Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, it hardly seemed possible that the reports and images from Ukraine could grow even more horrifying, but they actually have.

In recent days, Ukrainian troops have reclaimed the town of Bucha from the illegal and illegitimate Russian invasion. And in the wake of the retreating Russians, the Ukrainians and the press have reported evidence of evil, wanton torture, rape, and murder of civilians. There are reports of mass graves, of people executed with their hands bound behind their backs. The photographs and reports are sickening and appalling.

Since before Putin even began his escalation, I have spent months pushing the Biden administration and our allies and partners to get as much lethal assistance possible to the Ukrainians as quickly as possible. I have supported

many of the steps our President has gotten around to taking, but in almost every case, I wish he had acted sooner and more boldly.

We know of the horrors committed by Russian forces in Bucha because the Ukrainian military reclaimed the town after pushing back the Russians. These latest revelations must only strengthen and intensify our resolve to get the Ukrainians what they need, on the timeframe they need, to liberate more towns currently under Russian control, to prevent Russia from committing new atrocities, to fight and to actually win this war.

This also further reinforces what I wish more of our European friends realize: This is a time for choosing. This is not a time for business as usual, and there can be no return to business as usual whenever and however the dust settles.

Europe must move more urgently to decouple from Russia. Yes, this will entail some short-term economic pain. Yes, their own shortsighted energy policies have left their countries entirely too dependent. But there are times when geopolitical realities and moral imperatives must outweigh short-term financial costs. Our partners should recognize that such a time is staring them right in the face, so should our own American private sector.

Internationally, I am sure there will be much virtue-signaling rhetoric over the atrocities committed on Ukrainian soil by Russia. Let us be honest that referrals to the International Criminal Court or invocations of the U.N. Human Rights Council may make people's consciences feel better but will not curtail the atrocities or stop the violence. Only victory in Ukraine can do that.

Finally, the outpouring of outrage at these atrocities should prompt a second look at other terrible actions that the world has come to simply shrug and accept.

The Biden administration is right to ask the U.N. to expel Russia from the Human Rights Council, but they shouldn't stop there. The world that rightly recoils in horror at the photographs from Ukraine should not look the other way past Xi's concentration camps for the Uighur people. The modern totalitarianism of the People's Republic of China is no less abhorrent because it is sanitized and it is organized. The world's worst abusers of human rights do not deserve to sit on such a Council.

Border Security

Madam President, now on another matter, our southern border is already in crisis on Democrats' watch. And on Friday, the Biden administration announced they are going to throw open the floodgates even wider.

In December 2020, right before President Biden took office, he said it would be ``the last thing we need'' if we were to ``end up with two million people on our border.'' But in 2021, on his watch, under his policies, that is exactly what America got.

Last year saw a record-shattering 2 million arrests on our southern border; 2 million people--more than the population of 13 whole States-- from at least 160 different countries. And those are just the people who actually got caught. And 2022 is already on track to be even worse. As we speak, border officials are encountering roughly 7,000 persons each day, and the Department of Homeland Security predicts this pace could more than double.

The Biden administration's own officials say they are contingency planning for 18,000 encounters every single day. For perspective, that pace would be equivalent to 6.6 million--6.6 million--per year, a population larger than all but 17 of our States.

Now, thus far, the Biden administration kept using a legal tool called title 42, which they inherited from the prior administration because of the COVID pandemic.

Title 42 provides a shortcut for swift border enforcement. It has given the administration a fast track to turn people around as they arrive.

In February, more than 91,000 people were immediately turned around under title 42. Another 73,000 were allowed to stay and navigate our system.

So, without title 42, instead of adding 73,000 illegal immigrants to our system alone, we would have added more than double that--160,000-- in just 1 month. But, on Friday, the Biden administration announced an unbelievably bad decision. They are going to further cave to the far left that wants open borders. They are going to cancel title 42 this spring with no real border security plan to replace it.

This is such an absurd decision, such an unforced gaffe, that even some of our Senate Democratic colleagues have come out swinging. Our colleague from West Virginia correctly described this as ``a frightening decision'' to abandon ``an essential tool'' when ``we are already facing an unprecedented increase in migrants.'' Another Senate Democrat said, ``This is the wrong decision.'' A third said it ``shows a lack of understanding about the crisis at our border.'' A fourth said the move ``will likely lead to a migrant surge that the administration does not appear to be ready for.''

The problem is that these same Senate Democrats have backed this far- left administration over and over again on immigration. Every single Democratic Senator supported both Secretaries Mayorkas and Becerra. Every single Democrat Senator voted against preserving ``Remain in Mexico,'' voted against defunding sanctuary cities, and voted against an amendment that would have funded the full enforcement of all immigration laws.

Later this week, we expect every Democratic Senator to vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee who is a proven judicial activist on this very issue. Judge Jackson has gone beyond the judicial role to rewrite immigration policy from the bench and make it even more liberal. In one case, she ignored the plain text of the law to reach a more liberal outcome. She even tried to force a nationwide injunction on the entire country. Judge Jackson went so far beyond the law to remake immigration policy that even the liberal DC Circuit had to overturn her mistaken ruling. An Obama appointee wrote the decision that overturned Judge Jackson.

So I am glad to see our Democratic colleagues belatedly waking up to the border crisis and beginning to pressure the administration. Fourteen months late is better than never. But votes speak louder than press releases. The measure of a Senator's position isn't our rhetoric; it is actually our votes.

If our colleagues who have stood in lockstep with President Biden's border crisis thus far are serious about turning over a new leaf, they can start with the Supreme Court vote later this week.

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

Madam President, well, the Biden administration is on track for another record-shattering year on our southern border--in all the wrong ways.

The Department of Homeland Security is reportedly preparing for up to 18,000 attempted border crossings per day--18,000 per day.

President Biden's border crisis is a symptom of the modern Democratic Party's inability to support any remotely reasonable policy of border enforcement.

Now, thus far, the Biden administration has kept the chaos at least somewhat in check by leaning on emergency authorities that are specific to the COVID pandemic. To be clear, even with these title 42 authorities in place, our border has still been in crisis. Last month was the worst February in more than 20 years. We just saw the worst 12- month period for illegal crossings since at least--listen to this-- 1960. This is with title 42 in place. Just imagine if President Biden kills it.

But the open-borders far left doesn't like title 42. So now, according to public reports, the Biden administration is preparing to cave to the radicals, end title 42, and effectively throw our borders completely wide open.

Ending title 42 without any real border security plan in place would spark a humanitarian and security crisis like we have never seen before. But it is pretty obvious the far left doesn't care. Open borders are their objective.

So at the same time Washington Democrats are pushing for more Federal spending on the pandemic, they

want to declare the pandemic is finished at our southern border. This doesn't add up.

Throwing the floodgates open for an historic spring and summer of illegal immigration would be an unforced error of historic proportions. It would be right up there with the administration's $2 trillion in inflationary spending and their botched retreat from Afghanistan.

But this goes deeper than just title 42 and COVID. The fundamental point is this: Today's Democrats need the pretext of the pandemic to justify having national borders at all. The left feels they need the pretext of COVID to have any--any--border enforcement whatsoever.

This is absolutely mind-boggling.

Republicans and the American people reject this false choice between permanent COVID versus open borders. We can't only be a sovereign nation during pandemics. Americans deserve secure borders all the time.

Functional open borders have pervaded the Biden agenda at literally every level. The President chose a Supreme Court nominee, Judge Jackson, who has displayed a major streak of judicial activism on this very subject, illegal immigration.

In 2019, the judge sided with the leftwing activists and overlooked plain statutory language that gave DHS ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' over the speedy removal of illegal immigrants. Judge Jackson literally just brushed aside the plain text of the law to reach the policy outcome she wanted, and she went even further. She issued a nationwide injunction--a nationwide injunction--to impose her radical policy view on our entire country.

This was a blatant case of judicial activism. The ruling read like it belonged on the opinion pages of the Washington Post. Even the very liberal DC Circuit completely disagreed and overturned Judge Jackson, with an Obama appointee writing the opinion.

It should not be this hard for an administration to understand that a nation actually needs borders.

I strongly urge the President to keep title 42 in place and quickly produce an actual strategy to do his job and secure our border.

The Economy

Madam President, on another matter, the American people know our country is hurting. One national survey just found that only 22 percent say our country is headed in the right direction. Seven in ten Americans just told another poll that our Nation's economy is ``in poor shape.''

The worst inflation in 40 years is fleecing American consumers from the gas pump to the grocery store. American workers are earning raises, but prices are climbing faster than their pay.

The Biden administration has tried to pass the buck for this mess. They have tried to blame everything but their own radical policies. They have claimed that a year of runaway inflation was actually--listen to this--``Putin's price hike,'' because of a war in Europe that is barely a month old. They have claimed the problem is evil profiteering CEOs, because, apparently, the private sector was not seeking profits back when the Republicans had the economy humming with low inflation just a few years ago.

American families aren't buying the spin for one second. When asked by another poll what they think is the main reason for rising gas prices--listen to this--Americans' top answer was ``the Biden administration's economic policies.''

An outright majority of the country agrees the President has made inflation worse, but the administration isn't changing course. They are actually doubling down.

The Biden administration began the week by proposing a budget that would skyrocket domestic discretionary spending on liberal wish-list items and smack the country with the biggest tax hike in American history.

Just last night, Democrats tried to ram through another radical nominee who would only have compounded the economic pain. President Biden's choice of David Weil for a senior post at the Department of Labor was a naked attempt to achieve through bureaucracy what the far- left cannot achieve through legislation. This nominee is famous in Washington for hostility to small business. He has received tens of thousands of dollars from Big Labor to do their bidding. He openly sought to end both the franchise system and the gig economy as we know them.

Fortunately--fortunately--last night, a bipartisan majority of Senators rallied together. We saved the President and the Democratic leader from digging themselves into an even deeper hole with this nominee.

Also overnight, we learned President Biden is going to try to slap another bandaid on gas prices by draining more oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The reserve is supposed to exist for giant unforeseen crises, such as a war between great powers. It is not there so that anti-energy politicians whose policies have raised gas prices can try to hide that from the public.

It is also worth remembering that back in 2020, as oil prices were cratering, Republicans tried to seize the opportunity to rebuild the Strategic Reserve. It would have been a win-win-win to help stabilize our energy industry in the early days of the crisis, gotten American taxpayers an incredible deal with oil at bargain-basement prices, and enhanced our readiness going forward.

But you know what happened. Senate Democrats blocked it. They said buying oil at rock-bottom prices and building up our reserve would have been--listen to this--``a bailout for Big Oil.'' So the Democratic leader bragged about killing that proposal.

You can't make this stuff up.

Our colleagues misunderstand basic economics and basic national security every chance they get. Taxing, spending, radical nominations, and gimmicky half-measures--the American people already blame the Democrats for the fix we are in, and, every week, our colleagues seek new ways to prove them right.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, I oppose Judge Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation for three main reasons. First, Judge Jackson has refused to follow the Ginsburg-Breyer model and denounce partisan Court-packing. She testified she would be ``thrilled to be one of however many.''

Second, Judge Jackson was not sufficiently forthcoming on judicial philosophy to dispel President Biden's public litmus test that he would only nominate a judicial activist.

And, third, Judge Jackson's personal policy views on criminal sentencing have clearly slanted her jurisprudence. The average violent criminal who was convicted in Judge Jackson's courtroom got a sentence nearly 2 years lower than the Federal guidelines. The average drug criminal, gun criminal, sex criminal, and financial criminal before Judge Jackson all came in underneath the guidelines as well.

In the specific area of child exploitation crimes, the nominee was lenient to the extreme. The average Federal judge sentences one out of every three child pornography possessors to a sentence within the stiff guidelines.

Judge Jackson never did it once. The national average is 1 out of 3, and Judge Jackson went 0 for 11. As she told Senators repeatedly, this was not some case-by-case coincidence but rather her consistent policy bias.

I was making policy determinations.

I have policy disagreements with certain aspects of the

operation of the guidelines.

The Washington Post just interviewed a convicted possessor of child pornography who was supposed to get 8 to 10 years under the guidelines. The prosecutor wanted 2 years; Judge Jackson gave him 3 months--her ``policy disagreements'' in action.

This criminal realizes he was lucky to end up in Judge Jackson's courtroom. Here is what he told the Post:

I wasn't very happy that she gave me three months, though,

after reflection when I was in jail, I was hearing from other

people who said it was their first time arrested and they got

five years, six years.

This is not a few cherry-picked cases. This is a consistent thread that runs through Judge Jackson's accomplished legal career.

In 2011, as vice chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Judge Jackson reportedly made the jaw-dropping argument that if criminals were going to recidivate no matter what, it doesn't matter whether we lock them up for a long time or let them out early.

If we keep them in jail for the extra 36 months, or

whatever, they're going to recidivate at the same rate.

A U.S. attorney replied with the obvious point that criminals can only reoffend if they are back on the streets.

In 2020, Judge Jackson rewrote the FIRST STEP Act on the bench to let a fentanyl trafficker out of jail early. In 2018, while initially sentencing this defendant, she apologized to him and voiced frustration that the law forced her to apply a tough sentence. Two years later, she twisted the law to let him out.

Last year, Judge Jackson granted compassionate release to someone who shot and killed a U.S. marshal. The Parole Commission had repeatedly denied this release, but Judge Jackson let him out.

These are not personal criticisms of Judge Jackson. They are what the nominee herself calls these decisions ``policy differences.'' And policymaking is supposed to happen here in this Chamber, not in the courthouse across the street.

This isn't just about this nomination. The Biden administration has a sweeping project to make the whole Federal judiciary softer on crime.

Even as this violent crimewave we are experiencing sweeps across America, the Biden administration is pursuing an ideological mission to make the Federal bench kinder and gentler to criminals.

Judge Jackson's record suggests she stretches the judicial role to advance that project.

Last night, five people were killed by a Palestinian gunman outside Tel Aviv. It was the fifth time in just 2 weeks that unprovoked violence has shattered lives on Israel's streets. Eleven innocent victims are now dead. They include people of different faiths. Several were Arab Israelis.

As Jews, Christians, and Muslims prepare for some of the holiest days of the year, families in Israel are in mourning. I know I speak for all of our colleagues in offering them the Senate's deepest sympathies.

America, like our Arab and Israeli friends, must remain clear-eyed. The war against terrorism will not fight itself. We cannot afford to be complacent; we must continue to invest in the common mission of security and peace; and we must always stand firmly with our ally Israel.

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

Mr. President, Democrats' massive inflation is an inescapable, painful, daily reality for working families. These policy failures have hammered my home State of Kentucky. Last year, even as many Kentuckians earned raises, prices skyrocketed faster. Used car prices shot up 40 percent in the Commonwealth last year. In Louisville, the gas to drive those cars costs more than a dollar more per gallon today than a year ago.

In typical Bluegrass fashion, neighbors are helping one another as best they can. According to the owner of Parkette Drive-In in Lexington, even as prices for ingredients like chicken have nearly doubled, he has chosen to cut back as much as possible on his end to avoid raising prices for customers.

But as hard as Kentuckians try, Democrats' reckless policies are coming home to roost. As one father of four who lost his job following the devastating Mayfield tornado in December put it, ``there's no stretching money at this point.''

An outright majority of Americans say inflation is not at all under control. Seven in 10 say our economy is in bad shape, and by all accounts, they know exactly whom to blame for a year of painful challenges.

Sixty-three percent of Americans, nearly two-thirds, say they disapprove of how President Biden is handling the economy, and that number just keeps rising.

But Washington Democrats do not appear to have gotten the message. The Biden administration's new budget proposal leans even further into the policies that got us here in the first place.

Even as President Biden has already presided over soaring prices for gas and home heating fuels, he wants massive new tax hikes on American- made fossil fuels. He wants to skyrocket discretionary domestic spending on a whole catalog of liberal wish-list items, and he wants to compound the pain on our economy by slapping the biggest tax hikes in American history right on top of all of it.

So the past year has taught us how painful Washington Democrats' policies can be for hard-working Americans. The administration needs to stop trying to dig this hole any deeper.

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

President Biden likes to say, and has said again today, that budgets are statements of values. Indeed, they can be, and the White House budget request that President Biden published today offers the clearest possible reminder that the Biden administration's far-left values are fundamentally disconnected from what American families actually need.

I mentioned around President Biden's State of the Union that the speech gave the President a chance to pivot. He has had a chance to assess the poll numbers, read the tea leaves, and make a dramatic course correction back toward where Americans would like for him to be. But he chose not to, and this budget proposal is just the mathematical version of that failure to pivot.

The White House is desperately spinning to call this budget centrist, but there is nothing remotely moderate about what is in it.

First and foremost, at a dangerous time, the President's budget falls woefully short on defense spending. Our Commander in Chief has again failed to budget for the resources that our Armed Forces actually need. The Biden administration proposes a nominal 4-percent increase for defense over the bipartisan bill Congress just passed for this year.

That is a nominal 4-percent increase before any of the Democrats' historic inflation is taken into account, and inflation right now is about twice that. So even if you accept the White House's rosiest predictions about where inflation is headed, this would amount to flat- funding defense, with none of the robust growth we need to keep pace with Russia and China. Even in the best case scenario for their budget, it

would leave our Armed Forces simply treading water.

And what if Democrats' historic inflation does not plummet downward as quickly as they would like? What if the inflation they have caused keeps sticking around? Then, President Biden's budget would actually cut funding for our Armed Forces in real dollars.

Look, the world is a dangerous place and growing more dangerous by the day. Putin's escalation in Europe has created significant new requirements for the Pentagon and our defense industrial base. We have growing threats from Iran. China is pouring money into high-tech weapons systems. Beijing announced that they are increasing defense spending again this year by more than 7 percent.

So, amid all this, the White House has proposed no meaningful increase in resources for protecting innocent Americans, promoting our interests, supporting our partners, assisting Ukraine, or replenishing our stockpiles. President Biden likes to give speeches about the need for American leadership in the world, but when the rubber meets the road, when it is time to invest so we can rise and meet challenges like Russia and China, this President has, again, decided to do exactly the opposite. Putin and Xi will sleep more soundly at night if the Biden administration gets its way on defense funding than if Republicans get ours.

Now, let's look at the places where President Biden does want to pull out all the stops and hand out massive funding increases. Our Armed Forces may get the short end of the stick from this White House, but plenty, plenty of far-left domestic priorities will be literally swimming in cash.

While they limit defense to 4 percent growth before inflation, nondefense spending would get a significantly larger increase--not all of domestic spending however. Border security and the Department of Homeland Security barely tread water, just like our troops. But other Agencies and Departments that are more useful for the far-left agenda, like the IRS, the EPA, Commerce, HUD, and Labor make out like bandits with gigantic--gigantic--increases of 20 and 30 percent since 2021.

They want to pour money into absurdities like the U.N. Green Climate Fund--borrow from China to fund a global bureaucracy that will hand free money back to China. There is plenty of money for things like antigun regulations, free lawyers for illegal immigrants, and something called ``environmental justice.''

This whole far-left feast leaves out the reckless taxing-and-spending spree that Democrats failed to pass last year and are now trying to revive. The Biden administration still wants all that spending, too, but they couldn't even budget for it honestly.

And all of the bloated liberal nonsense comes paired with the biggest tax hike in American history--a 2.5-plus-trillion-dollar bomb of tax hikes dropped on top of an economy that the Democrats' policies have already hurt badly, literally--literally--the largest tax hike in history.

Among those increases, President Biden wants to use colossal tax hikes to punish domestic producers of American energy. World events are reminding us every day how important American oil and natural gas production is for our national security and for our partners, but President Biden would rather grind his ideological ax and escalate his holy war on ``Made in America'' fossil fuels.

This--this--is the budget request of an administration that is completely disconnected from reality, of a President who has decided not to pivot, of a Democratic Party that has chosen not to correct course on its own.

Every data point suggests that the American people want and need a major course correction. It appears that in about 7 months, they may have to provide it themselves.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, yesterday, I said I hoped the second day of Judge Jackson's responses would provide more clarity on some vital questions. Unfortunately, the nominee's answers trended the other way. Regarding the Court as an institution, the nominee continued to reject the examples of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. She refused to denounce partisan Court packing. On judicial philosophy, the judge continued to deflect actually basic questions.

The lack of candor is especially troubling since the President sent us a nominee with no meaningful written record on constitutional matters. For more than 8 of Judge Jackson's 9 years on the Federal bench, she was a trial judge on the district court. As the nominee herself explained on Tuesday, that role neither requires a particular talent for constitutional interpretation nor gives judges much of a chance to exhibit one. She deflected a question about judicial philosophy by explaining that such questions do not often occur to her on the lower court.

District court records alone shed little light on what kind of Supreme Court Justice someone might be.

Now, Judge Jackson's current post on the DC Circuit is a much closer analog. The problem is, she has held that position for less than a year and has only published two opinions. Justice Gorsuch had authored 212 circuit court opinions before he was nominated to the Supreme Court. Justice Kavanaugh had written 306. Senators had an unbelievable wealth of writings to examine. As to Justice Barrett, in just 3 years on the Seventh Circuit, she had already written 91 appellate opinions, not to mention her many academic writings on constitutional law. Judge Jackson has written a total of two circuit court opinions--just two.

The only real body of evidence before the Senate is her record as a trial judge. Like I mentioned, those rulings communicate very little about the judge's approach to big-picture questions of interpretation. But to make matters worse, Judge Jackson declined to answer basic questions about those rulings. Senators asked about clear patterns in the judge's criminal sentencing decisions. The nominee deflected by saying every case is unique. So Senators tried to examine one case at a time. Then the nominee said she couldn't recall details. So Senators tried to supply the details. Then the nominee stonewalled and said no one case can fully capture a judge's record.

This made up an endless circle of evasion. Judge Jackson wouldn't address broad patterns in her rulings because she said it was unfair-- unfair--for Senators to zoom out, and she wouldn't discuss specific cases because she said it was unfair for Senators to zoom in.

Since the only real body of evidence before the Senate is Judge Jackson's trial records, Senators asked why she consistently opposed weak sentences for certain crimes.

The nominee then ducked the question over and over. She blamed Congress for giving her that discretion in the first place. Both the nominee and then Chairman Durbin kept repeating that if Senators wanted to guarantee harsher penalties, we could mandate them.

That is true, but it is a non sequitur.

Senators wanted to know why Judge Jackson used the discretion she actually did have in the specific ways she chose to use it. The Senators were trying to understand what this nominee does with discretion when she has it.

But, again, the nominee would not answer. She kept blaming the mere existence of her discretion for her decisions to go soft on criminals, when she could have just as easily used that discretion to be tough. We basically had a nominee saying that: If Senators want me to be tough on crime, you will have to change the laws to force me--force me--to do it.

In several egregious instances, from child exploitation to fentanyl trafficking, the nominee used especially unusual and creative legal moves that stretched the bounds of the judicial role. In the nominee's own words, she simply has a ``policy disagreement'' with parts of the sentencing law.

Evidently, the judge's personal policy views change how she applies the law.

Finally, I understand some Democratic Senators held a press conference yesterday to complain that Republicans' questions were too tough.

Of course, nobody could have less credibility to police the fine details of confirmation hearings than our Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. The last 48 hours were a dry and friendly legal seminar compared to the circus that Democrats inflicted on the country just a few years back.

The American people know it is not asking too much to ask a Federal judge legal questions about her record. I just wish the Senate had gotten more answers.

Ukraine

Madam President, now on a different matter, today, President Biden is overseas meeting with America's closest European allies as Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine enters its second month.

He is engaging with a Europe that has been profoundly changed. NATO allies have watched a neighbor invaded by an aggressive Russia. Some, like Germany, are ending 30 years--30 years--of post-Cold War neglect for military modernization and energy security.

I am glad that, as I urged last week, the President's itinerary will include not just Western Europe, but also Poland. His presence on the eastern flank will send an important message. Of course, the most concrete way to support Ukraine is with greater commitments of lethal aid. Ukrainian forces can win this fight.

Let me say that again. Ukrainian forces can win this fight. But they need more weapons, more ammunition, more fuel, and they need it all as fast as possible.

The allies and partners who are helping equip Ukraine also need replenishing their own arsenals. But the fight has highlighted shortcomings in both our current stockpiles of critical weapons and munitions and our industrial capacity to produce more quickly.

As other NATO members wake up to the importance of long-term investments in defense, America should lead by example. We have to meet the military requirements that come from being a superpower facing growing threats to our global interests: sustained increases in defense spending, deeper inventories of critical weapons systems and munitions, less redtape, work with industry to make our development and production systems more nimble.

This will not only help us meet the growing requirements of our military but also ensure we can be a reliable supplier of weapons and munitions to our allies and our partners.

As the Washington Post reported just yesterday, recent events have caught our defense industrial base napping.

Here is the quote from the Post:

[W]eapons manufacturers weren't geared up to make antitank

and antiaircraft arms at a wartime pace. While the United

States had 13,000 Stingers in its stockpile before the

invasion, there were no plans to produce more en masse . . .

Militaries in Europe that have given their Stingers and

antitank missiles to Ukraine now want to refill depleted

stocks, creating competition for new units rolling off the

assembly line.

So President Biden already has real power to address this himself. The Defense Production Act was created during a period of tense competition with Russia to bolster production of critical military supplies. The exact circumstance we are in right now.

Ironically, the far left has demanded the President invoke the Defense Production Act for everything but--everything but--its central purpose. They don't want to use the Defense Production Act to bolster defenses, but, rather, to force taxpayer money into renewable energy schemes that are not ready for prime time. Democrats should be using the Defense Production Act to literally produce more defenses, but they want, instead, to use it to spin up some more Solyndras.

Of course, the real solution for global energy concerns is not throwing money into finicky technologies that themselves rely on Russian and Chinese supply chains. It is to unshackle U.S. energy producers. We can help meet Europe's needs by increasing American crude and LNG exports, but our European friends will have to make necessary sacrifices to wean themselves off of reliance on Russia.

Putin's war of aggression reminds us the so-called international order is not self-enforcing. The relative Pax Americana that has lasted for the better part of a century does not--not--sustain itself automatically. American leadership remains in very high demand.

Putin's unprovoked war has further discredited the small pockets in both of our political parties who want America to pull back from the world stage, who excuse the behavior of tyrants, who think it would be prudent and sensible to cede vast spheres of influence to Russia and China. There is nothing remotely prudent or sensible about handing over entire regions of the world to these thugs.

The national security interests of the United States have never stopped at our own borders, and they certainly do not today. We are a superpower with worldwide interests requiring a worldwide presence and a worldwide network of allies and partners. American power will not preserve itself. American security will not protect itself. American interests will not uphold themselves. And America's partners will not lead themselves.

This awesome responsibility falls on the shoulders of the President of the United States, the leader of the free world. President Biden has an opportunity as soon as he returns from Europe to begin charting the right course for America and the West.

On Monday, his administration will submit his budget request for the next fiscal year. We will see if the President finally commits to investing in a future of strong American leadership.

Our global challenges are not partisan issues; they are American issues. I sincerely hope that the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces submits a defense budget request that reflects this reality.

The world is dangerous and getting smaller. America must not shrink from the challenge, but rise and meet it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee has completed its hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. I enjoyed meeting the nominee. I went into the Senate's process with an open mind.

But after studying the nominee's record and watching her performance this week, I cannot and will not support Judge Jackson for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

First, Judge Jackson refuses to reject the fringe position that Democrats should try to pack the Supreme Court. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer had no problem denouncing this unpopular view and defending their institution. I assumed this would be an easy softball for Judge Jackson, but it wasn't. The nominee suggested there are two legitimate sides to the issue. She testified she has a view on the matter but would not share it. She inaccurately compared her nonanswer to a different, narrower question that a prior nominee was asked. But Judge Jackson, seemingly, actually tipped her hand. She said she would be ``thrilled to be one of however many.''

``However many.''

The opposite of Ginsburg and Breyer's sentiment. The most radical pro-court-packing fringe groups badly wanted this nominee for this vacancy. Judge Jackson was the court-packer's pick, and she testified like it.

Second, for decades, activist judges have hurt the country by trying to make policy from the bench. This has made judicial philosophy a key qualification that Senators must consider.

President Biden stated he would only appoint a Supreme Court Justice with a specific approach that is neither textualist nor originalist. That is the President's litmus test: No strict constructionists need apply. And that President picked Judge Jackson.

If the nominee had a paper trail on constitutional issues, perhaps it could reassure us, but she doesn't. When Justice Gorsuch was nominated to the Supreme Court, he had written more than 200 circuit court opinions that Senators could actually study. Justice Kavanaugh had written more than 300. Justice Barrett outpaced them both. She wrote almost 100 appellate opinions in just 3 years, plus years of scholarship as a star professor that Senators could actually examine.

Judge Jackson has been on the DC Circuit for less than a year. She has published only two opinions. Beforehand, Judge Jackson served as a trial judge on the district court. She testified on Tuesday that that role did not provide many opportunities to think about constitutional interpretation.

Yet when Senators tried to dig in on judicial philosophy, the judge deflected and pointed back to the same record she acknowledged would not shed much light. One Senator simply asked the judge to summarize-- summarize--well-known differences between the approaches of some current Justices. The nominee replied that 2 weeks' notice had not been enough time to prepare an answer.

President Biden said he would only nominate a judicial activist. Unfortunately, we saw no reason to suspect that he accidentally did the opposite.

Third, and relatedly, we are in the midst of a national violent crime wave and exploding illegal immigration. Unbelievably, the Biden administration has nevertheless launched a national campaign to make the Federal bench systemically softer on crime. The New York Times calls this a ``sea change.''

Is it more likely the administration chose a Supreme Court nominee who would push against their big campaign or somebody who would be its crowning jewel?

This is one area where Judge Jackson's trial court records provide a wealth of information, and it is troubling, indeed.

The judge regularly gave certain terrible kinds of criminals light sentences that were beneath the sentencing guidelines and beneath the prosecutor's request.

The judge herself, this week, used the phrase ``policy disagreement'' to describe this subject. The issue isn't just the sentences. It is also the judge's rhetoric and trial transcript and the creative ways she actually bent the law.

In one instance, Judge Jackson used COVID as a pretext to essentially rewrite--rewrite--a criminal justice reform law from the bench and make it retroactive, which Congress, of course, had declined to do. She did so to cut the sentence of a fentanyl trafficker while Americans died in huge numbers from overdoses.

Judge Jackson declined to walk Senators through the merits of her reasoning in specific cases. She just kept repeating that it was her discretion and if Congress didn't like it, it was our fault for giving her the discretion. That is hardly an explanation as to why she uses her discretion the way she does.

It was not reassuring to hear Judge Jackson essentially say that if Senators want her to be tough on crime, we need to change the law, take away her discretion, and force her to do it.

That response seems to confirm that deeply held personal policy views seep into her jurisprudence, and that is exactly what the record suggests.

I will conclude with this. Late on Tuesday, after hours of questioning, I believe we may have witnessed a telling moment. Under questioning about judicial activism, Judge Jackson bluntly said this:

Well, any time the Supreme Court has five votes, then they

have a majority for whatever opinion they determine.

That isn't just a factual observation. It is a clear echo of a famous quotation from perhaps the most famous judicial activist of all time, the archliberal William Brennan.

The late Justice Brennan told people the most important rule in constitutional law was ``the Rule of Five.'' With five votes, a majority can do whatever it wants.

That is a perfect summary of judicial activism. It is a recipe for courts to wander into policymaking and prevent healthy democratic compromise.

This is the misunderstanding of the separation of powers that I have spent my entire career fighting against. But President Biden made that misunderstanding his litmus test.

And nothing we saw this week convinced me that either President Biden or Judge Jackson's deeply invested, far-left fan club have misjudged her.

I will vote against this nominee on the Senate floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on Monday, I explained that the thinness of Judge Jackson's appellate record makes this week's Judiciary Committee hearings all the more important. Well, we are 2 days in. Judge Jackson is receiving a calm, respectful process, unlike the treatment that Senate Democrats typically inflict on Republican Presidents' nominees.

But, unfortunately, thus far, many of Judge Jackson's responses have been evasive and unclear. She has declined to address critically important questions and ameliorate real concerns.

First and foremost is the simple question of Court packing. The far- left fringe groups that promoted Judge Jackson to this vacancy want Democrats to destroy the Court's legitimacy through partisan Court packing or unconstitutional term limits. She was literally the Court packers' pick for the seat, and she has repeatedly refused to reject their position.

Both of the liberal legal giants, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer, had no problem--no problem--defending the Court and denouncing Court packing. Both Ginsburg and Breyer denounced Court packing. As sitting Justices, they commented freely on the subject. The Justices knew that expressing a

clear view and defending their institution was not--I repeat, not-- judicially inappropriate in any way.

But Judge Jackson has refused to follow in the footsteps of Ginsburg and Breyer. She refuses to rule out what the radical activists want. She told Senator Kennedy that she does have an opinion on Court packing, but it is ``not a strongly held opinion,'' and, in any event, she wouldn't tell Senators what it was.

But the nominee made sure to quietly signal openness--openness--for the radicals' position. She told Senators she could see both sides of the Court-packing debate. Where Justices Ginsburg and Breyer slammed the door, Judge Jackson leaves it open. She even told the Committee:

I would be thrilled to be one of however many Congress

thought appropriate to put on the Court.

`` . . . thrilled to be one of however many Congress thought appropriate to put on the Court.'' ``[H]owever many''? I am not sure Judge Jackson's secret opinion on Court packing is as secret as she thinks it is.

Judge Jackson also displayed a remarkable lack of candor during basic questions about judicial philosophy. When asked about judicial philosophy, the nominee tried to punt by simply restating the most basic elements of a judge's job description. She said she looks at the facts and treats litigants fairly. That is not explaining a judicial philosophy. That is just rewording the judicial oath. It is, basically, a nonanswer.

These are pivotal questions. They require clear responses, and previous nominees had much less trouble providing them. A year and a half ago, now-Justice Barrett gave the Committee an intellectual master class in her textualist and original judicial philosophy. She described her interpretive approach in great detail. She helpfully compared and contrasted her philosophy with past and present Justices to provide Senators with points of comparison. But Judge Jackson either cannot or will not do any of that.

Senator Sasse said that in his meeting with the nominee more than 2 weeks ago, he asked the judge to compare and contrast her own thinking with Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan to give Senators a point of reference. At that time, the judge apparently told the Senator that she needed to think about it but would get back to him. He followed up yesterday, and Judge Jackson said actually she had been too busy to give it any thought.

She could not or would not even supply a clear summary of just the philosophy of Justice Breyer. Justice Breyer is Judge Jackson's former boss for whom she clerked. He has written entire books detailing his judicial approach, but Judge Jackson either could not or would not describe it.

In one jaw-dropping moment, Judge Jackson tried to dodge questions about constitutional interpretation by claiming that she does not have enough experience--does not have enough experience.

Here is what she said:

I would say, just as an aside . . . that while I have been

on the bench for nine-plus years, the issue of constitutional

interpretation in that sense doesn't come up very often. It

comes up to the Supreme Court for sure, but it doesn't come

up very often in the lower courts.

In other words, at least in that moment, a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court tried to tell the Committee that her professional experience had not prepared her--not prepared her--for an in-depth discussion of constitutional interpretation.

The White House and Senate Democrats keep saying Judge Jackson's district court experience is perfect preparation for the Supreme Court, but it sounds like the nominee herself may actually disagree with that.

Let's be very clear. If Judge Jackson truly feels she lacks sufficient experience with constitutional interpretation, then the Senate certainly should not confirm her. But if she does not actually feel that way, then she owes the Senate much more candor about her approach.

For decades, liberal activists have preferred judges who do not limit themselves to applying the text of our laws and our Constitution, but rather make new policy from the bench.

Sure enough, Judge Jackson spent all day yesterday trying to explain what amounts to a passionate policy disagreement with existing sentencing guidelines for certain horrible crimes. In a number of instances, she has given out sentences far, far below the sentencing guidelines and far below the government prosecutors' request. In cases ranging from child exploitation to fentanyl trafficking, she has used every possible ounce of discretion to essentially remake sentencing policy from the bench.

Under questions from Senator Cotton, Judge Jackson said it would be inappropriate for her to comment on the proper durations of criminal sentences as this was a policy matter for legislators and not judges. But at other times, she justified her own past leniency by explaining that judges have huge amounts of discretion and latitude on sentencing criminals. Either subjective questions about sentencing are fair game for the judicial branch or they are not. Certainly, the nominee cannot have it both ways.

Today, Judge Jackson will have another chance--another chance to defend the institution of the Court, like Justices Ginsburg and Breyer had no trouble doing; another chance to give Senators a clear explanation of her judicial philosophy, like Justices Gorsuch and Barrett had no trouble doing; another chance to explain whether and how her clear policy views on the merits of sentencing criminals will continue to impact her judicial judgment.

The Senate and the country will be watching.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, last week, the U.S. Congress lost a one-of-a-kind colleague, and the State of Alaska lost an unbelievably devoted champion.

Congressman Don Young, the dean of the House, was the longest serving Republican in the history of that Chamber. He arrived in 1973, and his fellow Alaskans rehired him to represent them every 2 years since.

Over the decades, Congressman Young's leadership and advocacy had a literally transformative effect on his home State. He secured resources for Alaska's infrastructure and its people. I understand his office contains photographs of Don with no fewer than 10

different Presidents, each of whom had signed into law a bill that he had written.

Don Young first moved to Alaska back in 1959, the same year it became our 49th State. He once explained his rationale like this:

I can't stand the heat and I was working on a ranch and I

used to dream of some place cold and no snakes and no poison

oak.

Well, Alaska sure delivered for Don. And starting with a mayoral election in 1964, he spent practically his entire adult life delivering for Alaska in return.

Our late colleague across the Rotunda wasn't just a legendary legislator and committee chairman; he was also a wildly unique character. Even after decades in public service, he remained every bit the former fisher, trapper, construction worker, gold miner, and tugboat captain.

The Senate sends our prayers to Don's family, his staff, and his colleagues, who miss him already.

Border Security

Mr. President, on a completely different matter, in 2021, the Biden administration's border crisis set a record. We saw the most arrests that Customs and Border Protection ever reported in a single year on the southern border. As the Washington Post put it at the time, illegal border crossings ``skyrocketed in the months after President Biden took office.''

Well, the humanitarian and security crisis has only gotten worse. Last month was the busiest February for CBP migrant encounters in over two decades, exceeding February 2021 by 64 percent, and intelligence officials are reportedly ``bracing'' for an even steeper surge.

The left spent years calling on Washington Democrats to ``abolish ICE.'' On the campaign trail, President Biden signaled support for subsidizing healthcare for illegal immigrants.

Once in office, the administration spent months seemingly more interested in policing government terminology than policing our actual border. The Vice President, ostensibly tasked with leading the White House border security efforts, seemed keen to travel anywhere but the border.

When Democrats' approach left border facilities overwhelmed, the administration diverted billions of dollars away from pandemic response funds to cover for their crisis.

To prevent their border crisis from getting even worse, the administration has leaned heavily on an emergency authority that was originally invoked by the previous administration due to COVID. CBP has now used temporary title 42 permission more than 1 million times to avoid releasing migrants into the interior of the United States. You might think the Biden administration would have used the time afforded by this stopgap to actually hash out a strategy to secure the border, but they have not. No solutions are in sight.

But now, unbelievably, the administration is reportedly on the cusp of caving to woke pressure and lifting the title 42 authorities altogether. This move would take our border from its current state of chaos into a whole new level of utter--utter--meltdown.

Democrats say they are concerned about new COVID variants and may want more COVID funding. Yet they want to declare the pandemic over and finished at our southern border? But more broadly, why on Earth are Democrats accepting the far-left premise that we should only enforce immigration laws during a once-in-a-century pandemic?

Well, in the near term, it would be wildly reckless for Democrats to simply stand down and let the flood gates open. Such a policy would be terrific news for human traffickers and drug cartels. It would be terrible news for the American people.

Inflation

Now, Mr. President, on one final matter, America's working families continue to face strong headwinds as they try to make ends meet. The historic inflation kicked off by runaway liberal spending last year is still taking its toll, one paycheck at a time. For many Americans, eating out once in a while was already a treat. Now, restaurant menu prices are capping off the biggest 12-month price surge in more than 40 years, just as lunch counters are beginning to see more traffic from workers returning to the office.

Meanwhile, just putting food on the table at home has become a hardship. For one mother in Florida, a trip to the grocery store that used to cost her about $150 now costs $250 for exactly the same amount of food. She is reportedly ``cutting back on fresh produce and meat in exchange for less-nutritious but cheaper items . . . as it becomes harder to stretch her household's income and ensure that her family has enough to eat.''

Of course, the price hikes consumers are seeing at the grocery store are due in part to the soaring cost of fuel. The regular gas working families use to fill up their cars was already nearly $2 a gallon since President Biden took office.

But the diesel used in semitrucks and many commercial vehicles costs $1 more than it did just last month--1 month ago. According to one recent survey, more than half of small business owners say that the rising cost of fuel is impacting their operations. ``It's keeping me awake,'' reported the head of a small transportation fleet that serves people with disabilities in Pennsylvania. For the manager of a lumber dealership in Nevada, the free delivery his business took pride in might have to be put literally on hold.

Unfortunately, Washington Democrats' response to these hardships has been as misguided as the war on American energy and runaway spending that helped create them. Several weeks ago, the Biden administration entertained the idea of suspending the gas tax but only long enough to give Democrats cover at the polls this coming November.

This week, we learned the White House considered sending out gas cards through the IRS even as they keep up their war on domestic energy production.

The Biden administration seems to be willing to try anything-- anything--but walking back their own disastrous economic policies. For the sake of working families, I hope they snap out of it sometime soon.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, over the weekend, we learned that four U.S. marines were tragically killed Friday night. Their training aircraft crashed during joint NATO exercises in Norway. One of those marines, Corporal Moore, was born and raised in Catlettsburg, KY. I want to take a moment to mourn this great loss and salute Corporal Moore's service to our country.

Corporal Moore joined the Marines in 2018. At only 24 years old, he had spent 4 years honorably serving our country all around the world. He was serving as an MV-22B Osprey crew chief based out of New River,

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

Madam President, next week, the Judiciary Committee will hear firsthand from President Biden's Supreme Court nominee Judge Jackson. It will be a serious and dignified process. The American people need answers to more important questions than what somebody wrote in the nominee's high school yearbook.

The Senate needs to examine Judge Jackson's qualifications, and we need to examine her judicial philosophy and see if she will apply laws as written and weigh cases without favoritism. And we need to explore why the farthest left activists in the country desperately wanted Judge Jackson, in particular, for this vacancy.

Judicial philosophy is a key qualification for the Supreme Court. There are plenty of smart lawyers in the country, but they don't all understand that a judge's proper role is to apply the text of the laws neutrally. Some would rather start with liberal outcomes and reason backward.

So it is unsettling that senior Democrats have lauded Judge Jackson for the ``empathy'' they suggest shapes her judicial approach. So if you are the litigant for whom the judge has special preexisting empathy, well, it is your lucky day; but the other party is being denied their fair day in court.

The Senate Democratic leader, the House majority whip, and multiple legal academics all say Judge Jackson will rule with ``empathy.'' Helpfully, one professor clarified which kinds of litigants would benefit from her empathy. He proposed that because of Judge Jackson's ``ample criminal defense experience,'' she would ``bring a measure of empathy to the criminal defense cases, the Fourth and Fifth Amendment cases.''

So liberals are saying that Judge Jackson's service as a criminal defense lawyer and then on the U.S. Sentencing Commission give her special empathy for convicted criminals. Her supporters look at her resume and deduce a special empathy for criminals. I guess that means that government prosecutors and innocent crime victims start each trial at a disadvantage.

That isn't my assertion. That is what the nominee's liberal supporters are all saying. In fact, the nominee has all but said it herself. Here is what the Washington Post reported last year when Judge Jackson was nominated to the DC Circuit:

She and her allies credit her work as a public defender as

helping her develop empathy.

And here they quote the nominee herself:

There is a direct line from my defender service to what I

do on the bench, and I think it's beneficial.

So, look, nobody is saying that public defenders ought to be disqualified from judicial service. It is an important role. But as the New York Times reported this week, the Biden administration is on an intentional quest to stuff the Federal judiciary full of this one perspective. Even amid a national crime wave, a disproportionate share of the new judges President Biden has nominated share this professional background that liberals say gives judges special empathy for criminal defendants.

Here is the New York Times:

It is a sea change in the world of judicial nominations. .

. . The type of high-profile murder cases handled by some of

Mr. Biden's nominees would have been considered disqualifying

only a few years ago; now the president . . . is actively

seeking to name more jurists who have such experience.

It is not just Judge Jackson.

At least 20 other lawyers with significant public defender

experience have been nominated by the Biden administration.

One soft-on-crime advocate marveled to the reporter:

We have never seen anything like this.

Such enthusiasm.

President Biden is deliberately working to make the whole Federal judiciary softer on crime. Even liberals admitted as much. They actually applaud it. But with murders and carjackings skyrocketing nationwide, I doubt the American people feel the same way.

I look forward to learning more about how Judge Jackson believes her service as a criminal defense attorney leads her to interpret the text of our laws and our Constitution differently than other judges. If any judicial nominee really does have special empathy for some parties over others, that is not an asset; it is a problem.

Energy

Madam President, on another matter, as Democratic policies have unleashed runaway inflation, families have felt particular pain at the gas pump.

Since President Biden took office, gas prices have climbed nearly $2--$2. The Biden administration wants to claim that a full year's worth of price hikes were all caused by a war Putin started 3 weeks ago. But this fictional version of events doesn't fool anyone.

Two years ago, then-candidate Biden told everyone he was ready to wage war on the most reliable forms of American energy:

No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill,

period. [It] ends.

That is President Biden.

I guarantee you . . . We're going to end fossil fuel.

In other words, either the Biden administration has a shaky understanding of supply and demand or soaring energy prices have been baked into their agenda right from the beginning.

For 14 months now, energy policy has followed a disturbing pattern. First, the Biden administration rolls out a direct attack on American energy, then working families feel the pinch, and then Democrats try to deflect the blame. Take the Keystone XL Pipeline. President Biden made canceling it a day one priority. Then, as gasoline, diesel, and other energy prices climbed, the White House justified itself by saying the project would have taken years to affect prices anyway.

The problem is, back during the Obama administration, their own analysis suggested the project would be fully operational by 2013. They spent a decade fighting against a pipeline that would have taken a couple of years to come online by complaining it was not immediate enough.

That was their argument a decade ago, and it is their argument now. The pipeline could have been built multiple times over in the time the Democrats spent resisting it. Besides, if slow construction were really the problem, the administration would be rushing to rein in their own regulatory army that is handcuffing other new and existing pipelines with mountains of extra bureaucracy.

Just weeks ago, while Putin was already amassing forces and trying to make energy hostages out of Western Europe, the Biden administration's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission went out of its way to make permitting new American natural gas pipelines radically more difficult.

Here is yet another example. Last year, the Biden administration directed the SEC to prioritize discouraging loans, capital, and financing for fossil fuel energy projects. But now that a worldwide scramble has sent prices sky-high, the administration blames the industry and says it is ``time for oil and gas companies to work with Wall Street to unleash our productive capacity.'' The administration that campaigned on ending fossil fuels now claims the fossil fuel companies are just layabouts who don't want to drill. It is enough to make your head spin.

Oh, and President Biden rushed to lash America back to the mast of a climate deal that actually gave China a pass to keep increasing their emissions. As Germany prepared to give Putin an even tighter hold on Europe's market for natural gas with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, President Biden fought bipartisan efforts to stop the pipeline.

His response to soaring prices hurting families last year was to go hat in hand and beg OPEC and Russia to produce more. And now that Russia has invaded Ukraine, the Biden administration is reportedly exploring more imports--listen to this--from Venezuela and Iran, totalitarian regimes with contempt for human rights and the environment.

So it turns out the Biden administration doesn't mind fossil fuel production after all. They just don't want to ``Buy American.'' The administration will buy oil from the Supreme Leader of Iran; they will buy oil from Maduro. If North Korea had oil, they would probably try to buy that, too. Anything--anything--to avoid keeping those jobs and that energy independence right here in the USA.