Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to go into a little bit more detail about why I will not be voting for and in favor of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Now, as we have all heard and as we appreciate, there is no doubt that Judge Jackson is highly educated; she has an impressive resume; she is cordial; she was very gracious with her time, but as I listened to her responses over a 2-day period of time, I was really dissatisfied with the specifics.

As I got home to Tennessee and talked to Tennesseans, they had wanted to hear specifics from her and were disappointed that she did not come forward with those specifics.

My colleague Senator Durbin, helpfully, pointed out this morning that Judge Jackson did, indeed, make the rounds up here prior to her hearing. Yes, indeed, she did do that. She came to my office, and we spent about an hour together talking about her record. I, of course, didn't give her a list of questions to study, but I did clue her in on some of the things that I thought were going to be important for us to discuss.

Some are items we had discussed when she came before us for her appellate court hearing. Some of those things we never got a complete answer to, but we needed to get that complete answer. This is a lifetime appointment, and it was disappointing that we did not, even now, get that complete answer.

What I have learned is, normally--as we at Judiciary Committee conduct these hearings for judges for the Federal bench, for Supreme Court nominees--they walk into the hearing room, and they are prepared. They kind of come loaded with their remarks and their answers. They have a general idea of what is going to come their way from different ones of us because we have spent the time meeting with them individually, making certain that they know what is going to be important.

So there is no doubt she knew that I was going to press her on her lack of a clear articulation on a judicial philosophy, and she knew that there were concerns and criticisms of her record and some of the decisions that she had made. She knew that we would ask tough constitutional law questions about abortion, substantive due process, and interstate commerce.

And I know that I--and I think most of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee--would say that I expect nominees to be familiar with all of these things, to have an opinion and be willing to share that opinion. This is an appointment, as I said a moment ago, a lifetime appointment to the

highest Court in the land. This is not supposed to be an easy process. This is to be tough questions that are appropriately placed. You know, tough questions are not attacks. Tough questions are placed in search of answers--answers for the people we represent. But instead of showcasing what we were told was her extraordinary prowess for the law, Judge Jackson's hearing turned into a showcase of things that she just did not want to talk about.

My Democratic colleagues have spent a lot of time trying to provide cover for her, but the fact of the matter is that at the end of this week, the majority leader will ask us to green-light a Supreme Court nominee who has not articulated a judicial philosophy, who filibustered her way through basic constitutional questions, and who repeatedly pled ignorance of the most controversial items in her record.

We have received Judge Jackson's responses to our written questions, and unfortunately she still is refusing to open a window into her thinking.

I asked her again about her ruling in Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, which focused, in part, on how a judge should interpret a statute that grants an agency ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' under the rules available. When Congress wrote those words, I am sure we believed that ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' meant exactly, precisely that this law was sole and unreviewable.

But rather than focusing on the plain meaning of the text, Judge Jackson took it upon herself to evaluate and reject the DHS rule in question and establish a nationwide injunction.

Well, as we all know, fortunately, the DC Circuit overruled her. But the question remains: How in the world could any judge read those words and decide Congress wanted the opposite result of what Congress specifically said, ``sole and unreviewable''?

But in a show of lack of respect for Congress and what Congress explicitly said because she disagreed with the policy, what did she do? She picked it up; she basically tore up that policy; and she did what she thought--what she thought--was best.

In her written response, Judge Jackson offered no new information, but because she tends to editorialize in her opinions, we can still glean some insight from what she had to say about the DHS case. She suggested that the Department of Homeland Security's position was a ``terrible proposal'' that ``reeks of bad faith'' and ``demonstrates contempt for the authority that the Constitution's Framers have vested in the judicial branch.''

Those are her words.

I think that language might give us a hint as to why she ignored the statutory text. In Tennessee, Tennesseans look at that and say: Well, that is the work of an activist judge. They are trying to legislate from the bench. They didn't like what Congress did, so they said: We are going to pick it up; we are going to toss it out; we are going to do what we think that policy ought to be. That was the effect of that ruling because she ignored the statuary text.

I have lingering questions about other times Judge Jackson has used this type of rhetoric to signal her policy disagreements. Again, Tennesseans say that is judicial activism.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, she used a written judicial opinion to advocate for the mass release of all 1,500 criminals in the custody of the DC Department of Corrections. That is right, the release of all 1,561 detainees--all of them.

During her hearing, she claimed she was merely repeating one of the attorney's arguments, but we went back and we read the opinion. And when we read the opinion, it is very clear: That was not accurate.

If you take her words at face value, you will get the impression that she believes a mass release--a mass release of detainees, of criminals--a mass release is appropriate during the pandemic. So if you look at our past pandemics and if you say, ``Well, a pandemic is going to come around; we are going to have something every 5 or 10 years,'' I think it is reasonable to question her judgment on this. What happens when you have the next Spanish flu or the next SARS? What happens the next time there is a pandemic? I think American citizens, I think Tennesseans want an answer on that. Why would someone think, ``Open the doors and release them,'' and then lament that they are not able to release all of them?

I have questions about her record of being lenient with criminals. Over the course of her career, Judge Jackson has developed a disturbing habit of granting leniency to dangerous criminals. She released a man who murdered a U.S. marshal and gave a reduced sentence to a criminal who was known for attacking police officers. She undersentenced child porn offenders at every available opportunity--not once or twice but every time. If the guidelines gave her discretion, she used it to go easy on pedophiles.

She looked for ways to go easy on dangerous drug offenders and, at one point, she actually apologized to a self-described fentanyl ``kingpin'' for his harsh sentence. That is of concern. It is of concern to many moms whose top issues right now are inflation, open borders, crime in the streets. They are worried about that. They are worried about what is happening.

She had the opportunity to clear this up, but at no point did she offer a reassuring explanation of why she so consistently used her discretion to tip the scales not in favor of victims but tipping those scales in favor of criminals.

On this point, we are not questioning her methodology; we are questioning her judgment.

When I was back home in Tennessee this weekend, everyone wanted to talk about Judge Jackson's inability to define the word ``woman.''

The media has spent a great deal of time mocking that question, and I will tell you, that is quite all right because out there in the real world, people care about how she chose to respond to that question. Their position is that if the media felt justified in mocking the very fact that I did ask that question, why did Judge Jackson have so much trouble answering that question? As my colleague Senator Cruz mentioned this morning, we have journalists today running around the Capitol, demanding that Republican Senators answer the question. Why aren't they asking the same of Judge Jackson?

Every day, Tennesseans are subjected to this assault on common sense, and they are not interested in playing along with this. Why, they want to know, is the left so terrified to confront how the American people define the word ``woman'' and ``womanhood''? And why would my Democratic colleagues continue to prop up a nominee who squandered her hearing by dodging questions and claiming ignorance of her very own record?

Tennesseans aren't interested in playing politics. They just want the Democrats to reveal what rule book they are using because Tennesseans want to see constitutionalist judges on the bench. They want people to call balls and strikes. They want people who believe in equal treatment under the law, equal justice for all.

They see what is happening in our country. It is frightening to them. For a long time now, radical activists have wanted to handpick a Supreme Court Justice. Some of these dark money groups that are all there helping the left, they said: Give us your money. We will make certain there are Federal judges and a Supreme Court Justice who are progressive.

In the meantime, we have seen them make inroads in the media, on school boards, and in some of the country's most respected universities.

So Tennesseans are very familiar with what happens when activism begins to replace common sense. They are very familiar with the tactics of the left that continue to try to diminish freedoms of individuals and give that power to the government. That is why they want constitutionalists on the Court, not activist judges who are there to take up arms in the culture war. They don't want an agenda. They don't want to hear about a methodology. They want proof that Judge Jackson has a vision for America that is rooted in the Constitution. They want to have proof that this is somebody who believes in preserving our faith, our families, our freedoms, preserving hope and opportunity for all. They want somebody who is going to say: I believe in the American dream, and I am going to preserve the right for every girl and boy to live their version of the American dream.

Unfortunately, just like the President who nominated her, Judge Jackson has provided no evidence of that vision. I am a ``no'' vote on her confirmation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, last week, the Biden administration announced their truly incomprehensible decision to suspend the use of title 42 authority along the southern border. Now, this is just the last in a long line of decisions that this White House has made that defy both reason and a mountain of evidence suggesting they are about to make a deadly mistake.

Even with those title 42 protections in place, this February was the worst February for illegal immigration and border crossings in almost 20 years. The past year was the worst year for illegal border crossings since at least 1960, and according to public reports, the Department of Homeland Security predicts that it is only going to get worse. We will soon see the crossings increase.

They are preparing for up to 18,000 attempted border crossings per day. That is right--18,000 attempted crossings per day. Now, I want to put this in perspective for you. About 90 percent of the 345 towns in my State of Tennessee have a population smaller than 18,000 people-- smaller than the number of people DHS expects are going to try to enter the country illegally every single day. This is chaos. This is border chaos. Think about this: That is like a small Tennessee town every single day of the week, of the month, of the year.

So we have to ask ourselves, how long can we sustain this? And when we look at this border that is in chaos and 18,000 a day--a small town a day coming into the country, trying to claim asylum, illegally entering the country. And we have evidence that this is going to escalate sooner rather than later. And this is the moment that the Biden administration chooses to strip away one of the most important and effective border control tools that we have at our disposal--take it away just as we know that people are coming to the border in record numbers.

And how do we know this? We know that the cartels are now working in countries all across the globe. They are doing this because they are saying: Hey, now you are really going to get in. Pay up. Make the cartels richer because you know this, President Biden--he is all for doing away with the border. He is all for opening that border up and saying: Come on. Come on.

I think that we have to keep in mind a few things. Now, when you keep that in mind--those 18,000 people a day--think about the new set of statistics that we have coming from Border Patrol this month. So far this year, CBP officers in Memphis have seized more than 2,500 pounds of drugs. You know, I had a sheriff tell me: We used to look at drugs in grams and ounces. Now it is all in pounds because of the quantities coming across this border because of Joe Biden's policies.

During the last 2 weeks of March, officials in El Paso seized more than 100 pounds of drugs and arrested 37 fugitives. Those fugitives weren't petty criminals. Among them were a murderer, a pedophile, a fraudster, a counterfeiter, and multiple drug dealers. Yes, that was 2 weeks, and that is what they had right there in El Paso. These are the ones they could identify. And, in addition to the drugs, 37 fugitives from justice were trying to enter our country and escape justice in their country. It is an open door. This is dangerous--very dangerous.

On March 29, in a separate drug bust, Border Patrol seized more than $400,000 worth of meth, fentanyl, and heroin. That is right. That was 1 day, one drug bust. And over the course of a 24-hour period ending on March 30, Border Patrol stopped five migrant smuggling events and arrested 140 people.

Now, I thought it was interesting that CBP chose to use the term ``migrant smuggling'' for that one, but I think we should call it what it is: It is human trafficking--5 human trafficking events, 1 day, 140 people.

You know, I just have to say, what in the world does this administration think is going on at that border? Why will the President not go down there? Why will he not empower people to do their job? Why will he not build a wall, put surveillance, apprehend people, turn them back? But to knowingly let them come into this country, to know that cartels are working around the globe, that they are going to get rich on this--it is kind of like the Biden bonus for the cartels. The doors are open; bring them.

This is unbelievable--absolutely unbelievable. These drug dealers and human traffickers spend their days running back and forth across that border under the watchful eye of the cartels. The cartels are in control on the

Mexico side of this border. You do not come across unless you have paid the cartel.

And those cartels are going to use those 18,000 people, the equivalent of a Tennessee town--90-percent of our towns are 18,000 people or less--coming across, being used by the cartels as human shields. What kind of compassion is this? What kind of protection for the American people is this? It is disgusting.

We know that these cartels are going to be able to push these people into the interior, and then those people are going to lose themselves in this wave of humanity, because that is what they have been doing for the past 15 months.

Meanwhile, here in Washington, Democrats have spent 15 months attacking border security as a racist barrier to their open borders agenda. Their spin isn't rooted in reality, but neither is their current ambition to throw open the border in the name of optics. I want to be clear here. If the Democrats indeed abandon title 42, they might bump up their approval numbers with the liberal base, but they are also inviting a humanitarian catastrophe on a massive scale.

Yes, indeed, as I was out in East Tennessee, up on the Upper Cumberland Plateau, this Friday, what I heard from every single law enforcement officer, every county mayor was that, now, because of the human trafficking, the gangs, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, every single town is a border town. Every State is a border State, because all these people coming across the border are coming to your community with their drugs, with their gangs. And if we empower the cartels and open the floodgates to drug dealers and human traffickers, we are not just putting our own communities at risk, we are endangering the thousands of women and children that these criminals are hiding behind because they are trafficking them. So much for their optics.

I think it is clear by now that the Biden administration is almost entirely controlled by the activists who helped him gain power. When people back home ask me to describe what it is like working in the Senate these days, I tell them it feels like a food fight between liberal special interest groups. The Democrats are just throwing spaghetti against the wall, waiting to see what sticks.

Now, they have made a real mess, but they can't seem to gain traction on anything. So why is that? Well, because the reality of the situation in New York and California and Illinois tells the people all they need to know about what is in store for the country if the Democrats get what they want.

They are working with a truly miserable track record. Take a look at it: 7.9 percent inflation. The prices are going up, whether it is at the gas pump or the grocery store. Zero commitment to border security-- we are seeing that played out in realtime. Embassies in Afghanistan and Ukraine are left to rot. That is right. He pulled people out. He pulled people out and left a lot of our people behind--and a nominee for the Supreme Court who is proudly untethered to the Constitution.

Joe Biden really has earned that 55 percent disapproval rating; hasn't he?

Unlike our friends in the mainstream media who think this is all a joke, the American people are taking this very seriously. For them, common sense isn't political. It is practical, and it is necessary. They don't need an activist or a journalist or a comedian to tell them what they believe. They know everything that Joe Biden and his administration and the Democrat control of the House and Senate-- everything they have touched has turned to dust, is on a downward slide--everything. Just look at this. Look at what they have done in a very short period of time.

They also know, when it comes to our Supreme Court Justice nominee-- people in Tennessee know what a woman is. They don't need a biologist to tell them. They know that reckless government spending is making their life more expensive every day and, in some cases, unaffordable. And they know full well because many of them have worked, been a part of our military, volunteered to serve. They are people who have come home, and they are working in law enforcement. They know and will tell you that peace comes through strength, not through surrender, and they are not going to tolerate a government that claims ignorance of all this, that wants to do happy talk and say: Everything is going to be just fine. Don't believe your eyes. Don't believe your eyes. Don't believe that price at the gas pump. Oh, the grocery store shelves, they are full--even though the produce aisles may be mostly empty.

They know that the woke mob is knocking at their door, and they know the consequences and what it means to them.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, earlier this week, I gave some examples of how the media is covering for Judge Jackson's lackluster performance in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. I am not sure who they think they will persuade with these unhinged attacks, but what I do know is that the subtext has come through loud and clear for Tennesseans. It is: Sit down, shut up, stop questioning authority; and if you don't, we are going to come and get you.

That is what these headlines are basically saying.

Last night, I hosted a telephone townhall with more than 30,000 people across middle and east Tennessee, and they have rejected the message that they are seeing in these headlines. It is really pretty simple for them. The harder the media pushes and tries to shut them up, the more they are pushing for accountability, especially when it comes to protecting the future for their children and their grandchildren.

As I am sure many people will recall, during a line of questioning in Judge Jackson's confirmation hearing, I asked her a very simple question. All I wanted her to do was define the word ``woman.'' She told me she couldn't answer the question because she wasn't a biologist. If we had not been in the middle of a committee hearing, I would have thought that this was a joke. But we were in the middle of this committee hearing, and it wasn't. It was a very deliberate signal to a very specific group of individuals.

Of course, our friends in the media sensed this was going to backfire, as it did, so they flew into damage control mode. But I think it is safe to say they overplayed their hand on this one. According to this particular outlet, science says there is no simple answer to what a woman is. Don't question the science. That sounds familiar, doesn't it? We have heard that a lot lately. They went to great lengths to refute a simple fact that every single American learned in their grade school science class. Judge Jackson's answer and the media's panicked defense of it were both completely divorced from reality.

I have spoken at length about how Judge Jackson's total lack of a judicial philosophy causes these kinds of problems. But my Democratic colleagues and their activist friends still seem to be under the impression it is unreasonable to ask a Supreme Court nominee about her approach to interpreting the law. This makes no sense. Without that philosophy--without that basic standard--you cannot achieve stability or predictability, which are two things Judge Jackson repeatedly told us are important for a functioning judicial system.

I have serious questions about the nominee's refusal to engage us on this question. But what worries me more is her refusal to acknowledge that when it comes to law, not everything can or should be up for debate because political activists demand it. Our legal system is built on a foundation of definitions and rules, which are two equally important components.

In this case, if we concede that the definition of ``woman'' is too controversial to nail down, how can we demand equal justice under the law for victims of sex discrimination? Furthermore, how could the Supreme Court determine standing for any case regarding a gender-based rule? To take it even further, if words no longer matter, are the definitions of other protected classes up for debate? If so, which ones? And if not, then why not? Whose standard are we using here? Think about that.

I hear from Tennesseans every single day who feel like they are fighting a losing battle against the erosion of our basic values. Their government is drowning in debt. The crime rate has gone from bad to absolutely terrifying. And classrooms have become battlegrounds in the culture war between woke bureaucrats and parents who just want to rear their children as they see fit.

Slowly but surely, activists are forcing themselves between parents and their children, stripping words and institutions of their meaning and using their power to eliminate dissent. It is no way to run a classroom, and it is no way to run a country either. But right now, these parents I am talking to are looking at Washington and seeing the left use these same tactics to convince whoever gives credence to these unhinged headlines that reality is somehow up for debate.

They are not going to tolerate it anymore, not from Congress, not from the White House, and certainly not from the Supreme Court.

I think it bears repeating that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law, not to take up arms in a culture war. I cannot in good conscience give my endorsement to a Supreme Court nominee whose first instinct was to chip away at the very foundation of the law rather than challenge the expectations of radical political activists.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, well before we gaveled in to last week's Supreme Court confirmation hearing, our friends in the mainstream media had made it clear what the approved narrative was going to be. According to them, we were supposed to talk about what a historic moment it was and what a historic nominee Judge Jackson is.

My Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee spent most of their time focusing on the approved talking points memo, but those of us who didn't play along were punished in print.

But, back home in Tennessee, these unhinged attacks by the media went over like a lead balloon, and I think my Democratic colleagues would benefit from listening to what people outside of Washington, DC, have to say because they--the people--are the ones who will bear the practical consequences of what happens here in DC.

Now, on Thursday, my Democratic colleagues declared victory for Judge Jackson, but Tennesseans I talked to this weekend still have a lot of questions. They expected more from her. They don't appreciate being called racist for saying they expected more. They wanted her to answer tough questions about the Constitution. They wanted assurance that a Justice Jackson would protect their constitutional rights.

They have no problem with having a former public defender on the Court. That could even be a good thing. But they wanted her to account for her record of granting light sentences to dangerous criminals. Why did she choose to let some of them out of jail on compassionate release?

I asked those questions, and I commend all of my colleagues on the committee who dug in and did the same thing. Many of my Democratic colleagues, on the other hand, accused us of ``tarnishing'' their historic moment. But Tennesseans didn't see it that way. They say it was the Democrats who tarnished the proceedings by ignoring their duty to vet Judge Jackson, who is up for a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land. They feel it was the media that tarnished the moment by politicizing--politicizing--the hearings.

Now, I cannot support Judge Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court, but I am withholding my support for reasons my Democratic colleagues and the media have chosen to ignore. For all the focus my colleagues placed on ``judicial philosophy'' in previous confirmation hearings, I had hoped that Judge Jackson would come ready to tell us about hers, but she didn't. Instead, she came armed with a methodology that spoke to the thoroughness of her process but said very little about her approach to constitutional interpretation.

After the hysteria that broke out during Justice Barrett's hearings about the so-called dangers of originalism, I thought we might discover what sort of jurist my Democratic colleagues think would be more effective than a constitutionalist. But oh no--to ask that--you are not supposed to do that.

But, suddenly, judicial philosophy meant nothing. As I said, don't ask that question. What role the Constitution plays in Judge Jackson's ``methodology'' meant nothing to them. Don't ask that question.

Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is not a subject the American people are willing to ignore. They want you to ask the questions and get answers. They don't expect to agree with a Justice 100 percent of the time, but they do expect those nominees to adhere to a standard. They want a constitutionalist, not a judicial activist, and at this point, they have no idea what rules she will follow if indeed she is confirmed.

All we can do is look at her record. Judge Jackson spent a lot of time defending her work. Tennesseans are just as worried about what she was trying to distance herself from. What did she want us to not know?

Associations are important. You can tell a lot about a person by looking at who their friends are, and, as it turns out, Judge Jackson has some pretty controversial friends.

Over the past few years, we have seen progressive activists use critical race theory to try and redefine our history and change the way Americans view their place in the world. It is a pernicious philosophical lens, and the effect it has on kids in the classroom is weighing heavily on the hearts of Tennessee parents.

Now, in her hearing, Judge Jackson brushed aside my questions about her views on CRT. She wrote it off as an ``academic theory,'' which it is, but my questions were about how she may or may not apply that academic theory to her decisions. Why does she choose to give that academic theory the same weight as administrative law or constitutional law when she is making those decisions?

One particular item she tried to distance herself from is her praise for the so-called progressive curriculum at Georgetown Day School, where she sits on the board. Here is what she said in the winter 2019 edition of the school's magazine.

Since becoming part of the GDS community 7 years ago, I

have witnessed the transformative power of a rigorous

progressive education.

As Judge Jackson pointed out, Georgetown Day is a private school--an elite private school. They can teach what they want, and parents can choose to take their kids out and go elsewhere if they don't like it.

But here is the wrinkle. It is getting harder for parents in Tennessee to do that because so-called progressive education is taking over public schools also. And part of that progressive education requires getting in between parents and their children.

Here is why it was so important to air this out during a confirmation hearing. We were examining a nominee who has spent nearly a decade on the bench yet cannot describe her fundamental approach to the law--not her approach to deciding cases or sentencing criminals but to reading and interpreting the Constitution.

So when Tennesseans hear a nominee refuse to answer these questions-- when she gives an opening statement and talks about how she makes decisions by starting from a point of neutrality, by looking at the facts of the case, by looking at precedent, you have to say: Where does the Constitution fit into your decision?

At the same time that she is practicing that methodology of deciding cases, she is associating herself with philosophies meant to divide children from their parents. They feel entitled to know what role these associations are going to play in her decision matrix.

Questions are not attacks, and that is a point that needs to be made. To ask questions is not an attack. How do we keep our Nation free and strong? We do it by robust, respectful debate. That requires that you ask questions of individuals who come before you, that you ask questions of individuals who have a different opinion than you have or who hold a different political or governmental philosophy than you hold. Questions are not attacks.

Challenging the application of CRT in elementary school classes is not ``racism.'' Standing firm on the definition of ``woman'' is not ``transphobia.'' This isn't personal. We are talking about a lifetime appointment, and the people deserve to know who this nominee is and what she believes.

I thought it was so interesting that so regularly through the hearing, people would reference her background and her family and the strong connections as part of what makes her who she is and informs her decisionmaking and how important that is. The letters of support to her all mention that. But if you question some of this, then the media, then my Democratic colleagues

say that is an attack. No, my friends, it is not. It is not an attack because words have meaning. You don't leave words like ``parenthood'' and ``womanhood'' up for interpretation. You know what they mean.

Judge Jackson had 3 days to convince this country that her methodology--not her judicial philosophy but her methodology--can help her answer these questions. In my opinion, she failed at that task.

In this building, I don't speak for myself; I speak for the people of the great State of Tennessee. I cannot in good conscience give their endorsement to a nominee who by all accounts is legally and constitutionally adrift. What is her standard? We still don't know. What keeps her grounded in the law? We are not sure about that one either. What keeps her from infusing politics into her rulings? We don't have an answer for that. Those are things that, this weekend, Tennesseans would say: I want to know this.

My Democratic colleagues don't want to talk about this; neither does the media. They have spent their time whipping up people, looking for outrage, looking for click bait. But here is what I will say in conclusion: Every single one of Judge Jackson's contemporaries have been more than happy to answer these questions. They do regularly as they have come before us for Supreme Court confirmation hearings. So why will not Judge Jackson?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one of the challenges we face in this era of great power competition is identifying unique threats before they escalate.

When it comes to Russia and Ukraine, these threats have come into full focus. Vladimir Putin took off his statesman costume and declared a war of choice on Ukraine. Last week, we received the first public allegations of his intent to unleash Syrian proxies on anyone still standing between his war machine and the territory he covets.

I am glad to hear more of my colleagues speaking up about the unique dangers of proxy wars. Last week, I laid out in detail how Putin has used proxies to install himself in countries that are leadership poor but resource rich.

We know that fighters from the Kremlin-backed Wagner Group have slaughtered their way through Africa and the Middle East on behalf of Putin's grand Soviet ambition. And now he is going to do the very same thing in Ukraine.

We have also seen Iran unleash proxies and State-sponsored terror organizations in Iraq, against American Armed Forces and against civilian populations in Lebanon, Yemen, and Gaza.

In their 2022 threat assessment, the intelligence community stated:

We assess that Iran will threaten U.S. persons directly and

via proxy attacks, particularly in the Middle East.

This is a public statement. This is the Annual Threat Assessment. It is backed by years of evidence, proving that Iran has done this before and they are going to try to do it again.

President Biden should be doing everything in his power to keep this threat as far away from American citizens as he can--but no such luck. The impending nuclear deal he is trying to hand Tehran unlocks billions of dollars for Iranian banks, companies, and other entities that finance violence.

Where does the White House think that money will end up?

We know there is nothing Tehran loves more than a power vacuum. They have invested heavily in Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas--all terrorist organizations hunkered down in some of the world's most unstable regions. Over the past decade, the Iranians have spent more than $16 million on carefully targeted bloodshed. That is right--Iran alone, the largest state sponsor of terrorism.

The landscape is chaos, and, still, the Biden administration is pushing the world toward a sanctions relief scheme that would empower the Iranians to terrorize and subjugate even more people.

The regime in Tehran is a menace. This week, incoming CENTCOM commander, General Kurilla, said as much in his confirmation hearing when we asked him how sanctions relief would affect the Iranian influence.

I am quoting him:

[T]here is a risk with sanctions relief that Iran would use

some of that money to support its proxies and terrorism in

the region, and if it did, it could increase risk to our

forces in the region.

In this week's CENTCOM posture review before the Armed Services Committee, outgoing commander, General McKenzie, acknowledged these concerns about sanctions relief, saying:

[T]here is a risk that they could use that money in ways

that we would not want them to use that money.

That is right. We certainly don't want them to put one more penny toward these proxy wars, for good reasons.

First, proxies don't just parachute in and declare victory. They brutalize entire populations and use weapons that these hostile regimes wouldn't normally have access to.

Second, because proxies operate outside the law, the rogue regimes that hire them maintain plausible deniability.

Third, this plausible deniability creates a false sense of security that allows hostile governments to pull up a chair to the negotiating table and pretend to fit in with normal countries, all the while denying the United States access and placement.

We have a limited number of ways to deter hostile regimes from waging war on the civilized world. The West failed the people of Ukraine in this regard, but it is not too late to change course.

Ronald Reagan once said:

[W]ar comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but

when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted.

He believed in achieving peace through strength, and so do I.

It is pretty simple. If you don't stand up for yourself, you will get run over, and if you don't stand up for your friends, there may not be anyone left to help them when the wolves are actually at the door.

When I talk to Tennesseans about this, the one thing they want to know is why President Biden makes decisions that make this country more vulnerable and less safe. Whether through lifting sanctions on Iran, slow-walking sanctions on Russia, or keeping our economy entangled with China's, Biden has refused to lead. Forget doing what needs to be done; he won't even say what needs to be said. He is fearful. He is scared to anger the new Axis of Evil. He is scared to anger our more timid allies in Europe. He is scared to anger the radical left here at home.

Is there anything that he is not afraid of?

He is so weak-kneed in the face of adversity that he can't even bring himself to finish building the fence that would secure our southern border.

I want to focus on that border security for just a few minutes because, while Russia and Iran might dominate headlines, for Tennesseans, our wide-open southern border is a perfect example of what can happen when a President concedes national security to score points on his political rivals.

Border encounters were up 2 percent in February. That is almost 165,000 people trying to enter the country unnoticed; 76 percent of the people the Border Patrol caught were single adults; cocaine seizures increased 83 percent; meth, 97 percent; heroin, 173 percent.

We know for a fact that terrorists and members of international criminal organizations cross our border with impunity. Over the course of 3 days last December, the Border Patrol arrested a guerrilla member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, four MS-13 gang members, and an 18th Street gang member--six--six--distinguished representatives from the most dangerous gangs in the entire world and they almost disappeared into the country undetected. Thank goodness for law enforcement because these are not ordinary criminals.

In January of 2021, the Department of Justice indicted the 14 most senior members of MS-13 on charges of conspiracy to support, finance, and commit acts of terrorism.

Is this the Biden doctrine--choosing vulnerability over security and annihilation through weakness?

Who exactly does the President intend to win over with this approach?

Ukraine will find no peace in the easing of diplomatic tensions on some

U.N. panel. Children in Africa won't have a future if we start writing checks to proxy fighters. The people of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras won't be better off if we enable the drug dealers and sex traffickers who make a living exploiting their families. No matter where in the world you look, you can see the costs of Joe Biden's willful blindness to danger.

He has the tools he needs to protect the United States from these threats. Now, he needs to use them.

It is time to stop relying on foreign oil and make the country energy independent again: Finish the Keystone Pipeline. Do an Operation Warp Speed for energy. Allow oil and gas exploration on Federal land.

We have to stop leading from behind when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

President Biden must submit to Congress any deal with Iran; and rest assured, we will block the implementation of anything the White House tries to sneak under the radar. We must pay attention to the flow of money and power in proxy hotbeds and recognize the danger posed by these terrorists for hire. We can't neglect security threats close to home. It is time to secure the border and give our law enforcement officials the resources they need to catch terrorists and gang members before they disappear into the country.

Tennesseans can't identify with the President's refusal to lead. They are confused and frightened, but they also have faith in our ability as a country to pull out of this skid. They believe in the promise of America. All they want is for their President and elected leaders to prove that they also believe in this country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last week, the Senate passed a $1.5 trillion funding bill that the Democratic majority insisted was full of must-pass, got-to-have-it, can't-live-without-it provisions that the American people were demanding. Unfortunately, the reality of what made it into that bill doesn't match the fantasy my Democratic colleagues conjured up for the cameras.

In reality, this $1.5 trillion package was another spending spree. It was complete with 4,400 earmarks--4,400 earmarks. Now, these earmarks don't have any Federal nexus. They are not connected to your military post or your Federal highway. These are things for shopping centers and parks and city renovations and--you name it--pet projects. So that is not government funding; that is a Big Government windfall that the American people simply can't afford.

As we all know, an inability to pay for these programs has never stopped this Democratic majority from shoving through their radical and increasingly destructive agenda. By their own admission, the out-of- control spending habits have contributed to decades-high inflation. Imagine that.

What we know is that, in Tennessee, I am talking to people every day. They can't afford food and gas and to pay all of their monthly expenses, but for some reason, my Democratic colleagues think taxpayers will be happy to pay for their pet projects back home--all 4,400 of them. You just can't make this stuff up.

The American people are really confused by this. They are also completely appalled by Joe Biden's refusal to secure the border, his refusal to invest in American energy independence, and his willingness to keep our economy entangled with the Chinese Communist Party. Every one of these points worries them. Yet what really scares them is the President's refusal to discuss any of it: Just don't talk about it. It will go away. Inflation, that is transitory. If gas is too expensive, go buy yourself an electric vehicle. This is just so disrespectful of hard-working men and women.

Joe Biden has caused a lot more problems than he solved during the first year of his Presidency, and his constant pivots away from life- or-death problems have destroyed what little trust the American people had left in his ability to get the job done.

They like to think that the President cares about what happens to them--the American people, the citizens--but they haven't seen any evidence to suggest that he is thinking about them.

Last week, I was up on the Plateau in Tennessee, talking to Tennesseans about what is going on here in the Senate. Most of what they tell me boils down to one simple truth: From where they are sitting and the news they are watching and the papers they are reading, it is clear that the Democrats have a very aggressive agenda, but they have no vision for the future of this country. They feel like what the Democrats want is control over their daily life, not a vision of a country filled with open doors and opportunity for all. They are not seeing that out of this agenda.

Why, they ask me, do their elected representatives take such drastic measures to do things that make their lives harder, that make their situations worse? They can't figure it out.

Since Joe Biden and the Democrats took control, inflation has skyrocketed. We have become energy dependent on Russia. We have abandoned not one, but two embassies. We hightailed it out of there. Two embassies, cut and run. Our Border Patrol, they are apprehending known terrorists and MS-13 gang members who are coming into this country. If they are apprehending them, we are getting some but not all. And now we are hearing about Russia going out, going to Iran, saying: Let me have your soldiers for hire; let me have your proxies, the Wagner Group, which is closely aligned with Vladimir Putin.

And all the time, Tennesseans are saying: Well, what about these terrorists trying to come over the southern border? Are they mercenaries? Are they soldiers for hire?

People are raising these issues. And this is all part of what the Democrats have accomplished this year.

The American people tolerate quite a bit from their government, but one thing they won't accept is a President who shrugs his shoulders, runs from the podium, who claims to be a victim of circumstance, who is weak-kneed and refuses to lead.

Even former Obama White House officials have come forward begging the Biden administration to stop the spin, face reality, show some leadership, deal with the situation. This has to be getting embarrassing, even for them.

The American people have spent the past year watching Joe Biden abandon the policies that kept the country from collapsing under the weight of the pandemic. And what has he replaced those policies with? Mandates, lockdowns that have made the country poorer, increased regulation that has stopped oil and gas exploration, increased regulation that is making it tougher on manufacturers, a push for higher taxes--that is what they are doing. And do you know what? It makes people less hopeful. It makes people less free. It gives people fewer options.

See, that is what they are seeing. The Democratic agenda is all about government control of your life. It is an agenda; it is not a vision for this country, for our children, for our grandchildren that is rooted in opportunity for all.

There is only one way to undo this damage and to stop this train that this administration is pushing as hard as they can toward socialism. The President needs to stop the spin. He needs to start listening to what people are saying, people across the country.

Here is the thing: They don't want this President to fail. They don't want him to fail. They don't want this country to fail, so it means that the President is going to have to stop bowing to all of this environmentalism as a religion and climate change as a god. They need to stop that.

They need to see, yes, we need to have an Operation Warp Speed, to be energy independent, pull everybody together--Federal Agencies, the private sector.

We are the United States of America, and if we had the desire, we could do this. We could be energy independent once again. We could stand strong. We could stand strong against Russia, against Iran, against China and the Chinese Communist Party.

What that is going to require is an administration and a Democratic Party that has a vision for the greatness and goodness of this country.

I think that what we have to do is we have to lead the way in saying it is time to show respect for the American people, to listen to what they are telling us, and to make certain that we stand for this country, standing strong for future generations.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, conditions are bad in Ukraine, and they are getting worse. Vladimir Putin's war is escalating in severity and scale.

This past Sunday, we received the first public reports that Russia is now deploying proxy fighters to Ukraine. Putin put out the call to action in Syria, Southeast Asia, and Chechnya, and now the mercenaries are pouring in. On Tuesday, we heard further allegations that as many as 1,000 proxy fighters from the Kremlin-backed Wagner Group will deploy to Ukraine and attack Kyiv.

This latest news about proxy developments makes it even more obvious how willfully blind the President has been to the disaster unfolding in Ukraine. If you look back at footage from the past few months, it is clear that the Biden administration thought they would be able to talk Putin out of this. They thought they could send in the diplomats, offer a few concessions, pat everyone on the back, and head home. But while they were lining up their talking points, Vladimir Putin was lining up bodies to throw at Ukrainian defenses.

When we first started to debate the threat that the Chinese Communist Party poses to the free world, it took a lot of time to convince the skeptics of China's tight hold on the global order. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, cheap telecom build-outs, and control over important supply chains, Beijing has created spheres of economic influence all across the globe.

The Kremlin has done the same thing with its proxies. But it is important to remember that this is not new information. The existence of Wagner and other Russian proxy groups is not a secret, and neither is their brutal history.

This won't be Wagner's first time in Ukraine. If fact, that is where these mercenaries actually got started. But for the past decade, they have been wreaking havoc all across Africa. Again, this is no secret. We know for a fact that they have caused chaos and bloodshed in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Madagascar, Mozambique, and the Central African Republic and that they have helped turn Mali into yet another ``hermit kingdom.'' And what have the Russians received in return? They have gotten access to oilfields, diamond mines, silver, gold, and other extremely valuable natural resources.

By using his proxies, Putin gets the best of all worlds. He is able to force open doors into strategically important areas. He will then suck them dry of their natural resources and make his own name synonymous with violence in the face of resistance.

Furthermore, mercenaries exist outside the bounds of laws and norms, which means groups like Wagner operate with impunity and give cover and plausible deniability to Moscow. In their opinion, it is the perfect legal fiction.

Meanwhile, these proxy fighters have been accused of abductions, torture, and rape. They murder journalists and conduct summary executions on behalf of their Kremlin overlords. They target civilian populations with the specific purpose of terrorizing innocents and eliminating dissent, and when they are done, they simply disappear. That is what Vladimir Putin is preparing to unleash on the brave Ukrainian people.

I sent, and other Members joined me--we have insisted since February 24 that this is not a special military operation; this is a war. But by bringing proxies into the mix, Putin has signaled that he is prepared to do more than inflict violence on key strategic targets; he is preparing for a massacre.

This isn't a head fake. He knows exactly what he is doing because he has done it before. He is following the Syria playbook to the letter, from the booby-trapped humanitarian corridors to his use of cluster bombs, to the presence of proxies to carry out his dirty deeds.

It is no wonder that Moscow has ordered their fighters to travel with mobile crematoriums. It is the only way they will be able to even attempt to cover up the brutality inflicted by Putin's private army.

Over the past few months, Putin has shown us exactly what he intends to do to the brave Ukrainian people. He has made no attempt to hide behind diplomacy. His military commits war crimes in broad daylight for the benefit of the cameras. The introduction of proxies is the natural progression of this increasingly savage attack.

It is time for President Biden to pull the blinders off and decide what America's response ought to be, and he has to do that right now.

We have deprioritized the African theater for far too long, and now it is a breeding ground for glorified terror squads. That absolutely has to change. Russia is using proxies this very moment to destabilize and exploit Mali. We know what they did to the people of Syria. The pictures were too graphic for the nightly news. It is time to remind the world what happened there and make it clear that unless we do something, Ukraine is next.

We must also send a strong signal to Putin, Wagner, and other thugs around the world that there will be no more hiding. Collect the evidence now. Document the war crimes now. Prepare for prosecutions now. We must let Vladimir Putin know that no amount of propaganda can cover up the atrocities that he and his private army plan to commit against the people of Ukraine. But we have to do it before it is too late to free the world from Moscow's grip.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do want to thank my colleague from Florida for doing the right thing for our partners in Ukraine by bringing up this supplemental appropriation for its own vote--its own vote.

But this isn't something that he should have had to do. It is something that should have been demanded by every Member of this Chamber. Vladimir Putin is waging a war, an all-out war on Ukraine. He has reduced maternity hospitals, orphanages, schools, and private homes to piles of rubble. He has boobytrapped humanitarian corridors. He is using weapons so horrific that to possess them constitutes a war crime. And he is preparing to terrorize civilians with the same proxy fighters that have brutalized innocents in Mali and in Syria.

And here we stand as our Democrat colleagues try to use an aid bill for Ukraine to link onto its back a $1.5 trillion spending spree.

At last count, there are more than 4,000 earmarks in this omnibus spending bill.

You and I have been through the issue of earmarks when we each were Members in the House. Earmarks, 4,000 of them, this bill is divisive, controversial, and requires actual deliberation and debate. It should not be used as a vehicle to hold this emergency funding for Ukraine hostage.

The fact that we even have to have this discussion is just disrespectful of the process. And it does not help the Ukrainian people. It slows down the aid to them. It is time to stop this manipulation in its tracks.

We need to give the people of Ukraine airpower. We need to give them humanitarian aid. And it needs to be done now. We need to give them the funding and the support that they need to survive, and it should be done now. And we need to separate this supplemental from this $1.5 trillion spending spree, and it ought to be done now.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, like most of my colleagues, I spent the weekend monitoring the war in Ukraine. I took the opportunity to join the video conference with President Zelenskyy. I don't know how anyone could have hung up from that call confused about Vladimir Putin's intentions with Ukraine. Indeed, I think we saw that Vladimir Putin has ill intent for anyone who opposes him.

What is happening in Ukraine is not a ``special military operation,'' as Putin likes to say; it is an all-out war. Putin has caused a massive humanitarian and human rights crisis, and even though the world is collapsing around him, he has given no indication of pulling back.

The sanctions imposed by the free world have had a devastating impact on Russia's economy. The ruble just crashed to a record low. The United States just instituted a ban on Russian flights over our airspace. Sports organizations, entertainers, and private corporations are all avoiding Russia like the plague.

If Putin's goal was to transform Russia into another ``hermit kingdom,'' he is well on his way to making that dream a reality. The very idea seems insane, but remember, Vladimir Putin may be a madman, but he is a madman who is very intentional in what he is doing. He is reading the terrain, and he sees that the world's foremost superpower is too busy worrying about optics to do the one thing that would send Russia's economy back to the stone age.

Putin sent his army to invade Ukraine on February 24. The Ukrainian people have endured 11 days of savagery, and we still have not imposed meaningful sanctions on the Russian energy sector. But now, the entire world knows that Putin is using energy as a weapon.

Russia is now the U.S.'s third largest supplier of crude oil. The European Union gets about 40 percent of its gas imports and more than a quarter of its oil from Russia. We are feeling the pain every time we put gas in our cars, but looking at oil prices is still a bright spot in Putin's day.

Russia is really a great big oil depot with an army, and he knows that much of the world is depending on Russian oil. He is financing his war with every single tank of U.S. gas at a time. Every time you pull up to fill up your tank, this is what is happening. As long as Joe Biden refuses to tear us free from our entanglement with Russian energy, he is complicit with every single barrel of oil that he buys.

Energy is the most powerful economic weapon that Putin has at his disposal. It is his currency. The only way to neutralize it is to cut off the revenue stream. We must sanction the Russian energy sector, and we must do it now. We must end the purchasing of Russian oil. It is important to our partners in Ukraine and to our own Nation's security.

Last year, Joe Biden made the unilateral decision to destroy energy independence in the United States when he canceled the Keystone Pipeline and banned new oil and gas leases on Federal land--that is right.

Colleagues, in January 2021, we were energy independent. We were a net exporter of energy. But Joe Biden changed all that. He decided that by Executive order--not by a vote of the House or the Senate but by Executive order--he was going to end energy independence. So where does that put us? It has placed us right into the hands of a warmonger who is hellbent on recreating the U.S.S.R. And his weapon, No. 1 weapon, is energy. He does indeed think he has got you over the barrel.

Our energy sector needs certainty, not a series of actions based on the President's political whims, and we should give them that certainty by allowing us to move to energy independence.

I implore the President to see reason and to end this dangerously foolish entanglement with Moscow and Russian oil.

On that note, I think it should be made clear to everybody that the answer is not to go to Venezuela and negotiate to buy Venezuelan oil from another madman, and the answer is not to have the Russians working as an intermediary on a new Iran nuclear deal, which, by the way, the people of this country do not want to be entangled with Iran.

By the way, we hear they are negotiating to buy Iranian oil. This is about the dumbest damn thing I have ever heard of. It is amazing. You are going to go do business with Venezuela and with Iran and have the Russians involved in the middle of that? This is astounding.

This weekend, as I talked to Tennesseans, they could not believe that this administration would be stooping to such.

Sanction Russian energy. Restart the Keystone Pipeline. Open up capped wells. Stop flaring natural gas. Put it into the supply chain. Make certain that you are drilling domestically, exploring domestically. Do it before it is too late.

Our mission as Americans has not changed. We have a duty to preserve and protect freedom. The sheer availability of live footage and photographs flowing out of Ukraine has highlighted the importance of that mission to protect and preserve security.

This isn't the first time that Putin has invaded sovereign territory, but it is the first time that his crimes have been live-streamed for the entire world to see.

And as far as the free world is concerned, most of us have correctly identified the villain, but there are more than a few people out there who need persuading, and it is our job to help keep the information flowing.

Early on in the war, Putin launched cyber attacks to destabilize Ukraine and prevent communications with the outside world. Through my work on the Armed Services Committee, I have supported funding for domestic programs that would help protect State and local governments here in the United States from these types of attacks.

In the fiscal year 2022 NDAA, we created the Civilian Cyber Security Reserve Program to make sure that our Federal Government can keep up with cyber threats like the ones from Moscow being launched at the Ukrainians, but when it comes to defending freedom, shoring up our own defenses is not enough. We have to look outward and prevent the kinds of vulnerabilities Putin is trying to create.

Last week, I introduced the Internet Freedom and Operations Act with my colleague Senator Menendez. This legislation builds off of the work we did together on the Open Technology Fund Authorization Act. It would authorize more than $100 million to support programs and circumvention technologies that keep the internet up and running in conflict zones and under other repressive media environments. We have successfully used this technology to put control over information back in the hands of the people, right where it belongs.

Dictators like Putin suppress dissent for a reason. The truth is that free speech scares them to death. They don't want it. They want cancel culture--only one point of view, and it is theirs.

From where I am sitting, it is clear that Putin is right to be fearful of the resistance in Ukraine and around the world and especially in his own country, as his citizens are taking to the streets--thousands protesting, thousands being arrested--so that they can push forward with freedom in their countries.

I would encourage my colleagues to support the freedom fighters in Ukraine and elsewhere, support them by signing on to the INFO Act. Again, I thank Senator Menendez for his work on that.

We have talked a lot lately about sanctions and Stingers and ammunition, but I would argue that what has

rattled Putin the most is how powerless he is to stop people from speaking. As I mentioned earlier, his war crimes are being broadcast in real time to anybody who has a screen and an internet connection.

Russian citizens are protesting in the streets against the Russian Government. His struggling military is the subject of intense ridicule on every digital platform. It is a propagandist's worst nightmare and the source of immense hope for the Ukrainian people. And--God bless them--they are in the fight.

We have a duty to help keep that hope alive, and I would encourage my colleagues who haven't yet realized this to join together this week to stand up for the people in Ukraine, to stand up for energy independence in this country, and to stand up for free speech.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speech to the European Parliament this week, he made it clear that the time for long-winded negotiations is over. He said that in Ukraine, ``We're dealing with reality . . . we're dealing with real life.''

The footage coming out of Ukraine is absolutely horrifying. Putin has shocked the world with the level of brutality he is inflicting on civilians--men, women and precious children. But remember that none of this happened overnight. These last 3 months of bluster and buildup from Moscow were more than just idle threats. We saw it coming. And still, it is abundantly clear that Joe Biden and his advisers have not accepted this reality.

I have come to the floor more times than I can count to remind my colleagues how dangerous it is to remain entangled with governments controlled by dictators and mad men.

I am encouraged by the growing level of bipartisan awareness of this danger but discouraged by how long it has taken us to get there. It took the better part of 2 years for this body to rally around supply chain security.

I am sorry to say my Democratic colleagues' priorities were out of order during the height of the pandemic, even when it came to something as simple as holding Beijing accountable for unleashing COVID and destroying the global economy.

Too many people had fooled themselves into believing that diplomacy with China required dependence on China. And just like that, we found ourselves at the mercy of Xi Jinping.

It has taken all-out war in Ukraine for many of my colleagues to learn the same hard lesson about Vladimir Putin and our entanglement with Russia's state-controlled energy sector.

It is the same old story. What started out as interdependence has turned into a serious vulnerability. It is especially true for our European counterparts who bet everything on their gamble with Moscow and played right into Putin's hands.

Now, here we are. Russia is the world's largest gas depot; Europe is on the brink of an energy crisis; and the world is dipping into strategic petroleum reserves to avert chaos. Yes, we are all in this mess together, but we ought not to be. It did not have to be this way.

It is hard to believe that before Joe Biden took his oath of office, the United States of America was energy independent. That is correct. Go back and look at the numbers, 2019, 2020--energy independent. It took a lot of hard work, but, yes, we got there.

President Trump opened up all Federal lands for new oil and gas exploration. He also approved the Keystone XL Pipeline, which created thousands of jobs and would have brought energy production closer to home.

Trump also used sanctions against Russian energy companies when he needed to. He used them against Gazprom and the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, and also against Rosneft for helping Venezuela evade oil sanctions. It worked. The proof was right there in front of us. You could see it.

Then, along comes President Biden, and what did he choose to do? He had a choice. He made a decision. Yes, it was intentional. It was to satisfy the leftists who are running the Democratic Party.

So what did Joe Biden do? He crushed American energy. That is right. He suspended all of those oil and gas leases on Federal land. On the very first day of his administration, he took great pride in saying one of his first actions, one of the very first things that he did, was to kill the Keystone Pipeline, and then he blocked new energy infrastructure. And then, for good measure, he made those pesky Nord Stream 2 sanctions go away.

What had Vladimir Putin asked for? He wanted Nord Stream 2, no sanctions. Joe Biden gave it to him. He did not even put any conditions on it. None. Zip. Old buddy, old pal, this is what you wanted? I am going to give it to you. I will give you Nord Stream 2--at the same time locking down U.S. energy production.

For the Members of this Chamber who come from energy-producing States, if you are supporting President Biden in this endeavor, then you are supporting actions that disadvantage your State. Think about that--jobs, Keystone, having energy independence, which, as we are seeing, this has quite an impact on our Nation's security and on our global security.

Well, for all of those actions that stopped energy production, the Democratic Party loved him for it, of course. As I said, they are being run by the far-left wing. The environmental lobby? Oh, they loved and praised Joe Biden for this, and at first the Europeans kind of liked it also.

But then look where it got us. We fell out of energy independence and into a rat's nest of entanglements with one of the world's most belligerent dictators.

Russia is now our third largest supplier of crude oil. The EU gets around 40 percent of its gas imports and more than a quarter of its oil from Russia. Instead of using Keystone to send 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day to refiners in Nebraska and Texas, we depend on Russia to give us over 600,000 barrels per day.

Our German friends have finally questioned the wisdom of their failed energy scheme with Moscow, but they are still vulnerable. Everyone is vulnerable.

Putin is using energy as a weapon. This is not up for debate.

There was an interesting article in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, revealing that Russia is still exporting its oil and natural gas throughout the world. Gazprom and Rosneft pull in around 30 percent of Russia's budget revenues. That is right--two companies. As I said, Russia, is a big oil depot, and they have an army. Thirty percent of the country's oil revenues are from Gazprom and Rosneft. And as of right now, they have been able to completely avoid major Western sanctions. Shameful.

They have managed to do this even though we know this gives Moscow some level of control over the rest of the global economy. These companies are Putin's economic lifeline and his best leverage against the West, his best leverage against Ukraine.

I am quoting from the Wall Street Journal article:

In recent months, Mr. Putin deployed Gazprom, the largest

exporter of natural gas to the European market, as a

geopolitical tool by throttling deliveries to the continent,

European officials and analysts have said. That exacerbated

an already-growing gas deficit and led to a surge in prices.

Both companies have always denied having a political agenda

and insisted they are pursuing legitimate business interests,

but in recent years European officials and foreign-policy

experts have said Gazprom in particular has been acting as a

foreign-policy instrument for the Russian government.

The article goes on to detail how Putin is financing his war against Ukraine with the help of these puppet corporations. Energy is his most powerful economic weapon, and the only way to neutralize it is to cut off the revenue stream.

Sanctions related to the SWIFT banking system and other financial punishments are important, but they are not going to be a silver bullet.

The Biden administration has repeatedly said that sanctions against the Russian energy sector would be too radical, but I would suggest that perhaps the Biden administration is not the best judge of what is too radical when it comes to regaining energy independence.

I would remind my Democratic colleagues that it was the Biden administration that decided that oil and gas leases on Federal lands were too radical; that the Keystone Pipeline was too radical; and that sanctions on Putin's pipeline to Western Europe, that was too radical.

Joe Biden didn't let energy independence slip away. He was and is the architect of its destruction.

When you go fill up your car, every time, $20, $25 more, Joe Biden did that. When you look at logistics costs and delivery fees that are coming to you because of the price of gas, you can thank Joe Biden that you are paying these higher delivery fees. When you look at the cost of packaging and products and it is costing you more, because energy affects inflation, this is what Joe Biden has done in 1 year--in 1 year.

We were energy independent. We were a net exporter of oil and gas--an energy exporter. And now look at where we are.

In this week's State of the Union Address, the President made no indication he intends to clean up the mess he has made. Why is that? It was intentional. This is what they intended to do to you, the American citizen. This is what they have done: Keystone, new pipeline infrastructure, returning us to having to ask OPEC--who, by the way, the OPEC nations, they are the third largest holder of U.S. debt.

You know, colleagues, this makes no sense. When you could be exporting energy, but you are importing it from people who do not wish us well, from Russia--from Russia--who is using those proceeds to carry out this war in Ukraine, this makes no sense. It is why the President does not intend to clean up this mess.

No, the climate-obsessed Biden administration is going to drag the country into a future defined by many of the same unsustainable green energy policies that threw Europe into chaos. They would rather buy Russian oil and fund a war in Ukraine than produce oil here in the USA.

This is a policy that defies logic.

The time for passing the buck is at an end. Sanctions on the Russian energy sector aren't radical; they are a means of survival, and we need to use them now.

This week, we saw some truly stunning demonstrations of solidarity with Ukraine. And on behalf of our common cause for freedom and liberty, the free world has said no to Putin's war. But if we don't back up those declarations, we are inviting more chaos.

This week, Ukraine's Ambassador to the U.N. reminded us of the cost of this willful blindness--and, yes, it is willful blindness. He said:

If we fail to respond now we will face much more than

criticism. We will face oblivion.

It must not happen. Now it is time to act, time to help Ukraine, which is now paying the ultimate price for the freedom and security of itself and of the world.

Joe Biden won't be able to soft-talk his way out of this impending disaster that is unfolding right before our eyes.

I would implore all of my colleagues, each and every one who claims to be inspired by President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian freedom fighters, to follow their example. Do your duty and put yourselves between the American people and the evil that Putin will surely inflict on us if we don't use every option available at our disposal to stop him.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, over the past year, the Biden administration has put out some truly absurd propaganda, but last week, they released something that was so over the top that I had to double- check to make sure that it was real. Yes, of course, it has up here that it was issued February 7, 2 p.m., and it is going to expire June 7 of this year at 2 p.m. It had all the markings of something that was legitimate, but it is so outrageous that I confirmed that it was actually a government-issued document.

Of course, I am referring to the Homeland Security memo that is summarizing the current terror threat to the United States. Under normal circumstances, you would expect a threat assessment to be a helpful document. That is what we have come to expect. But in this case, it wasn't obvious before, but now it is so obvious. It is crystal clear that conventional definitions of the word ``normal'' no longer apply to this administration.

If you have not read this, you will not believe your eyes. What makes it so uniquely infuriating is the ease with which DHS used an official document to equate violent terrorists with Americans who refuse to fall in line with the Biden administration's narrative of the day. They did it so easily, just laying out their case of threat assessments to the United States.

Alongside descriptions of actual violence and threats against churches and schools, DHS warns of ``the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. Government institutions.'' The bulletin specifically identifies ``widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19'' as ``[k]ey factors . . . contributing to the current heightened threat environment.''

Yes, you heard me correct. They identify widespread online proliferation of false and misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19.

So let's decode this. They are not just talking about acts of violence committed to achieve a political or an ideological goal; they are talking about dissent. What does DHS suggest someone do if they find themselves menaced in the court of public opinion? They want you to report the offender to law enforcement. That is right--report the offender to law enforcement.

I have come to the floor time and again to detail just how frightened the American people are of Joe Biden's radical agenda, but this bulletin is the best evidence I have seen to date of just how frightened Joe Biden is of the American people. They must be scared to death over there in that White House. How dare anybody question them? How dare anybody call them into question for the agenda that they have? I would even go so far as to suggest that this betrays his administration's desire to police the speech,

thoughts, and opinions of American citizens and to deputize the public to help keep dissenters in line.

The Biden administration is as close as they ever have been to declaring that expressing public disagreement with their agenda is akin to an act of domestic terrorism. Think about this. It isn't just an outrage; it is dangerous for a few different reasons, the most important of which is that it ignores the line differentiating violence and threats from constitutionally protected speech. The former have no place in public discourse. Let me be very clear about that. The former have no place in public discourse. The latter is essential to the functioning of our democracy.

Indeed, this Nation's democracy--one of the reasons we have stayed free and have stayed a democratic republic is because we share respect for robust, respectful political debate. But it appears, with this administration, they have thrown that out the window to say: It is our way or it is the highway. We don't want to hear any dissent. We don't want to hear a point, a counterpoint. We don't want to entertain an objection. We are busy. We are busy pushing our socialist agenda. We don't have time for free-thinking, independent individuals to raise their hands and ask a question. It is ``get in line'' time. We have a short window. We have to make this happen.

I would suggest also that it cheapens the horrors of actual terrorism and dilutes the perceived danger of violent extremism. It is an insult to the memories of those who died in the September 11 attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing and to those who were at gunpoint at a Colleyville, TX, synagogue. But lastly and most despicably, it suggests that Americans will never be safe until we consent to live in a constant state of fear. According to this bulletin, security is impossible in the face of dissent. It betrays a nightmarish and completely un-American end game.

Today, I sent a letter to Secretary Mayorkas urging him to make it clear that this is just sloppy communication on their part.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Madam President, I would also like to briefly quote for the record precisely what I asked him to do:

I urge you to make very clear to the American public that

the Department of Homeland Security does not consider those

who disagree with this administration to be domestic

terrorists. I further urge you to clarify that the Department

will not interfere with the rights of all Americans to speak

publicly about their political views, including any views

that might conflict with the policies and political talking

points of this administration. . . . I urge you to revise the

Bulletin to make clear to the American public that it is

decidedly not the role of the Department of Homeland Security

to enforce particular narratives or to quash the speech of

those who disagree with this administration.

This is a very simple request. My hope is that Secretary Mayorkas recognizes his obligation to put everyone at ease by fulfilling it.

I can guarantee there are people in my beloved Tennessee who are very upset, as they have read this bulletin, because they treasure their free speech. They treasure the ability to have robust political debate. They like talking with their friends and neighbors and having those discussions and seeing if they can pull them to their side of an issue, whether it is a local, State, or a Federal issue. They want to preserve that freedom.

This memo says that freedom does go away, that it overrides the Constitution, that it overrides the rule of law. If you do it, somebody can report you, and it will be considered something not tolerated by this administration.

The Biden administration put out this bulletin to highlight a particular danger, but the real danger lies in the document's subtext.

Even if Secretary Mayorkas makes good on his oath to defend the Constitution and if he moves forward to revise the bulletin, I fear much damage has already been done. Through this document, the Biden administration has made it abundantly clear that they view dissent as a threat and that punishing dissent is the cost of maintaining public safety.

I wish I could dismiss this as yet another political spat, but the White House is the world's biggest and most powerful bully pulpit. When the Biden administration talks, people listen, and they take them seriously.

If what I have laid out today is not the position of the Biden administration, it is their obligation to speak up and to correct the record. If it is their position, it is our obligation as elected representatives to put ourselves between the American people and any official who would dare tolerate such a dystopian power grab.

Also, we should remind those officials that how they feel about our constitutional right to dissent is absolutely irrelevant.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, last week, most of my friends on the left pretended to be shocked by a new CNN poll that proved what a lot of Tennesseans have known for quite a while, and it is that Joe Biden and his agenda with the Biden administration is truly upside down with the American people.

Here is what we found out: Fifty-eight percent of the American people disapprove of the way he is handling his job as President. That alone is really an indictment on what they have been putting forward, but it gets a little bit worse. Sixty-two percent disapprove of how he has mishandled the economy.

Fifty-seven percent think his approach to fighting crime is not working. They believe that because they are seeing it in their streets in their hometowns.

Fifty-five percent don't like how he is responding to Xi Jinping. Fifty-six percent are worried about how he is handling Putin, and I am sure that number, in particular, will go up before the next poll comes out.

These numbers are brutal, but here is the cherry on top. Fifty-seven percent believe Biden's first year in office has been a total failure; and when asked whether or not Joe Biden's government represents the views of people like themselves, 68 percent of the people polled said, No, Joe Biden and his administration do not represent my views.

It is pretty simple--the American people are not buying what Joe Biden and this administration are selling. And the people in the White House seem to put their hands up, and they just cannot figure this out. They can't understand why the people won't just shut up and do what they are told.

Here is the secret: It is because when the people look at Washington--when Tennesseans look at Washington, and they look at who is in charge of our government--and Democrats have control of the House, the Senate, the White House--all they see is an empty suit with an agenda.

There is no vision, but there is agenda. They have got the to-do list. They have got the list of boxes they need to check off. We killed the Keystone Pipeline. We put mandates in place. We have got people in masks. We have got people in lockdowns. They are going to lose their job if they don't go get a jab. They have got an agenda.

For all of his bluster about fundamentally transforming our way of life, all Joe Biden has managed to do is to alienate his fellow countrymen.

Now, his allies are trying to turn the tide by revamping their talking points. But here is the problem: It won't work, because this administration--the Biden administration--does not have a messaging problem. Their problem is their agenda that they have that is lackluster with no vision.

But the American people are paying attention to this. And you know what they are seeing? I have to tell you, it really frightens them. It frightens them.

Doesn't matter if I go to one of the grandkids' ballgames, go to church, go

to the grocery store, run some errands, I am hearing from people what they see happening. The cramdown, the control, it frightens them.

And there is no distracting them from the fact that the President is weaponizing this liberal wish list against what they have as the vision for their future, for their children, for their family.

For the past year, Tennesseans have watched Biden dodge and weave and ignore what the people are telling him--the people are telling him. Democrats in Washington have treated their political rivals like enemies and accused them of racism, treachery, all for the crime of drawing a line in the sand and saying no.

It is amazing. I wish some of my colleagues did want to stand up for freedom. The people deserve better than that. And I will tell you what, they know it. No talking point is going to convince them to tolerate the intolerable from their government. And, yes, inflation, mandates, lockdowns, the open border, crime in the street, the debacle of Afghanistan, problems with Russia, the situation with Russia, Ukraine, China, Iran, the list grows every single day--every single day.

It is the wrong agenda. As I said, it lacks vision. At the beginning of these remarks, I said that the liberals pretended to be shocked by Biden's terrible poll numbers, and I stand by that statement because the truth is the White House, my Democratic colleagues, and their allies in the media know that they are kind of circling the drain when it comes to what they are pushing forward on the people.

But for some reason, they think that just one more power grab is going to do the trick. It will be the magic bullet. That certainly is a tactic, but it also will fail because the people know that it is the people of this country that have built this country. And it is built on a foundation that treasures faith, family, freedom, hope, and opportunity.

And if you have got an agenda and a checklist and a to-do list, but you have no vision for a better future, the American people will not buy what you are selling.

I yield the floor.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, I commend my colleague for talking about dark money. I was so curious this week when I saw--I think it was--a New York Times article about the amount of dark money that came from the Democratic side of the aisle this year far outpacing anything that Republicans had spent. So I hope he is going to be successful in dealing with some of his supporters on that side of the aisle.

Crime and Border Security

Mr. President, what I want to focus on today is a meeting that I had the opportunity to have last week with the Tennessee Association of Chiefs of Police and yesterday with Tennessee sheriffs who had come up.

And one of the things that they talked about repeatedly in these meetings is the recent crime spike. This is something on everybody's mind, and for good reason. The majority of America's 40 most populous cities saw an increase in homicides last year--40 most populous, increase, homicides. More officers were intentionally killed on the job than in any other year since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

This is why morale is low.

Shoplifting is surging, and the thieves are getting creative. Instead of stuffing merchandise in their clothing and smuggling it out the door, gangs of thieves are executing smash-and-grab raids. We are also seeing a spike in drug use. Overdose deaths were up 30 percent in 2020.

This is not trivial; it is not frivolous; it is not a laughing matter; and it is something you cannot just overlook. It is life.

And I am sorry to say that Tennessee hasn't escaped this terrible trend. In 2021, the homicide spike in Memphis set a new record. We lost more than 3,000 Tennesseans to drug overdoses in 2020.

Law enforcement officers take this personally because they see how quickly crime can destroy a community. Are they worried? Yes. Do they have reason to be worried? Absolutely. As I said, morale is low. Recruiting is hard.

But here is what struck me about my conversation with the police chiefs and the sheriffs. They don't only consider the local effects. They really see the big picture and the issue writ large for what it truly is.

You won't be surprised to know that the lack of security along our southern border came up more than once in these conversations. The chiefs, the officers see the ripple effects of the Biden administration's absolutely demoralizing failure to enforce the law.

On his first day in the White House, President Biden endorsed lawlessness when he made it harder for Border Patrol to secure the country. That stroke of a pen caused absolute chaos on our southern border.

Border Patrol detained more than 1.7 million migrants between January and September of 2021, and 1.1 million of those people were single adults. They were not families.

Those 1.7 million were just the ones we were able to catch. We will never know how many hundreds of thousands of ``got-aways'' made it into the interior of the country, nor do we know what they were bringing in with them that they were trying to evade the Border Patrol.

People and drugs are flowing across the border. Just last week, I came here to the floor and told the story of the Border Patrol's $7 million week. Between January 21 and January 28, 1 week, they seized 47 pounds of meth, 3,800 pounds of marijuana, and almost 20 pounds of cocaine--1 week.

Hopefully, those drug mules are behind bars, but, remember, those are just the drug mules we caught. We do not know what the ``got-aways'' were bringing in with them or how many drug mules there were or how many hundreds of women they were trafficking in for sex trafficking, for human trafficking, for gangs, for labor crews. We don't know.

My Democratic colleagues continue to spin the border crisis as a purely humanitarian issue, but what we are seeing along our southern border is lawbreaking. In many cases, it is dangerous criminal behavior. And the Biden administration is ignoring every bit of it. Don't believe what you see. Don't believe the Border Patrol. Don't believe the people who are down there running videos. Oh, no. Everything is fine. Just listen to them.

But do you know who does not believe this? Our law enforcement officers. They don't believe what this administration is saying because they see something different. Every town is a border town, every State is a border State because of that open southern border.

Our law enforcement officers can't ignore this. They can't ignore the ripple effects because they live it every single day. They put on the belt, the badge. They go out, and they do their job. They see how the Democrats' desire to ignore lawless behavior when it benefits their narrative has created a perfect storm of violence, of fear, and has empowered criminals--not quite the message you want to send if you believe in the rule of law.

Just yesterday, I had to send a letter to Health and Human Services demanding to know why taxpayer dollars are funding fresh crack pipes for drug addicts. That is right. A HHS spokesman has confirmed that the Agency is pushing a grant program that would fund so-called smoking kits with pipes for users to smoke crystal meth, crack cocaine, and ``any illicit substances''--government-funded drug paraphernalia.

Every once in a while, you think you have heard it all. Meanwhile, the border sits wide open, crime is on the rise, and we are asking police departments to do more with less.

A recent survey showed that between April 2020 and April 2021, police force retirements were up 45 percent, and resignations were up 18 percent compared to the previous year. There is no coincidence there.

It is time for the administration to decide whose side they are on. Are they on the side of the American people? Are they on the side of law enforcement? Are they on the side of criminals and monsters who really are responsible for this terrible crime spike?

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, here in the United States, the mobile app market represents a reliable multibillion-dollar payday for Big Tech. In 2020, Americans downloaded 13.4 billion apps onto their mobile devices.

Needless to say, mobile apps are a key component of our digital economy, so it may be surprising to learn that this market is largely unregulated, unless you count the influence of the two mega corporations that created it.

Apple and Google have abused their power and used their status as gatekeepers to stifle innovation and penalize developers who want to work alongside them rather than ceding control over their products. This is bad for the industry. It is bad for consumers. It is bad for the country.

These gatekeeping tendencies aren't just a bump in the road for developers; they are a roadblock that completely closes off avenues of competition. Apple, for example, forces developers to use their exorbitantly expensive App Store payment system, which funnels profits away from the creators, and it raises prices for consumers. It is a take-it-or-leave-it arrangement. Of course, when developers do take the deal, they leave their relationship with their customers behind because the terms prohibit them from dealing directly with the people who use their products. They also have to accept that Apple and Google will not only prioritize native applications, but they will take their competitors' confidential business information and use it against them.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed my Open App Markets Act, which is a bill we have worked some very long hours on. Finally, we are addressing the stranglehold Big Tech has on the digital app market. I really do thank Senator Blumenthal and his staff, as well as our cosponsors, Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, Lummis, Booker, Graham, Kennedy, Hirono, Hawley, and Chairman Durbin, for putting in so much time and effort to create this bipartisan piece of legislation.

This bill will reset the rules of the road to protect competition and consumers by allowing consumers to access third-party apps and app stores, by prohibiting app store owners from locking developers into in-app payment arrangements, by ensuring that app developers are allowed to offer competitive pricing, and by preventing app stores from misusing confidential business information or app store rankings to disadvantage developers. If app store gatekeepers violate these rules of the road, the bill allows for developer lawsuits. It also includes safeguards to allow app stores to protect the privacy, security, and safety of consumers, as well as their own intellectual property rights.

It is bipartisan, and it is a good, solid, strong first step. But, remember, our tradition of maintaining competitive marketplaces isn't the only thing at stake here.

This weekend, the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games in Beijing drew in 16 million viewers. That is down from the last Winter Games in 2018, so hopefully, this means that the various campaigns exposing the crimes and manipulation of the Chinese Communist Party are making a difference.

But, still, those 16 million people and their families are taking in Chinese propaganda. The Games' corporate sponsors weren't worried about that; they were happy to take advantage of all those eyeballs. And we know NBC hopes to surpass the nearly $2 billion in revenue they pulled in during the Tokyo Games.

Protecting that competitiveness is important, but I would argue that protecting the human rights of people those sponsors and broadcasters are happy to sweep under the rug is even more important. And right at this very moment, Big Tech is facilitating crimes against humanity in China.

Beijing is notorious for censoring speech critical of the communist government, but part of their grand strategy to silence dissent involves strong-arming corporations seeking access to the very lucrative Chinese market. It is not enough to offer an exciting product; you have to play nice with the CCP or else you are out. You can't be in their market. That means staying quiet about genocide in Xinjiang or violent repression in Hong Kong and doing everything in your power to make sure your customers stay silent too.

The Open App Markets Act has received an outpouring of support from human rights activists who see firsthand how corporate gatekeeping actively endangers the lives of dissidents, activists, Uighur Muslims, Mongols, Tibetans, Hong Kong freedom fighters, and other innocent people the CCP has chosen to brutalize. We received a letter of support for the Open App Markets Act signed by many of these individuals that I would like to share. They wrote, in part:

China suppresses nearly all dissent using its notorious

``Great Firewall'' internet filtering system and through the

cooperation of domestic and foreign companies that are

willing to block and remove accounts, content, and

applications at the unchallenged request of Chinese

authorities.

Few American companies are as subservient to the Chinese

government as Apple. Apple willingly censors dissenting

voices and independent media for all in China and Hong Kong

using its control over the App Store.

We received another letter from the human rights organization GreatFire that details specific examples of Apple doing the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party. They wrote in part:

GreatFire, an organization dedicated to fighting internet

censorship, started monitoring Apple's censorship in November

2013, when Apple decided to remove our ``Free Weibo''

application from the Chinese App Store. Apple did not even

wait for the intervention of any Chinese judicial authority

to determine if our app had actually broken any Chinese law.

It collaborated with the Chinese authorities and dealt with

our app the same way it has continued to deal with many more

apps: by enforcing arbitrary and politically motivated

censorship to ensure its financial interest.

I ask unanimous consent to have these two letters printed in the Record.

It makes no sense to make a name for yourself creating secure devices for Western users but to then turn around and go out of your way to make the devices in the hands of the world's most vulnerable people less secure.

The time has come for us as a country to decide what matters more: preserving this toxic entanglement with China or preserving life and liberty and the democratic ideals that make us so fortunate to begin with.

I ask my colleagues to consider joining me and Senator Blumenthal in support of the Open App Markets Act to protect competition, to protect consumers, and to protect those basic human rights that the world's most powerful corporations have decided should take a backseat to access and profit.

I yield the floor.