are right to have troops in Iraq and Syria, but the Congress is trying to be a bit hypocritical here. We want to cancel one authorization to use force, and we don't have the courage, apparently, politically, to say the military has our approval, as a Congress working with the President, to go after Shiite militias that are killing our forces in Iraq and attacking them regularly.

What does Iran want?

Now, this is not an authorization to go after the Iranian regime. It is an authorization to protect American forces in Iraq from attacks in Iraq coming from Shiite militias loyal to Iran.

What are they trying to achieve?

They want to drive us out. If the 900 troops left Syria tomorrow, Assad would eventually conquer what is left of Syria and ISIS would fill that vacuum and you would have a conflict with Turkey and the Kurds. And all the people--our chairman of the Armed Services Committee is a very smart guy and a very great friend--all the Kurds who fought with us, they would be wiped out.

So I am glad the Biden administration is going to stay in Syria because we need those troops to keep ISIS from coming back and to work with our Kurdish partners.

But when it comes to Iraq, they are trying to drive us out because Iran wants us out of Syria so their buddy Assad can run the place. They want us out of Iraq so the Shiite radical elements in Iraq can topple the Iraqi Government, and the Shiite militias would take authority away from the Iraqi Army, and they will have influence over Iraq and Syria.

It is not in America's interest to allow the Ayatollah in Iran to have more influence and more spaces to govern and more oil to generate revenue from. So if you don't get that, you are not really following what is going on.

So no matter what you say about article II, I hate to tell you, ISIS probably doesn't follow our Constitution that closely. The best thing we could do, if you want to repeal the 2002 AUMF that was generated to get rid of Saddam, replace it with something new--an authorization to use force to protect our troops that we all agree or most of us agree should be in Iraq to protect America from attacks from Shiite militias. That amendment was rejected.

Here is what you are doing. You are sending a signal by doing this that we are leaving, we are withdrawing, and that we don't have the will as a nation to see this thing through. There is nothing good comes from this. You are openly admitting the President has authority to use force to protect our troops, but you are not going to lend your voice to that cause, and I don't understand that.

If the Congress, working with the President, said: No matter who is President, you have the ability to use military force to protect our troops against Shiite militias in Iraq, that would make us stronger. The enemy would understand it better. Our allies would understand it more clearly. And they have got to be wondering, What the hell is going on here?

So the bottom line is, you are setting in motion, by not replacing the AUMF with something specific to Shiite militias that are attacking our troops regularly--you are setting in motion more danger for those in Iraq and eventually Syria.

And I don't question your patriotism. I do question our judgment as a body. This is a very ill-conceived idea. It is going to juice up the enemy. It is going to confuse our allies. And it could be easily fixed, but we choose not to.

I don't know what the political environment is in America today, but the idea that the war is over with radical Islam is insane. I have listened to people--some on my side--come down here and want to repeal the authorization to go after al-Qaida and affiliated groups after 9/ 11. General Kurilla, the CENTCOM commander in charge of the region, said, last week, because of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, ISIS in Afghanistan has the ability to strike us in this country within 6 months without warning.

So can you imagine the damage to be done to national security interests if we repeal the 2001 AUMF?

So I will close with this. While I understand theoretically why we want to replace--get rid of the 2002 AUMF because Saddam is gone, I don't understand why we are leaving this vacuum and this doubt. This is easily fixed.

You are creating a narrative that is going to come back to haunt us. You think it is an accident within 2 days of introducing this idea that they hit us in Syria again? They are going to test us.

And here is what I think. The Biden administration is doing a lousy job, quite frankly, of instilling fear in the enemy. Whether you like Trump or not, people were afraid of him. And there is no fear. And here is what I would like to have established: Working with the administration, not against them, to send a clear signal: You kill Americans at your own peril. We are not leaving. We are not going to let radical Islam come back and do it all over again.

So I will be voting no. This is one of the most ill-conceived ideas after 9/11.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, so I don't know where we are headed in terms of votes tonight, but let me tell you where we are headed in terms of the bill before the Senate.

I understand Saddam is gone and the authorization to use military force directed at him in 2002--it makes sense to me, quite frankly, believe it or not, to revisit that, but what we need to make sure we do is not leave our troops exposed that are in the fight today. This is 2023.

So Senator Schumer keeps talking about Bush lied, people died. Here is what I would say to my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues: In the last 2 years, we have, I think, a little over 2,000 American forces in Iraq, there to make sure ISIS doesn't come back, keep the place stable. After Obama pulled out of Iraq, the JV team became the varsity. ISIS basically took over most of Syria, destroyed Mosul, wiped out the Yazidi Community, raped, murdered, and pillaged, and we finally regained control of Iraq. We put troops back in--they should never have been taken out--and we need those troops to stay in Iraq, make sure ISIS doesn't come back.

When they had a foothold in Raqqa, Syria, as well as Iraq, ISIS directed attacks at the United States and our allies in Europe, and all hell broke loose.

So what I would want the body to understand--in 2023, Americans are serving in Iraq, and we owe it to them to

make sure that we can use whatever military force necessary to protect them against Shiite militias operating in Iraq at the direction of Iran.

Fifty-six attacks against American forces in the last 2 years under President Biden. They are trying to drive us out of Iraq. The Shiite militias are operating all over the country. I appreciate the partnership we have with the Government of Iraq, but we don't have a status of forces agreement.

So I have an amendment that is very simple. It would replace the 2002 AUMF with the following: An authorization to use military force to protect Americans stationed in Iraq against attacks by Shiite militias in Iraq. That is an ongoing problem. Let's not expose our troops to being attacked. Let's don't continue the narrative that we are pulling out of the Middle East, because you do so at your own peril.

After the debacle in Afghanistan, everybody is wondering about America's resolve. So to all the people who talk about repealing the 2002 AUMF because Saddam is gone, I actually understand that to a point, but what I hope you will understand is that the way you have written this, the people in Iraq today, the Americans serving, we don't have their backs, and we owe it to them to have their backs.

We need to let the Iranian militias know, and others: If you attack Americans in Iraq, we are coming after you.

And to those who say the AUMF needs to be repealed because it confers too much power on a President, we need to take that authority back as Congress, well, then, here is what I would say to you: Do we owe it to those serving in Iraq to provide authority from Congress that we will have your back if you are attacked by Shiite militias that are operating in Iraq?

This is about Iraq. It is not about Iran.

And I can't believe this body would not support an authorization to use military force to protect Americans stationed in Iraq who have been attacked over 56 times in the last 2 years by Shiite militias operating in Iraq.

If we do that, shame on us.

And to those who say: Well, the President has article II authority, he can do this on his own--you can't have it both ways. Is the goal to pull back power from the President, or is the goal to say the President has whatever power he needs in Iraq?

What I want to do is be crystal clear. If the 2002 AUMF is repealed, we have a hole in our defense. We do not have congressional response or statement about what to do to protect over 2,000 Americans serving in Iraq who have been attacked 56 times.

I have got a solution to that problem. If you repeal the 2002 AUMF, let's replace it with one tailored to the situation involving American forces being attacked by Shiite militias in Iraq, to be unequivocal to the Shiite militias and others: You attack Americans at your own peril.

If we do not do that, you have tremendously exposed our troops. In your effort to wind down one war, you have created a threat to those who are fighting the war we are in now.

And if you think al-Qaida has been defeated, you think they are not a threat to us and our partners in the Middle East, in Europe, you are really not following the news.

General Kurilla, the CENTCOM commander, said last week that ISIS-K, the ISIS organization in Afghanistan, has regenerated to the point, within the next 6 months, they would have the ability to attack the United States without warning.

And there are some amendments here to basically do away with the 2001 AUMF that dealt with the attack on our Nation.

So whatever political point you are trying to make about repealing the 2002 AUMF, here is what I want you to understand: The way you are doing it is putting American lives at risk in Iraq.

If you can't muster the courage--the Congress can't--to say to Shiite militias: You attack our troops at your own peril, we have let those serving down. And I am very, very intent, using my voice in the Senate, to say that those who are in Iraq that have been attacked continuously by Shiite militias, I recognize the threat you face, and I am willing to do something about it.

Not to pass this amendment exposes those in theater, in Iraq, to continual attack. It will embolden the Shiite militia because they think we pulled the plug on the place. It will continue a narrative that America is in retreat in the war on terrorism. It will make every problem in Afghanistan worse. And we have a chance to do something about it. Please take that opportunity.

If we pass this amendment, we can at least say the following: To those in Iraq, we did not abandon you; we did not forget about you. We said clearly as a Congress that we have your back, and we made an unequivocal statement to the Shiite militias that are roaming around in Iraq: You attack our people, we are coming after you.

And if we don't do that, we are sending a terrible message to our enemies and we are letting those who are serving in Iraq down.

Iraq is moving toward democracy slowly but surely, inefficient, ugly at times. But 20 years later, there have been elections in Iraq; we have a government working with us that is surrounded in a very dangerous neighborhood.

So to those who are wanting to repeal this AUMF, you have ignored a major threat. You are creating a problem to troops in the field. I am here to point it out to you, and I would love to work in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that those who are left in Iraq, that are serving there to make sure ISIS doesn't come back and to protect our interests in Iraq, that they will have the voice of Congress behind them. There will be an authorization to use military force to protect them against Shiite militias, and it is very specific, in Iraq, who have had a pattern of attacking our troops. And if we don't do this, we are sending the worst possible signal to our enemies. We are letting our troops down. And if there are further attacks, I told you so, because I know it is coming.

Let's live in the real world. Al-Qaida is not defeated. ISIS is not defeated. They have been dealt a punishing blow in certain places, but if we take our eye off the ball, they are coming back here; and the easiest targets of all are those Americans in Syria and Iraq who are on the frontlines--a virtual wall between us and radical Islam that would kill us all if they could. I think we owe it to those that we send to Iraq--and the administration is right to keep them there. You are right to keep that residual force in Iraq as an insurance policy against the rise of ISIS, but you are wrong not having your voice lent to the cause that an authorization to use military force against Shiite militias-- that needs to be the law of the land. We owe it to those in Iraq. It is not a hypothetical problem--56 attacks in the last 2 years. And if we pull the plug on the AUMF in Iraq without dealing with the Shiite militia threat, we will send a horrible signal at the worst possible time.

So I urge a ``yes'' vote for this amendment to replace the 2002 AUMF with a specific authorization to use military force against Shiite militias that are attacking Americans continuously in the last 2 years, to protect those that are on the frontlines of this fight. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to call up my amendment No. 14, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Colleagues, this is, to me, very important; I hope to you.

There have been 56 attacks against soldiers stationed in Iraq--about 2,000--by Shiite militias in Iraq. I can understand repealing the AUMF because Saddam is dead, but those in Iraq--American soldiers--are being attacked routinely by Shiite militias in Iraq.

I am asking the Congress to tell the Shiite militias: You come after our troops, we are coming after you.

Article II power exists nebulously. The strongest we can be as a nation is when the Congress and the President speak with a single voice. Speak with this voice to those who will kill Americans in Iraq: Shiite militias, we are coming after you.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am going to turn this over to Senator Hagerty and my other colleagues here in a minute, but I just, one, want to recognize Senator Hagerty from Tennessee for doing something that needed to be done.

The Congressional Review Act allows us, as a body, to look at certain enactments coming from the DC--District of Columbia--City Council for our approval. I am just going to go through the highlights here, but tomorrow, we will be voting on Senator Hagerty's proposal to disapprove legislation that was passed regarding revising the DC criminal code.

And Senator Hagerty has done a good service for the people of the District of Columbia and, I think, for the body and the Nation as a whole.

So what are we talking about? This is numbers for the District of Columbia, your Nation's Capital: Total DC crime has increased 25 percent from 2022 to 2023 as of March 3. Carjackings are up 111 percent, have increased for the fifth straight year. Homicides are up 40 percent, and DC has already reached 38 homicides. The average homicide suspect has been arrested 11 times before committing a homicide. Sexual assaults are up 123 percent. Property crimes are up 32 percent. There have been 393 robberies in DC during the last 2 months.

According to the Metropolitan Police Department, there are 430 fewer officers than they had in 2019. It is the lowest number of officers since the 1970s.

I don't know where to end this thing other than to say that the DC City Council, in light of all of this information, passed a law over the objection of the Mayor that would reduce the maximum sentence available for crimes such as carjacking, robbery, home invasion, burglary, firearm offenses, when all of these offenses are at a historic high. So Senator Hagerty saw what they did and said: This is insane.

I just read to you a dramatic increase in crime across the board-- personal property, sexual assault, and murder--and the DC City Council passed a law over the objection, the veto, of the Mayor to reduce maximum sentences to eliminate nonenhanced mandatory minimum sentences for all offenses, except first-degree murder; lowers maximum sentences to 45 years; expands judicial sentencing reconsideration to all criminals after 20 years of imprisonment; reduces the scope and maximum penalty for felony murder. The bottom line is, instead of increasing punishments, they decided to dramatically decrease punishments for the crimes that are out of hand.

So when Senator Hagerty introduced this legislation that would reject this, things started changing--starting with the President of the United States, who said that he was going to veto any attempt by the Congress to stop the DC law from becoming law.

Well, something happened because he has changed his mind. In the House, Democrats and Republicans passed this Congressional Review Act overwhelmingly. The bottom line is President Biden has now indicated he will sign it, and DC City Council is trying to find a way to take it off the books. I doubt if they can.

So, Senator Hagerty, sometimes we wonder if we make a difference here. You have made a difference. You have brought this body together because I would anticipate, tomorrow, that we are going to have an overwhelming vote to reject the DC City Council's efforts to revise their criminal code to make it less deterrent.

All of us live up here during the week. It is our Nation's Capital. It is one of the most beautiful places I have ever visited. But crime is out of control. And we need to restore law and order to our Nation's Capital, and this effort by Senator Hagerty is now being joined by a legion of Senate Democrats. And I want to thank each and every Democrat for stepping forward and joining Senator Hagerty and all the Republicans for saying no to this bad idea of being soft on crime in a city that is overwhelmed by crime.

So if there was an award to be given for bad ideas, I would nominate what the DC City Council did in trying to reduce punishments for crimes against persons and property at a time when the city is on fire in terms of crime. So Senator Hagerty and others have stepped into the breach. Tomorrow, we are going to vote and we are going to end this ill-conceived idea. And I want to thank Senator Hagerty for his leadership, and I look forward to being his wingman tomorrow.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to an incredible legal professional and public servant--Jack L. Rives, who is stepping down from his position as executive director of the American Bar Association after almost 13 years. While Jack's strategic vision and caring leadership will be missed, he leaves behind a legacy of exceptional public service and commitment to protecting the rule of law and increasing access to justice.

The ABA is the largest voluntary association of lawyers and legal professionals in the world. Jack began his service as its executive director on Law Day--May 1--2010. He has been responsible for developing and implementing the association's strategic goals and programs and policy initiatives adopted by the ABA's board of governors and house of delegates.

Jack has also overseen the ABA's more than 1,050 talented employees working at its headquarters in Illinois, at its Washington, DC, office, and at program sites in California, Texas, and about 60 countries throughout the world. During the pandemic, he took great care of the ABA staff by strategically managing the challenges associated with moving to a fully remote environment and then back into the various offices with a hybrid workforce, all while maintaining high employee morale and avoiding any pandemic-related layoffs.

During Jack's tenure, the ABA has significantly expanded its domestic and international grant programs, thereby also expanding the incredible impact they have in helping people and justice systems globally.

For example, the ABA's Free Legal Answers platform--launched in 2016 as the first and only national pro bono legal advice portal--has now expanded to 41 jurisdictions, with over 11,000 pro bono attorneys registered to respond to the more than 250,000 civil legal questions posted by low-income Americans, especially in the wake of recent crises caused by the pandemic, natural disasters, and rising inflation.

ABA leaders, members, and State bar colleagues meet with their elected officials in Washington, DC, at least annually to advocate for important issues like funding the Legal Services Corporation, enhancing the judicial security for our Federal judges, and preserving the public service loan forgiveness program--a critical program that inspires lawyers to work in eligible public service positions for at least 10 years, often in rural communities, so more Americans have access to the legal help they need, where they need it--especially during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when so many faced unexpected challenges.

In the international arena, Jack helped reorganize the ABA's primary international development, human rights, and United Nations entities into one cohesive Center for Global Programs. Under his leadership, the Center has grown its international portfolio to encompass more than 100 democracy, human rights, and governance programs in 60 countries. It has also significantly expanded its impact through high-profile programs like Justice Defenders and Trial Watch, a partnership with the George and Amal Clooney Foundation that focuses on monitoring trials of at-risk human rights defenders.

Jack is a role model for legal professionals at all stages of their professional careers, always making time to meet with the many lawyers, law students, and interns who seek his advice. The ABA President recognized Jack's dedication and impact recently by saying that upon his departure, Jack will leave the ABA positioned to provide unparalleled service to lawyers worldwide and to advance the rule of law in the U.S. and globally. Jack's staff tell me they will miss his caring leadership and support, as well as his frequent communications on what was happening in the organization, his accessibility, and his willingness to answer all questions. I am not surprised by the amazing impact Jack has had at the ABA because I had the privilege to serve with him in the U.S. Air Force for decades, and I saw firsthand the extraordinary leadership, management, and people skills he had at the most senior levels of the military.

Jack was born in Georgia and received both his bachelor of arts in political science and his law degree from the University of Georgia. To this day, he remains a loyal and avid fan of his Georgia Bulldogs. Following graduation from law school, Jack began his 33-year career in the Air Force as a judge advocate. He served as the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Air Force, the senior U.S. Air Force attorney, and was the first military attorney to attain the three-star rank of lieutenant general. Jack led about 4,600 military and civilian lawyers and legal professionals worldwide. Among his many military awards and decorations are the Distinguished Service Medal with oakleaf cluster and the Defense Superior Service Medal.

The American Bar Association and our entire Nation have been lucky to have had a champion for the rule of law like Jack Rives. He has not only been successful throughout his impressive career, but also has had a significant impact on people's lives, many of whom he will never meet. I feel fortunate to have crossed paths with Jack over the decades, both in his civilian and military leadership roles, and I wish him and his wife Marie both happiness and success in this next chapter of their lives. I also thank Jack for his years of service and his selfless commitment to improving the rule of law and our profession.

Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes from the bill.

So where to start? Well, I thought long and hard about how to explain this to the American people, and the only thing I can tell you is ``insanity'' is defined as doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

So here we are with the same people coming up with a plan to help you. How well did that work out the last time these 50 people were going to save you and your family? You will eventually come to the conclusion, I hope, they generally don't know what they are doing.

The best way to stop a drunk driver is to take the keys away before they

get in the car. The best way to stop this tax-and-spend and inflationary madness is to fire some of the 50 so they can't keep doing this to your family.

In March of 2021, we had a debate. Senator Sanders--very good man. And everybody over there told us that if we pass the American Rescue Plan, your life will be dramatically better. As $1.9 trillion passed with Democratic votes alone in March of 2021, not one Republican voted for it.

Since then, we have been able to pass an infrastructure bill in a bipartisan manner. We passed legislation trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people and generally help with that problem. We have come together around Ukraine to help them beat the Russians. We have come together to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. My oligarch friend up there--the guy who hates oligarchs more than anybody--we have come together to try to go after the assets of the Putin cronies. So it is not like we can't work together. But what you are not going to get from our side is buy-in on really bad ideas.

So to the American people, the same people telling you what this bill is going to do are the same people who told you the American Rescue Plan would work.

Let's go down memory lane here for a second. Here is what the Vice President said about the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan passed in March of 2021 with Democratic votes alone:

Help has arrived for the families that have struggled to

put food on their table, for the small businesses that have

struggled to keep their doors open. Help has arrived,

America.

This was said in 2021. She promised you help was on the way if you pass the Democratic American Rescue Plan.

Here is what Senator Schumer said:

We have heard a lot about how the American Rescue Plan will

prime the American economy to come roaring back. Economists

are already projecting that economic growth could double as a

result of the American Rescue Plan.

March 16, 2021. I don't know where their economists are today, but I hope they are not in the economy business because they sure as hell didn't know what they were talking about.

So what has happened from those statements to now? Instead of help being on the way, helping you put food on the table--see if that makes sense to you. The American Rescue Plan has helped put food on the table. Help is on the way for business.

In March of 2021, before the American Rescue Plan, inflation was at 2.6 percent. Today, it is at 9.1. Do you think it is an accident this has happened? If you do, you probably shouldn't be driving. You are a danger to yourself or others.

We told you--and by God, God knows the Republicans are by no means perfect--but we told you what was going to happen, that we had a struggling economy because of COVID, and this tax-and-spend, growing the government, throwing money at everything, is going to come back to bite us in the ass, and it did. Take a hundred bucks and go to the grocery store and see what you get for it. You have to get a mortgage on your house to fill up your car.

This is no accident. And the same people who told you then they had it figured out for you are telling you something now that I think is throwing gasoline on the fire that you are living with. That is why every Republican will vote no. Senator Sanders is reluctantly going to vote yes. I am going to enthusiastically vote no. I don't mind working with Democrats when it matters and it helps, but this, to me, is insane.

So here is where we find ourselves as a nation. We find ourselves as a nation in a recession. If a Republican would be President, I doubt if most of the media would doubt we are in a recession. It is defined as a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by falling GDP in two successive quarters. The first quarter was 1.6 negative growth; the second quarter was 0.9. Over time, unfortunately, it is probably going to get worse because we are going to have to raise interest rates to control rampant inflation, and that is going to make it harder to borrow money and invest in the economy.

On top of that, they are about to pass a bill without one Republican vote that will take every problem they created in March and make it dramatically worse.

Let's go down sort of what life is like in America right now. They told you that help would be on the way, that the economy would double if we passed their bill in March of 2021. It didn't quite work out that way, did it? Gasoline has gone up 59.9 percent--it will eventually come down because the economy is coming to a halt; 34 percent increase in airfare, if you can get a plane to leave in the same month you schedule it; electricity rates, 13.7; food, 10.4; chicken, 18.6; cereal, 14.2-- this is sort of what I eat; bacon--I love bacon--10.8 percent increase.

The bottom line is, the American Rescue Plan did not help your family. It is not helping your business. It has taken every problem we had from COVID and made it worse. And what is their solution? To do the same thing all over again in a different way.

What is in this bill that makes me say that? When you ask people: Does the Inflation Reduction Act reduce inflation--I mean, not me; not any of the 50 of us; but just ask somebody who sort of like is supposed to know what they are talking about, and they will tell you it does not. The whole bill is a lie.

The American Rescue Plan should be called the American Recession Plan, and this Inflation Reduction Act is a lie. It is not going to reduce inflation in any meaningful way. We have the highest inflation in 40 years. And here is what the Penn Wharton School of Business says: that it has a negligible impact. The Manchin-Schumer bill is going to make inflation worse.

Here is what Penn Wharton, University of Pennsylvania Business School, said: ``Low confidence that legislation will have any impact on inflation.'' Bill would actually cause inflation to rise until 2024.

These people could give a damn. Nobody is going to convince them to stop taxing and spending as long as they have the ability to do it.

Penn Wharton--it was sort of the bible for Senator Manchin when he stopped Build Back Better, and I am glad he did. But they are telling him that what he and others are saying doesn't actually work.

CBO--supposed to be the bible, according to Senator Manchin--has a negligible--I can't say that word--very little effect on inflation. They said it would not reduce inflation in 2022 and inflation would go up or down 0.1 percent in 2023.

These are the people who wrote the budget bible telling all of you that what you are saying is not true, but you don't care. You could care less.

So here is what the bill does. Here is why none of us are going to vote for it.

How many of you think now is a good time to create a new gas tax? It is not. So let me tell you what is in this bill. This bill has a 16.4 cents-per-barrel new gas tax on all imported oil and petroleum products and all domestic crude refined in America, which will create billions of dollars of new gas taxes at a time we need to have less gas taxes, in my view.

So in the name of climate change, this bill increases gas taxes. It brought back from the dead a 1995 tax that was 9.7 cents per barrel on imported oil, increased it to 16.4 cents at a time of high gas prices, and included domestic crude refined in America. Pennies become dimes, and dimes become dollars.

So if you are looking to increase gas taxes, your ship has come in; vote for this bill. If you think it is dumb as dirt to have a new gas tax with this economy, vote for my amendment that comes up later.

What else does the bill do? It increases taxes. You have to be shocked about that. It increases taxes by billions--hundreds of billions--and they say it won't affect you. Well, the CBO analysis and Penn Wharton said that the effect of the tax increases on business will be passed down to people who make below $100,000 a year. Just think about--does that make sense to you? You increase taxes on a business. They pass it along to their customers. That is just sort of the way the economy works.

The 15-percent minimum tax--how does that work? The tax eliminates expensing for equipment and other items a business may purchase to grow their business, which we created in 2017, in the same year you buy it. So what does

CBO say about that? CBO says this bill will deincentivize purchasing equipment and building factories.

Think about what I just said. You are about to push on the American people another bill that will raise gas taxes and deincentivize investment in the private sector in the area of equipment and factory expansion at a time we need it the most.

What does this bill do on the healthcare front? ObamaCare subsidies under this proposal will go to people making $304,100 as a couple for a family of four. Let me ask you, is now the time to subsidize ObamaCare for people making $304,000 a year? That is what is in this bill.

Now, here is my favorite part.

This bill has a plan to hire 87,000 new IRS agents--new ones. That is enough to fill up the Rose Bowl. That is bigger than the British Army. They are going to propose hiring 87,000 new IRS agents and they promise you this is only going to go after the rich. You should not believe that. This is an army of IRS agents who are going to go after everybody about everything to fill the insatiable desire of our friends on the other side to take money from you to spend up here.

There will be more new IRS agents than the British Army, the German Army, the entire combined military of Canada, the French Air Force and Navy--literally an army of new IRS agents, and you should worry about what these people may do.

As I tried to tell people last time, the American Rescue Plan wasn't going to rescue you; it was going to make your life worse. And it did. We have 9.1 percent inflation, the highest in 40 years.

Senator Sanders is right. People are hurting out there. Let's work together to help. But you are not helping anybody. At the time you promised us help was on the way, inflation was at 2.6 percent. Because of the help you gave the economy, it is at 9.1 percent.

Here is what we are trying to tell you over here. If this bill passes, the problems you face today are going to get worse. And we will remind you in November.

Prescription drugs--in this bill, they identify 15 drugs they are going to have price controls on. They talk about the price in Canada. Most new drugs come from this country, not Canada. So let's make Canada pay more for the research and development done in our country to help the world. That makes some sense to me. But price fixing is a socialist idea that has never worked anywhere. Even Richard Nixon tried it. It didn't work.

And during COVID, we should have learned one thing: The private sector developed drugs to keep a lot of people alive and out of the hospital, and I am glad they were able to do it. Operation Warp Speed was a tremendous success, and it was done by the American pharmaceutical industry.

After this exercise is over, the idea of new drugs coming online is going to go down, and the socialist model that Senator Sanders embraces is going to hurt innovation. He is a fine man, but he is a Democratic socialist. This bill doesn't go far enough for him, but it goes way too far for you.

As I am hoping and praying that one of you over there would agree with me, let's don't raise gas taxes now; let's don't raise taxes on business so they can invest in buying new equipment now; let's don't spend a bunch of money subsidizing ObamaCare for people who make over $300,000 now.

But that is probably what we are going to do unless we can convince one person over there to reject this madness. I am telling you, ladies and gentlemen throughout the country, this is madness. Our Democratic friends, wherever too big, there is some plan to tax and spend on something. They are nice people, but they consistently have a view about what to do for the economy that is not working.

I beg and plead with one Democrat: Listen and learn from what you did last time. Senator Manchin has been strong at times, but he voted for the American Rescue Plan. He is telling us this will reduce inflation when CBO says it will not. He is telling us that this will improve the economy when Penn Wharton says it won't. No matter what anybody says, they are hell-bent on doing this because they can. I hope after this election, they can't do this anymore.

Here is what I think it is going to take: one Democrat admitting maybe the American Rescue Plan didn't work and this won't work. Maybe there is one among you. But if there is not, to the American people: In November, I hope you will remember this. Help is not coming by passing this bill. Help was not on the way by passing the American Rescue Plan. Misery came from that massive tax-and-spend bill, and we are about to pile misery on top of misery. We are about to increase gas taxes at a time you can't afford it.

To my Republican colleagues: You should enthusiastically vote no. To my Democratic colleagues: Apparently, you haven't learned a damn thing about what you did last time.

I yield the floor.

Well, Madam President, we are off to the races, so I am going to make this easy.

I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5301 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, to the Members of the body, if you think America needs a new gas tax, then your ship has come in. Vote for the Democratic bill because, believe it or not, these people over there want to raise gas taxes right now.

The last time they tried to help you was the American rescue act. And here is what the Vice President said: Help has arrived for the families who have struggled to put food on their table, for the small businesses that have struggled to keep their doors open. Help has arrived.

She said that in March. Inflation was 2.6 percent. Help has arrived. It is 9.1 percent.

This bill will increase gas taxes 16.4 cents on every barrel of imported oil and petroleum, and every barrel of crude oil found in America, to be refined in America, will have an additional 16.4 cents- per-barrel-tax increase.

This is insane. This is stupid. If you like high gas prices, vote for them. If you want to lower prices at the pump, vote for my amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Thank you very much.

This gives phony and cynical a bad name. They wouldn't let you do this in professional wrestling. If you think people are this dumb, you are going to be sadly mistaken.

What she is doing is trying to strike the provisions that she just voted against, but it requires 60 votes. So she can vote for repealing a gas tax she just voted against so she will look good for the voters.

If you really wanted to repeal the gas tax, the new one indexed for inflation, you should have voted for my amendment. What you are doing is deceitful, dishonest, and we are going to call you out.

Mr. President, yes, I would urge a ``no'' vote simply because we are living in a world where it is hard to get by. Growing the government, I think, will create more inflation. Everything can't be free because we all--it gets to be so free that you can't afford it.

So you are the same people that told us if we passed the American Rescue Plan, all would be well. We are at 9.1 percent inflation. You are increasing gas taxes. Now you want to expand Medicare. This is going to hurt the American people. Stop the madness. Vote no.

Vote on Amendment 5211, As Modified

Mr. President, I would urge a no. This has been tried before by my colleague Senator Sanders. This would give hundreds of thousands of people enlisting free housing, free food, transportation, educational costs.

We have a weak economy. Every time I rise to speak, we ruin the government in a different way. If you really want to help the American people, secure their border. If you want to hire anybody new, hire a Border Patrol agent, not 87,000 IRS agents, not a climate corps.

I know these are well-intentioned, but we are living in a very tenuous time for the American people, and their needs are not being met tonight. Every problem they have is being made worse. We don't need a climate corps right now, quite frankly. We need to secure a broken border before terrorists come across and kill a bunch of us.

Vote no.

Vote on Amendment No. 5209

I don't want to get in the middle off you all's fight over here, but am I supposed to read this or not?

The pending amendment No. 5262 offered by Senator Warnock contains matters outside the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Therefore, the amendment is extraneous, and I raise a point of order against this amendment pursuant to Section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Motion to Waive

Mr. President, in the night or day--or whatever we have been doing as the night has turned into day--of extremes, this is the most extreme idea yet, and that is saying a lot.

Senator Sanders wants to destroy fossil fuel exploration at a time you have got to get a mortgage on your house to fill up your car. So I want you to understand what is being proposed: Shutting down American fossil fuel exploration will make us more dependent on fossil fuels that are in the hands of the bad guys. Gas is $4.08 a gallon right now.

This is the most dangerous idea tonight, today, for the American consumer. If you are tired of paying high gas prices, then vote Republican.

Vote on Amendment No. 5281

Mr. President, I believe this violates the rules of reconciliation. I make a point of order against page 744, line 7, through page 755, line 4, in the substitute. This language violates 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I ask consent to make the following four points of order en bloc.

The first point of order concerns page 43, lines 3 through 8. This language violates section 313(b)(1)(A).

The second point concerns page 1, lines 3 through 5. This language violates 313(b)(1)(A).

The third point concerns page 547, line 18, through page 548, line 25. This language violates section 313(b)(1)(A).

And the fourth point of order concerns page 689, lines 8 through 16. This language violates section 313(b)(1)(D).

Mr. President, one, I want to associate myself with the comments of Senator Collins from Maine. That was a great story about why we should all be happy today with Finland and Sweden and why this makes a lot of sense.

There is one person I want to thank whom I don't usually give a big shout-out to: President Putin from Russia. Without you, we wouldn't be here. You have done more to strengthen NATO than any speech I could ever hope to give.

John McCain, I wish you were alive today to celebrate because what we have been able to accomplish here through Putin's invasion of Ukraine is to remind everybody in the world, when it comes to bullies, you better stand up to them before it is too late. So our friends in Finland and Sweden have decided to join NATO. That is a good thing.

But let me put Ukraine in perspective right quick. Our military leaders and our experts told us: After the invasion, 4 days, they would be in Kyiv. Well, they miscalculated. They overestimated the capabilities of the Russians, and they certainly undercalculated the resolve of the Ukrainian people.

We are 160 days into this fight. Ukraine is still standing, bloodied but unbowed; NATO is bigger; crippling sanctions on the Russian economy; the ICC is investigating war crimes committed by Putin and his cronies. You have 100 U.S. Senators--we can't agree on Sunday being a day off--have agreed that Russia should be a State sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law.

So 160 days into this fight, I am telling you right now, things are looking pretty good for the good guys. And I say that knowing how much suffering has gone on in the Ukraine. But today, we are here to admit two new members of NATO.

NATO has been the strongest force for good, I think, on the planet since 1949. It is a group of countries organized around democratic concepts that have pledged to one another mutual defense--an attack on one is an attack on all. It has deterred war. It has been a stabilizing influence in Europe since the end of World War II. And along comes Putin.

So NATO today is going to be bigger than it was before the invasion. NATO today is going to have more military resources than before the invasion by Russia into Ukraine.

Again, I want to thank President Putin. You have done something for the democratic world that we have not been able to do for ourselves.

To NATO, as an organization, keep your eye on the ball; pay your 2 percent.

To my friends who suggest that expanding NATO makes us weaker against China, what movie are you watching? How can you believe for one moment abandoning Ukraine or showing less of a commitment to European stability will make China more afraid of us and less likely to invade Taiwan?

The best thing we could do right now as a world--particularly, the democratic world--is to become stronger in the face of aggression, to make NATO bigger. And we are going to accomplish that in a few minutes.

To all my colleagues who have come down here and spoken on behalf of the admission of these two countries, God bless you; you are on the right side of history.

One regret I do have is my great friend Senator McCain could not see today come about because he would be exceedingly pleased that the democratic world has rallied in the face of the aggression by Putin.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the North Greenville University Crusaders baseball team for winning the 2022 NCAA Baseball Division II National Championship.

The Crusaders outscored their four World Series opponents by a combined 34-12. Their victory earned the program its first national championship and marked the second Conference Carolinas baseball team to win the title.

Throughout the season, Landon Powell, head coach of the Crusaders, was consistently a role model to the players. When he was hired in 2014, the Crusaders were 8-35 and had three and one-half scholarship players. Coach Powell turned the team around and guided them to a 29-25 winning record in his first year; since then, the Crusaders have consistently averaged more than 41 wins per season.

On the field, Jax Cash went three for four at the plate and drove in the final run of the game. Reece Fields pitched 5.0 innings, allowing one run on six hits, three walks, eight strikeouts, and was named the tournament MVP. Nate Roof pitched 3.0 innings, allowing no runs, two hits, and a walk. The entire team should be proud of their hard work and accomplishments. The North Greenville baseball team displayed outstanding dedication and teamwork throughout the season and brought pride to the State of South Carolina. The university, under the leadership of Dr. Gene C. Fant, Jr., and Coach Powell, has much to be proud of, and I look forward to another great season by the Crusaders.

I ask that our colleagues join me in congratulating the North Greenville University Crusaders baseball team for winning the 2022 NCAA Baseball Division II National Championship.

Mr. President, I will speak for about 5 minutes or so, if that is OK.

As we depart for our Memorial Day recess and the unofficial beginning of summer, many of us in political life will go to events honoring America's fallen heroes who have died in service of our Nation.

Memorial Day is different from Veterans Day. On Veterans Day, we celebrate all those who serve. On Memorial Day, we have somber remembrance for those who failed to make it home.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans, men and women from all different backgrounds, have died on foreign battlefields in the name of freedom and protecting our homeland. This is the one day that we set aside each year to remember them.

I will do my best to rededicate myself to being a better American, appreciating the freedoms I have, and trying to find a way forward for our Nation as a whole. So that is what this holiday week is about.

Mr. President, before we leave Washington, I want to make a few comments about the war in Ukraine.

Our allies in Ukraine are fighting like tigers against a Russian invasion that is without foundation, that is illegal under international law and is one of the most brutal acts of war in the 21st century--maybe in any century.

I just want to let the Ukrainian people know that the American people are with you in your struggle for freedom.

There have been some comments made by folks whom I respect talking about the need to end this war, where Ukraine has to recognize certain parts of their territory as actually Russian territory. I cannot disagree more. Any effort to impose upon Ukraine a ceasefire that leads to a peace agreement where they have to give territory to Russia is not ending a war; it will be starting new wars.

Have we learned nothing from the last century? Appeasing Putin in Ukraine makes him want more, not less. We found that to be true in the 1930s with Hitler in Germany.

So this idea that Ukraine needs to come to the table and give up Ukrainian land to Putin makes zero sense to me. All the people who have been fighting in Ukraine would have died in vain. And that line of reasoning I reject completely.

Here is the state of play: Due to the commitment of the Ukrainian people to fight for their freedom and their homeland, Russia has just been delivered a mighty blow. Their army is in decline. They just changed their laws so that the limitation on service from 18 to 40 now has been lifted. There was a 63-year-old retired general fighter pilot shot down in Ukraine, a Russian general. All I can say is that the Ukrainians have met their end of the bargain.

This body, expressing the will of the American people, passed a $40 billion aid package. That is a lot of money, but you either pay now or later when it comes to Putin. I am convinced, along with most of my colleagues here, that if Putin is successful in Ukraine, he only goes further; he never stops. His words, not mine--he wants to reconstruct the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire, whatever you would like to call it. There are other nations in his crosshairs.

So the battle in Ukraine will stabilize Europe if it is done right. If the battle in Ukraine ends where Putin feels like he got away with mass war crimes and was able to get territory by force of arms, he will not stop. China will, surely as I am speaking, have a green light to go into Taiwan.

So those who argue that we need to end this war by giving Ukrainian territory to Putin, you are starting another war in Asia, most likely. You are going to create a larger appetite for Putin, and I think you have lost the lessons of the last century.

We have much to understand about the nature of this war. We have Russian diplomats resigning in protest. We have people at concerts shouting some pretty vulgar things about the war. You have a Russian military that is under siege in terms of manning. The more weapons we provide to the Ukrainians, the more lethal they become on the battlefield, the more likely this war ends on favorable terms.

So I just want to remind the American people as we go into this holiday, remember those who sacrificed for our freedom. There is a hot war in Europe.

It is 2022. Did anybody really believe after the fall of the Berlin Wall that we would be having a war with Russia in Europe trying to take over a sovereign country called Ukraine? Well, that is where we are, and I guess one thing to learn about mankind is that the calendar may change, but there is a dark side of mankind--powerful people trying to push the less powerful around; people trying to take things through force of arms rather than the rule of law.

So I want the Ukrainian people to know that I am with you. I think most Americans are with you. We don't want you to entice Putin to go beyond Ukraine by surrendering your territory. We stand with you. Not 1 inch of Ukrainian territory should be given to Putin because he chose force of arms. The rule of law versus the rule of guns is at stake. I am hoping that we will send you more lethal weapons, not less, that we will increase your capability to inflict pain on the Russian military.

I do believe that people in Russia are beginning to understand that, with Putin, they have a very limited future; that if you continue to support Putin, the world will isolate you further; that we are not going to forgive and forget the war crimes.

NATO is getting bigger. Finland and Sweden have applied to NATO. I have talked to our friends in Turkey. I hope we can resolve that.

So it would be wonderful in the next coming weeks here that the Senate, in fast fashion, could include two more members of NATO; that everything Putin wanted has backfired; that the Ukrainian nation still stands; that NATO is bigger not smaller; that war crimes investigations move forward, they don't stall.

In the International Criminal Court, Mr. Khan is doing a good job of gathering evidence against Russian atrocities committed by Russian military leaders and Russian forces, all under the control of Putin, and I just encourage that effort to go further. Ukrainian courts have convicted a Russian soldier of murder, a war crime.

So what I would like to see is the Western world, the democratic world, reinforce our commitment to Ukraine, not talk about having to give Putin territory to end this war, because that is not the way to end the war; that is a way to expand the war.

If we can end this through diplomatic means, great, but what should be off the table is rewarding Putin for this invasion. What should be on the table is a commitment to Ukraine. As long as they are willing to fight, as long as they are willing to fight for their freedom and die for their territory, we should help them, because Putin won't stop with Ukraine if he is successful.

The blood and treasure that we have spent since 9/11 has been tough for our country, but not one American soldier is on the ground in Ukraine. They are not asking for soldiers; they are only asking for the ability to defend themselves--economic assistance, military assistance.

I do not want to let the pressure off Putin. Senator Risch and Senator Menendez--the chairman, Senator Menendez, of the Foreign Relations

Committee--are considering marking up legislation urging the Biden administration to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. So let's keep the pressure on Putin. Let's let the Russian people know that, as long as Putin is your leader, you will be isolated from the international community, your economy can't grow, and there are going to be more and more young Russians killed in this folly.

I would urge the Russian people to change course here. Pick a new leader. The world will embrace Russia. Russia is a land of many talented people, with a long rich history.

I am hoping and praying that the freedom-loving world will not make the mistakes in 2022 that we made in 1932, that we made in 1937 and 1938 where we thought the way to end the war was to appease a brutal dictator. That is not the way to end a war; that is the way to continue wars and make them bigger.

So, as for me, I will do everything in my power to help the Ukrainian people as a Member of the U.S. Senate. I will do everything in my power to hold Putin accountable. I will do everything in my power, working with my Democratic and Republican colleagues, to isolate Putin's Russia.

This is a difficult time for the world. If he fails in Ukraine, if the Russian people rise up and change course, the world will be a lot better off. If he succeeds, God help us all because the worst is yet to come.

No problem here at home gets better by turning our back on Ukraine and not holding Putin accountable. Whatever problems we have at the border, with inflation, gas prices, all the domestic violence here at home, none of those problems get better if Putin wins in Ukraine.

Here is the good news for the American people: The Ukrainian people are not asking for our young men and women to fight and die in Ukraine; they are only asking for our help. They need arms. They need weapons. They need economic assistance. If we will continue to show our resolve--the Western world--Putin will lose and the people of Ukraine will win. Now is not the time to put on the table capitulation.

So to everybody, I hope you have a safe Memorial Day. I look forward to coming back after the break to see if we can find a pathway forward on commonsense gun reforms. Between now and then, let's keep the people of Ukraine in our prayers.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues Senator Whitehouse and Senator Blumenthal.

Madam President, we will get into this in a minute, but I want to respond to something that was said just a few minutes ago.

What would it cost America if Putin continues to slaughter Ukraine and gets away with it? What kind of world do you want to live in?

Let's see if I have got this right. I can understand not wanting to get involved in wars. If you have ever been in one, if you have ever been in a war zone for any time period, you understand war is a horrible thing. If you have ever been in the military, you understand some of your buddies don't come back when you have wars.

But what I don't understand is this idea that not only are we not going to engage in a war against a thug and a bully like Putin but, when somebody like Ukraine is fighting like tigers, we are not going to help them either.

So this idea about this aid package costing too much, put it in the context of what happens to the world if Putin continues to rewrite the map of Europe. If we don't get Ukraine right, then China will invade Taiwan. And 90 percent of all the semiconductors and high-end chips come out of Taiwan.

Why do you have the cops? Because if people go up and down the streets breaking into stores and ransacking the community, nobody wants to live there. I would rather have the rule of law versus the rule of gun. Sometimes, you have to pay a price. Ukrainians are paying the ultimate price. They are fighting like tigers. They are dying by the thousands to stand up to an enemy of the United States and mankind.

Putin is a war criminal by any reasonable definition, and if you think he is satisfied with Ukraine, you are miscalculating him like we did in the last century with Hitler. In June of last year, Putin talked about the Russian Empire being recreated. Well, it is just not Ukraine that he considers a legal fiction; it would be Moldova. And when you look at his view of recreating possibly the former Soviet Union, there are NATO nations in his crosshairs.

What does it matter to the United States, if Europe is in a constant state of turmoil, that you have Russia toppling one democracy after another? It means a lot to us. We can't live in a world that way--or at least, I choose not to live in a world that way.

To the American people, $40 billion is a lot of money, but if we can stop Putin in Ukraine, it would be the best money you could ever spend. Let's don't be penny wise and pound foolish. They are running out of ammo. They are kicking the Russians' ass all over Ukraine. They are doing the fighting on behalf of freedom itself, and we should be the arsenal of democracy. The EU should spend more. The Germans are giving lethal weapons. Everybody can do more.

And there is a problem with baby formula. I would like to get more baby formula on the shelves, but letting Putin win in Ukraine doesn't help the problem of babies here in America. If you care about raising your children, you need formula, but you need a world where you can travel and trade without chaos.

Who is going to run the world in the 21st century: the communist dictatorship in China, people like Putin, or a world order where the rule of law really matters more than the rule of gun?

So this package has been stalled, but it will get over the finish line.

To the people in Ukraine, Senator Paul's request to have an inspector general overseeing the money actually makes sense to me. I don't know why we didn't do that before, but his argument that this package is way beyond what the market should bear misses the point of what we are engaged in here.

The outcome of Ukraine matters because if you don't stop Putin there, he keeps going. This doesn't end. Have you learned nothing from World War II? Go watch a movie about World War II. How many people appeased Hitler to the point that 50 million people eventually died? Putin is not going to stop in Ukraine unless somebody stops him.

Here is the good news: His army was oversold; and with the weapons we have delivered to Ukraine, plus our allies, the Ukrainian military and citizenry are dismantling the Russian military. It would be an enormous blow for freedom and stabilize the world if we could stop Putin in Ukraine. And the Ukrainians are not asking us for soldiers; they are asking us for weapons.

And if you don't think Russia under Putin is a foe to the United States and all we believe in, you haven't been paying attention to what has been going on for the last 20 years.

So we have a moment in time here to go all in in terms of economic assistance. Their economy is in shambles because they are under siege. They are fighting like tigers. The weapons we have given them, they have put to good purpose. The Democrats and Republicans are now united around the idea that it is a good thing to help Ukraine.

To my Republican colleagues who vote against this package, what is your alternative? Don't go to Poland anymore. Don't go to Ukraine and say: We are with you. If you vote against this package--and there are a million reasons to vote against anything--you are missing the point. The world hangs in the balance here. If we don't get Ukraine right and stand up to Putin, there goes Taiwan.

I am tired of being lectured to by people who have no understanding of

the world in which we live. The mistakes of the last century are being played out on our screen every night.

So to those who believe that we can just let it go in Ukraine, boy, you are going to be in for a rude awakening. The world is going to be turned upside down, and the converse is true.

If we can stop him in his tracks, help the Ukrainians, who are doing all the fighting and dying, then China is less likely to go into Taiwan.

This is one of the biggest moments in the 21st century. Where are you? Whose side are you on?

Oh, it is too much here; it is too much there. To one Senator who will remain nameless on our side, why don't we have money for food? There are 227 million people in the world knocking on famine's door. Between droughts and wars all over the world, the World Food Programme run by Governor Beasley from South Carolina is completely under siege. Forty-something countries in the world have over 50 percent of their grain supply coming from Ukraine, and they are out of production right now.

It is in our interest, ladies and gentlemen, to help people when they are starving so they don't do the things that they may do to feed their families that are bad for us. What would you do to feed your family? Would you take money from Al Qaeda and ISIS if it was the only source of money available to feed your family? So we live in a very dangerous time where one thing affects the other.

This package was put together quickly, and I am sure there are things in this package that could be done better. But we are living in realtime here. The President's ability to send weapons really expires in a couple of days.

So what I hope will happen is that we will unite around the idea that Putin is the bad guy and the Ukrainians are the good guys, and if we lose this war, we are going to regret losing this war because it won't end in Ukraine.

So to my two colleagues on the Democratic side, thank you both. You have done something that is hard for people around here to do. Talk about victory, victory for Ukraine--Senator Blumenthal, there has been no stronger voice of standing up to Putin and making him pay a price. How many people does he have to murder? How many war crimes does he have to commit until we realize this needs to stop?

We had this same experience with Adolf Hitler. People excused his behavior, wrote it off as he just wants to get German-speaking territories back. No. He wrote a book about what he wanted to do. He wanted to kill all the Jews and remake Europe and create a master race for people on planet Earth, in his own image.

What is Putin trying to do? A bit less ambitious: create the Russian Empire in the former Soviet Union anew, crush democracies that have had a chance to go a different way. And are you surprised that the Ukrainians are fighting? Who the hell would want to live under Putin's thumb? Would you? Would you want to live in Putin's Russia? Would you want him to be your leader if you didn't have to? People who have gone down the communist road are literally willing to die because they don't want to raise their children that way.

So we are going to have a discussion here in a moment about some things that we can do that will matter beyond money. The American taxpayer should not be the only source of help to the Ukrainian people. Count me in for that.

There is a proposal that was left out of this bill that would empower the Department of Justice to go after Putin and all of his cronies and take from them their yachts and their villas and their dachas, sell it, and put the money into Ukraine to buy bullets. That got left out of the package.

To the American people, I get it. Other people should be doing more. There is a bipartisan consensus here that, with additional resources in the hands of the Department of Justice and some legal changes, we could go after billions of dollars of ill-gotten gain and ply it back into the Ukrainian war effort--money coming from thugs and thieves in Russia--to help the brave people in Ukraine. But that fell out of the package.

To my colleagues in this body, what the hell are you thinking? Why would you do that? Why would you take out of the package the ability to hunt down the oligarchs and take their stuff away from them--that they bought with stolen money--to help the Ukrainian people, another source of revenue other than the American taxpayer? We are not going to let that go.

Finally, there is an idea that Senator Blumenthal and I have that maybe it is time to label Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. Why? Because they are.

After 20 years of mass murder on an industrial scale, the Wagner Group is roaming the planet, which is a proxy, according to our Treasury Department, of the Russian military. They are in Africa today doing all kinds of horrible things. Russia is propping Assad up, who is one of the four countries that are considered state sponsors of terrorism.

Without Russia, Assad would have fallen. So we have an idea that doesn't cost any money to designate Putin's Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, and it would allow and waive sovereign immunity so people who are a victim of his terrorism could take him to court. And it would put Putin in a club that he deserves to be in--Iran, North Korea, Syria. We would add Russia. We couldn't get that in the package. We are not going to stop.

It would be good to let the Ukrainian people know that we see Russia in the hands of Putin as a terrorist state. We would like to tell everybody who is on the fence, America has made a decision about Putin and there is no going back. If he is still standing when this is all done and we forgive and forget, the worst is yet to come.

So from my point of view, Putin's Russia needs to end. The Russian people need to fix this problem. Until they do, we need to keep all the sanctions in place and up the ante. Labeling Putin's Russia a ``state sponsor of terrorism'' is a good place to start. Going after the ill- gotten gains of the oligarchs to help the war effort is a good thing to do.

We are not going to quit here.

To the people of Ukraine: Most people in this body--not all--are with you because we understand your fight makes our world in America a safer place and a better place to live.

I will ask a question to my colleague from Connecticut. Why does he think Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism and what can we do to make that happen?

Yield for a quick question?

Number one, Senator Whitehouse has been talking about this 3 years that I know of. Long before Putin invaded Ukraine, when we were in charge of the Judiciary Committee, we had several hearings about autocracy, about ill-gotten gains, people stealing money from their country, but particularly in Russia. So I want to thank you for understanding this issue better than anybody I know and been talking about it for years.

Now, we have a moment here, and to my colleagues over here, this is a moment in world history. This is not about, I don't like this part of the bill, and I don't like that part of the bill. It is about you are either going to help Ukraine or not, and perfectly so. Whatever imperfections in this bill that exist, the worst possible outcome is to say no to the people of Ukraine because it is not exactly the way you would have done it.

Now, if you want to say no to the people of Ukraine because you don't care about what happens in Ukraine, that is a different conversation. Please come down here and say that. If you believe that the outcome in Ukraine has no effect on the national security interest of the United States, if you believe that Putin will stop after Ukraine and China is not watching, come down here and say it.

The reason nobody will do that--I doubt--is because you would be crazy. But you can say it. The floor is yours. Come down here and make the argument that Ukraine is not connected to world events and that Putin would be satisfied with dismembering that country and stop. He is not.

You know, Hitler wrote a book. Somebody should have read it. This guy gave a speech and for 20 years has been acting on that speech. So the people around him, the oligarchs--and Senator Whitehouse is the oligarchs' worst nightmare--have been living large off the system created in Russia where everybody gets a piece of the action except the Russian people.

We have got a chance where the world is galvanized, and Attorney General Garland, who I have been working with on this, has been very good, needs some changes in the law to make this more effective.

About seizing yachts, you have got to have a reasonable belief that the yacht is part of a criminal enterprise, an ill-gotten gain. You seize the yacht, and you ask people to come forward to contest your assertion. If they don't, then it proves all you need to know. If they have got a good counterclaim, then they win in court.

But right now, you have got this game where you have to find a specific person, which is crazy. Seize the yacht if there is reasonable evidence it is part of one of these enterprises. This bill that we are talking about would do that.

And why it didn't get in the package, I don't know. But I want to ask Senator Whitehouse one final question: How much money does he think could be gathered up if we unleashed law enforcement throughout the world to go after these oligarchs, and what would be the signal we would be sending throughout the world if we actually did this?

Would it make the world a better place? What is his view?

I can't say it any better. Just to wrap this up, I believe that

if there were a vote tomorrow designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, we would get 90 votes in the U.S. Senate. I will ask Senator Whitehouse to comment on that. I think we could take his idea, his kleptocracy regime, and embolden the Department of Justice and others to make it easier to go after these assets. If we had a vote on that concept, we would get 90 votes.

So what is frustrating is that in the desire to get aid and bullets and help into the Ukraine, we left out two provisions: state sponsor of terrorism and permissions to go after the ill-gotten gains of the Russian oligarchs and plow it into Ukraine to help them.

But what I want you to know is that the process did not accommodate these two provisions. But as you can tell from this discussion, we are not going to stop. To my colleagues in this body, we are not going to stop. Everybody is going to stand up one way or the other here pretty soon.

I have talked to the Speaker of the House. She is very sympathetic to the idea about Russia being a state sponsor of terrorism. I will talk to Kevin McCarthy. I think the bipartisanship here exists in the House. You should see it.

So just finally, Senator Whitehouse, can he assure the people of Ukraine, can he assure the oligarchs, can he assure Putin, that we are not going to stop?

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.