Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, due to the current events happening in Europe, the Majority Leader and I have agreed to increase the membership of the Senate NATO Observer Group by two additional Senators. For the additional Republican Senator, I ask that Senator Moran be added to participate in the group.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this morning, Members of Congress received an update on the situation in Ukraine directly from President Zelenskyy. His presentation was powerful and heart-wrenching. It reinforced our sympathy, our outrage, and our resolve.

President Zelenskyy's courage and leadership have earned the attention and the admiration of the entire free world. He has marshaled Ukraine's brave and defiant resistance against Russian invasion. He has steeled the resolve of his people beyond what anybody expected and offered the entire world a master class in leadership.

This morning, President Zelenskyy didn't mince words about what Ukraine needs urgently to keep up the fight: more lethal capabilities and heavier sanctions against Russia and especially the air defense systems that we should have helped Ukraine get weeks ago. His people face a long and difficult road ahead, and the entire world knows what they are up against.

The scale of Russia's aggression wasn't just foreseeable; it was foreseen. For 30 years, every step toward democracy and sovereignty in Eastern Europe has tempted the wrath of revanchist autocrats like Putin. That is why I have asked the Biden administration early and often to demonstrate America's commitment to our allies and partners most squarely in Russia's crosshairs.

Last June, 8 months before the Russian invasion, I urged the President to ``provide serious, lethal support to Ukraine and other vulnerable states on the front lines of Putin's aggressions''--8 months ago. In December, I specifically called on President Biden to deploy extra U.S. forces to reinforce NATO's eastern flank--last December. I urged his administration to expedite and expand shipments of lethal aid like anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. But, as we know, a security assistance package for Ukraine sat down at the White House for months before being approved. Once approved, efforts to transfer the weapons moved at the speed of bureaucracy. And the President waited until February to order U.S. personnel to the frontlines.

The Biden administration had over a year to get this right. They had a year to translate rhetorical support for NATO into leading real, collective defense. But they took 5 months to even nominate an ambassador to the alliance.

On the campaign trail, President Biden called Putin a ``KGB thug.'' He was right about that. But after 1 week in office, he announced an agreement with the Kremlin to extend the New START treaty for up to 5 years, reducing our leverage to get a better deal that caps Putin's nuclear ambitions.

As the threats to Ukraine gathered, whenever an opportunity to act has presented itself, the Biden administration has hesitated until political pressure became overwhelming or balked outright.

Since Russia's invasion began, the administration has publicly shot down efforts from a NATO ally to get working aircraft to Ukrainian pilots. Last

Monday, the White House scuttled a bipartisan congressional bill to end normal trade relations with Russia, only to make a public show on Friday of calling for exactly the same action.

At every step of the way--every step of the way--the self-deterred White House has insisted its hesitation and restraint was aimed at avoiding escalation, but at every step, Putin has escalated.

Now, 3 weeks into Putin's invasion, the reality on the ground is evolving. It is harder now than it would have been a few months ago to keep the pipeline of weapons and supplies and intelligence for Ukraine's brave resistance open. Russia's air offensive in particular is hitting a deadlier, more aggressive stride. But, as I have been saying literally for months, it is not too late for the Biden administration to do the right thing. So here is what President Biden should be doing right now:

No. 1, he should use the money and authorities we have just provided him to expand the scope of our lethal aid to Ukraine to include more effective, longer range air defense capabilities. That means working with NATO allies with urgency to get Ukrainian pilots more aircraft and munitions and facilitating the transfer of weapons Ukraine's forces are most familiar with, like air defense systems from countries with stockpiles of Soviet legacy systems. President Zelenskyy specifically pleaded for these air defense systems this morning--this morning.

No. 2, President Biden should deploy more U.S. forces to reinforce NATO's eastern flank and use the new drawdown and loan guarantee authorities to help harden the defenses of our frontline allies and partners. Many of these partners are generously helping Ukraine, and we should help them backfill their inventories with more modern American capabilities that will improve NATO's interoperability and bolster deterrence at the same time.

No. 3, on a trip to Europe next week, President Biden should go beyond Brussels. He should go to countries like Poland, Romania, or Lithuania to meet with NATO eastern flank allies. He should look beyond NATO to deepen our diplomatic security cooperation with important American partners like Finland and Sweden.

Finally, if President Biden wants the United States to lead our allies by example and to keep pace with adversaries like Russia and China, the place to start is with robust investments in our own defense capabilities. The coming year's appropriations process is an opportunity to finally--finally--show we are serious.

Vladimir Putin has proven to the world that he is willing to stoop low in pursuit of power, and he has shown us exactly--exactly--how he responds to weakness. We cannot afford to stay behind the curve. America must lead and lead with strength.

A few minutes ago, President Zelenskyy reminded us that the United States is, indeed, the leader of the free world, so it is time we acted like it.

Mr. President, in 2018, we reestablished the Senate NATO Observer Group. I ask for the following Republican Senators to participate in the group: Tillis (cochair), Barrasso, Ernst, Rounds, Rubio, and Hagerty.

Mr. President, American strength is not a provocation. American strength secures deterrence and peace. It is American hesitancy and weakness which our adversaries see as an invitation. It is a simple fact. We relearned it the hard way many times in our history. It should form the cornerstone of any administration's foreign policy, but every day brings new distressing signs that the Biden administration forgets this lesson.

President Biden hesitated and waited to reinforce our NATO allies with more American troops out of fear that it might provoke Putin. President Biden hesitated and waited to send Stingers to the Ukrainians out of fears that it might provoke Putin. President Biden declined to send support and training to Ukraine in December because he feared it might provoke Putin.

Here is a headline from earlier this week:

Pentagon push to send more trainers to Ukraine was scrapped

in December amid White House fears of provoking Russia.

Last week, President Biden publicly split from our ally Poland and scrapped a plan to get airplanes to Ukraine because our administration feared it might--you guessed it--provoke Putin. Predictably, Putin has not pulled his punches as a thank-you to President Biden for pulling his punches.

American strength is not the provocation; American weakness is. We need to help get air defense systems to Ukraine without wasting another second.

But, meanwhile, the Biden administration is already replaying this mistaken philosophy with another adversary. Iran watched our humiliating, botched retreat in Afghanistan. They have watched the Biden administration squabble with our Middle Eastern partners while removing sanctions from Iran's own terrorist proxies in Yemen.

The Iranians have taken the measure of this administration. This weekend, even as the Biden administration is reportedly putting the finishing touches on an agreement deal that would massively favor Iran over America, they unleashed an audacious--audacious--missile strike into the Kurdistan region of Iraq that came very close to hitting our U.S. consulate.

How will our Commander in Chief respond? The record is not encouraging. Deterrence of Iran has steadily eroded under his tenure. The worse the Iranians behave, the more desperate the Biden administration seems to be to give them concessions.

Judging by public reports, the deal that President Biden is preparing would impose fewer, weaker, and shorter restrictions on Iran than even the deeply flawed 2015 deal, while giving them major and lasting relief from sanctions.

The deal would reportedly not even touch Iran's ballistic missile program. So Iran lobs missiles toward our facilities, and we give Iran a huge influx of cash and a relaxation of pressure.

Iran clearly does not fear that they will pay a price for threatening American interests. They must be made to think again.

Yesterday, Senate Republicans sent the administration a letter expressing our grave concerns that they are preparing once again to give away the store. Republicans stand ready to work together on a real, tough agreement that blocks Iran's path to nuclear weapons, constrains its missile programs, and confronts its support for terrorism. But if the administration

continues down the path they are on, they will find the stiff opposition that that path deserves.

Now, on another matter, there is bipartisan Senate opposition to Sarah Bloom Raskin, President Biden's radical and unacceptable nominee for the powerful Federal Reserve Board position of Vice Chair for Supervision.

Runaway inflation is hammering American families. Democrats' reckless policies have backed the Fed into a very tricky corner. Just this morning, the new ``Producer Price Index Report'' showed wholesale inflation is up 10 percent--10 percent--over 12 months, tied for the worst year ever.

At a time like this, the Fed's independence is paramount. But President Biden's nominee for this powerful seat has spent years campaigning to turn the Fed from a nonpartisan central bank into a far- left superlegislature that voters cannot get rid of.

Explicitly and repeatedly, she has called for the Fed to go about picking winners and losers in accord with liberal ideological goals completely unrelated to the Fed's core duties.

The far left cheered Ms. Raskin's nomination for the same reason that Senators from both parties oppose it. She wants to take radical policy aims that liberals can't achieve through Congress and hardwire them directly into our financial system instead.

President Biden was literally asking for Senators to support a central banker--a central banker--who wanted to usurp the Senate's policymaking power for herself.

Ms. Raskin would have been a Vice Chair who sought to raise gas prices, raise home heating costs, and undermine the very institution of the Federal Reserve in the process.

It is not surprising that there is bipartisan Senate opposition to such a radical nominee. Even before one considers the unanswered ethical questions to which the Banking Committee has not been able to get straight answers, President Biden's selection wildly--wildly-- missed the mark. It is past time the White House admit their mistake and send us somebody suitable.

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

Madam President, Washington Democrats are trying to pull off a political spin job for the ages. Everyone knows that gas prices and energy costs have been soaring sharply for many, many months. Working families know all too well that gas prices and utility costs have been rising throughout President Biden's tenure.

Just this morning, we learned that inflation set yet another modern record last month. Prices skyrocketed another 0.8 percent in February alone. That comes out to 7.9 percent inflation year on year, the worst inflation in 40 years. And it keeps getting worse, not better.

This has been a painful pattern throughout President Biden's tenure. We have now had 9 straight months of inflation higher than 5 percent. And remember, 3 weeks ago, before the crisis in Europe, Democrats were already in a political panic over gas prices and desperately talking about a gas tax holiday. Three weeks ago, before the crisis in Europe, the average price of a gallon of gas had already shot up more than a dollar from when President Biden was sworn in.

Now, you would think the Democrats would have been proud of this. Hostility to fossil fuels and homegrown American energy is precisely what President Biden campaigned on. Here is what our President said on the campaign trail in 2020--a direct quote:

No more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. No more

drilling on Federal lands. No more drilling, including

offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to

drill, period. [It] ends.

That was the President in 2020. Here is what he told an activist:

[L]ook at my eyes. I guarantee you . . . we are going to

end--

End--

fossil fuel.

Now, President Biden spent 2 years campaigning on hostility to American energy. Now he has spent 14 months putting that hostility right into action, and Democrats' reckless spending that has fueled across-the-board inflation has made Americans' pain at the pump even worse.

But in the last few days, the Biden administration has tried to invent some laugh-out-loud--laugh-out-loud--revisionist history. They are trying to rebrand the entire increase in gas prices on their watch--listen to this--as an effect of Putin's recent invasion of Ukraine. So they want to blame 14 months of gas price increases on the last 2 weeks of turmoil.

Washington Democrats' war on domestic energy long, long predates Putin's war on Ukraine. So let me say that again. Democrats' war on domestic energy long predates Putin's war on Ukraine.

Now, I strongly support America stopping our purchases of Putin's oil, but Democrats' 14-month war on our own production will make that necessary action more painful for American families than it had to be. If the Biden administration had spent 14 months promoting American energy instead of attacking our production and fueling inflation, we would be better positioned to push back on Putin at a less painful cost to American families.

The President's team wants to pretend this lengthy problem only started 2 weeks ago, but American families have been paying for Democrats' bad policies for a lot longer than that.

Madam President, on another matter, yesterday, the House passed a bipartisan, bicameral government funding agreement that will enable crucial investments in our national defense. Putin's war on Ukraine is just one manifestation of the major long-term threats to American security and American interests posed by major competing powers like Russia and China.

So, absolutely, we must rapidly fund the urgent assistance that Ukraine and our allies along NATO's eastern flank need right now, but we must also make the investments in military modernization that will equip America to achieve peace through strength for years and decades to come.

Our military commanders have clearly and consistently told us they cannot rebuild and modernize our military to meet the growing threats if Congress lets defense funding sleepwalk from one continuing resolution to another. The world is a dangerous place. It is growing more dangerous every day. The road to peace runs through American power. We all know it is true, so we have to budget accordingly.

Our recent negotiations put us Republicans in the surreal position of having to push a Commander in Chief's party into giving his own commanders the funding they need. But, over many Democrats' objections, Republicans made sure this deal gets the job done for our Armed Forces.

The compromise product provides significantly more money than the Biden administration had requested for defense and significantly less than they requested for nondefense.

Until 24 hours ago, this compromise was also going to reprogram money away from Democrats' wasteful spending spree that neglected COVID needs and reallocate it to vaccines and treatment for the American people, but House Democrats mutinied against Speaker Pelosi. The far left would rather preserve State and local bureaucrats' giant slush funds than fund vaccines and therapeutics for our citizens, so the COVID component has fallen out.

Overall, this agreement checks the three boxes I laid out months ago. The bill maintains parity between defense and nondefense spending growth. It maintains longstanding bipartisan policies, such as protecting taxpayers against funding abortions and being politically targeted by the IRS. And new far-left poison pills were cut out. But more urgently, amidst this war in Europe, this agreement delivers aid the Ukrainians need right now and a downpayment on our commitment to keep defending America and global peace in the years to come.

Madam President, on one final matter, over the last few days, the Biden administration's confusing mismanagement and mixed signals surrounding the Ukraine crisis and the West's response have again spilled out into open public view.

Here is the pattern. Time and time again throughout this crisis and in the months preceding it, the administration's first instinct has been to resist strong and decisive steps. The President and his team initially take a pass on strong steps when they could have been put into place proactively and had a real deterrent effect, but then, after sustained public pressure, they buckle and implement the steps anyway, often too late. This ``leading from behind'' leaves us in a lose-lose scenario.

The pattern has played out yet again with this bizarre argument over MiG airplanes that President Biden's team has carried out in public with our Polish allies.

The mere fact that Biden administration officials are contradicting not only each other but also our NATO allies in public like this evidences a severe lack of the coordination and proactive leadership that we should be--us, Americans--should be providing. This isn't limited to just these Polish planes; there are all manner of different systems, tools, and arms that our eastern flank allies and partners could be providing more readily to the brave Ukrainians. This would take American leadership and coordination and an American commitment that we will help them replace their Soviet-era stocks with American and Western military technology.

The loan guarantees we included in the supplemental appropriations bill will give the administration a tool to do just this--help eastern flank NATO partners use their own money to modernize their defensive capabilities. This would be a win for Ukraine, a win for us, and a win for NATO.

These kinds of steps should be no-brainers for a confident, assertive, and decisive American administration. Instead, it repeatedly seems like the administration's first instinct is to flinch--to flinch--wait for international and public pressure to overwhelm them, and then take action only after the most opportune moment has nearly passed us by.

Nobody wants an escalation, but if the administration keeps repeating this pattern of self-deterrence, of convincing itself that any proactive step would be irresponsible, they are just internalizing Putin's false premise and amplifying Putin's false equivalence.

Remember this: Strength is not a provocation. The world needs President Biden and his team to be leading, taking the initiative, and shaping circumstances calmly, soberly, but with confidence and decisiveness. They seem to be trapped in a cycle of passivity, indecision, self-deterrence, and then, finally, reaction. The world needs the Biden administration to be flying this plane. Too often, it feels like the plane is flying them.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, as I mentioned yesterday, Senators had the chance to hear directly from Ukraine's President Zelenskyy over the weekend. He and his constituents--the brave people of Ukraine--have won the hearts and minds of all of us all across the world.

Their pain, of course, is Putin's fault, but as I and others warned for weeks before the invasion, that pain has been compounded by the West's hesitation and sluggishness in helping Ukraine prepare for this onslaught, which we could all see coming. This crisis was not only foreseeable; it was, in fact, foreseen.

Republicans spent months urging President Biden to put more lethal aid in Ukrainian hands before Russian invasion made those deliveries much more difficult. We urged the administration to reinforce our eastern flank NATO partners before Putin escalated his war against Ukraine rather than playing catchup. We called for heavier sanctions before Putin had fully committed his forces and his pride. We warned repeatedly that the Biden administration must not let these actions be slowed down to the speed of bureaucracy. But that is, of course, what happened.

As President Zelenskyy himself said publicly last week, while he appreciates all the Western help, much of it is ultimately arriving ``too late.''

The Biden administration is now finally doing many of the things they slow-walked months ago as too provocative or too escalatory: providing Stingers, sharing intelligence, deploying more forces to NATO's eastern flank, finally, getting out of the way of sanctioning Nord Stream 2.

Now, as supplies dwindle and safe resupply and transit corridors narrow, friends of Ukraine will have to work even harder to help the citizens and their government stay in the fight.

It has been obvious for some time that Ukraine would benefit from receiving Soviet-era aircraft and air defense systems from our eastern flank NATO partners that still maintain inventories of such weapons. The United States can help these allies worried about giving up such capabilities by helping to backfill with American-made and NATO- standard weapons. I understand the administration may be finally coming around to support this but, again, at the stately pace of bureaucracy. This needs to get done and get done yesterday.

(Mr. PADILLA assumed the Chair.)

Meanwhile, the Congress is acting; that includes additional security assistance funding for Ukraine and for our eastern flank NATO allies in the supplemental appropriations bill, along with funding for loan guarantees to help eastern flank countries buy American weapons to shore up our collective defenses.

I appreciate the Democratic leader working in good faith to accommodate my request that the funding bill significantly increase the security assistance drawdown fund available to the President and to backfill our DOD stockpiles that are helping our friends in harm's way. I hope we finalize those steps soon.

This supplemental is urgent, but the fact is, the White House has, thus far, taken steps to limit their own options and made them miss the window to provide impactful assistance. This administration not only reportedly refused a request prior to the conflict to increase the number of U.S. military trainers in the country but moved the advisers we had to the far west of the country and then pulled them from the country entirely, like they also pulled out our entire diplomatic mission.

These noncombat advisers could have helped facilitate more shipments of weapons to the field and more training to teach Ukrainians how to use them. They could have laid important logistical groundwork to ensure weapons could continue to flow through the frontlines after the conflict began.

In area after area, the record shows the Biden administration pulled their punches, even though everyone knew--knew--that the war was coming, and even so, the Ukrainians are mounting an incredible and brave resistance.

Imagine where these brave people might be now if the administration had moved at the speed of necessity rather than the snail's pace of bureaucracy. Now we must commit to keep lethal aid flowing.

We have to continue strengthening NATO and deepening our security partnerships and interoperability with other European partners. We need to encourage more commitments like the German Chancellor's recent announcement that they will massively step up their investment in their own defense and in NATO. And perhaps most important of all, we cannot have Washington politicians in the business of shortchanging our own defense spending at the very time when we are pleading with Western Europe to increase theirs.

We have to lead by example and make the kind of robust investments needed for long-term competition with Russia and China.

In the meantime, the sobering reality is that Ukraine is very likely to see more and escalating brutalities in the days and the weeks ahead. The world remembers the butchery in Grozny and the cold-blooded targeting in Aleppo, and the world will remember this moment as Russia sics conscripts on Ukrainian civilians and arrests its own people when they object.

For all of the Kremlin's lies about Ukraine, about how it is supposedly just an extension of Russia and its people are really Russians, we now know for certain that Russians and Ukrainians do have, in fact, at least one thing in common: Vladimir Putin considers their lives equally disposable.

Biden Administration

Mr. President, now on a related matter, the price of gas jumped more in the past week than any week on record. This, of course, began long before Russia invaded Ukraine. Even before that, families across America were paying dramatically higher gas prices than they faced when President Biden took office. I expect our Democratic friends will now try to blame the entire increase in prices on our efforts to punish on Russia, but don't be fooled. This is more than a year in the making.

Back in November, President Biden's Secretary of Energy was asked about any efforts--any efforts--to ramp up production of our own abundant American energy, and she literally laughed at the question. ``That is hilarious,'' Secretary Granholm said.

The Secretary suggested that increasing domestic production would be futile because the market for oil is global. Well, it sure is. But right now the free world is considering making this market a little bit less global to punish Russia for its brutal conquests in Ukraine.

So it would sure be nice if America had gone into this crisis with more headroom on supply and on gas prices. Just 3 years ago, under Republican policies, we had become a net oil exporter for the first time since World War II.

But Democrats are completely committed to their ideological holy war on affordable energy. From the campaign trail, then-candidate Biden promised, ``I guarantee you we are going to end fossil fuel.'' And in office, the Biden administration has used its considerable Executive authority to actively target affordable American-made oil and natural gas.

On his first day in office, the President canceled the pipeline project that would have sped the safe transport of reliable fuel. The very next week, he suspended all new Federal leases on oil and natural gas exploration.

So Washington Democrats spent months trying to pass policies that would drive the most affordable, reliable, and abundant forms of America energy--and the jobs they support--literally into extinction.

Just yesterday, as even our Western European friends are realizing that green fantasies can't fuel their countries and are trying to turn back toward nuclear, coal, and domestic natural gas, Biden administration officials gave a press conference where they repeated the same--the very same--platitudes about renewables.

You really can't make this stuff up. The Democrats in charge of the United States of America want us to embrace the same failed strategies from which our European friends are frantically backpedaling as fast as they can.

So while the Ukrainians are fighting Russia, Democrats are trying to fight a war on the law of supply and demand. They only want to have to look at solar panel and windmills here at home. So they want to get our oil and gas from everywhere else, but many of the biggest players in the global market are countries that don't much care for the United States. And now the Biden administration's green hostility to domestic energy production has been going hat in hand begging our antagonists to increase production. After spending a year hammering America's own energy producers, the Biden administration appears to be commencing a world tour to try to buy oil from people who don't like us.

As I mentioned yesterday, the administration appears close to a deal that would help Iran enrich more nuclear material and enrich its economy by lifting oil export sanctions.

Reports also suggest U.S. officials have met with the Maduro regime with the aim of relaxing sanctions on Venezuelan oil as well. This administration wants to ramp up energy imports from Iran and Venezuela? That is the world's largest state sponsor of terror and a thuggish South American dictator, respectively.

So they would rather buy from these people than buy from Texas, Alaska, or Pennsylvania. Just let that sink in.

The administration is also apparently making similar overtures to Saudi Arabia. Obviously, the Saudis are not an adversary like these other countries, but I doubt the American people are thrilled to see President Biden trying to increase our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and OPEC while declaring America's own resources off limits.

A green light for the Arabian Gulf and a red one for the Gulf of Mexico--what sense does that make? The political left thinks that affordable energy is dirty and bad so they are happy to export the dirty work and import the oil. Let's ask our friends in Europe how that plays out.

Outsourcing even more production to dictators and theocrats is not the answer. Dumping more subsidies into solar panels and charging stations, praying everything works out, is not the answer. The answer is to let Americans produce American energy.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.