Floor Statements

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 719, S. Res. 720, S. Res. 721, S. Res. 722, S. Res. 723, S. Res. 724.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 378, S. Res. 385.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 380, S. Con. Res. 18.

I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment to the concurrent resolution be agreed to; the concurrent resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the preamble be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 3237 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the Tillis amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 5; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Pipe nomination postcloture.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I move that it stand adjourned.

Madam President, I am honored to join my colleagues in this colloquy and to support this measure. We are nearing the end of the debate for today. We are nearing a vote tomorrow.

But the debate will continue, and we will have other votes. Whether this measure passes or not tomorrow, it is only the beginning of what we need to do. So that debate nationally and in this body will continue. And there will be votes on other steps that carry forward the effort that this bipartisan security act reflects.

But we must act. Everyone agrees that we must act to make our border more secure, to fix our broken immigration system, to find a path toward earned citizenship for millions--tens of millions--of undocumented people in this country who are paying taxes and playing by the rules and, of course, for the Dreamers and for people seeking visas so they can work here and fill jobs that otherwise will be vacant.

We often hear Republicans talk about the need to secure the border. I sit on the Judiciary Committee where it seems like my Republican colleagues want to talk and talk and talk about the border. Every hearing, every markup, regardless of our actual agenda, they want to talk. Republicans want to talk about the border so much that they sent us contrived Articles of Impeachment against a Cabinet Secretary for the first time in 150 years. More talk.

Politics is the reason that this body failed to pass this measure just months ago. So for Republican colleagues who now claim politics is the reason we are here--yes, their politics, their presumptive Presidential nominee saying that they should not vote for it because of the political advantage they would have from keeping it as an issue. They made clear that all they want to do about the border is talk and use it politically.

Democrats spent months negotiating with Republicans. I give great credit to my colleagues, Senator Murphy, Senator Sinema, Senator Lankford, and others, who have worked on this issue over the years.

I remember well in 2013, the Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly approved a bipartisan measure that then was approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in this body, and it went to the House where it died, not because it was voted down but simply because it had no vote. The Speaker of the House refused to give it a vote.

We will have a vote tomorrow on a measure that falls way short of what that one did in 2013. We provided a path to earn citizenship for 11 million then-undocumented--for the Dreamers. We provided billions of dollars for border security. And we reformed visa and asylum programs, among other ways, by enabling more fairness in that asylum system.

This bill is the strongest measure in recent history. It was endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council and the union of Border Patrol agents.

Let's be very clear-eyed. It was a tough compromise. It limited asylum claims in ways that many Democrats and I remain concerned about doing. But it includes some key Democratic priorities, including providing new pathways to citizenship for our Afghan at-risk allies, ensuring legal representation to vulnerable children under 13 attempting to navigate the immigration process on their own, and providing for new ways for family members to enter the United States legally for short stays to visit relatives and attend major life events. That is an issue I have worked with colleagues across the aisle for years as well as some of those other provisions.

These are key parts of the Democratic vision for immigration: fix our broken immigration system to continue growing our economy and maintain America's international leadership at a time of severe global unrest.

It will be tough for my Republican colleagues to vote for this measure. It will be tough for many of us. But that is why we are here, and that is the measure of why it is a compromise. A lot of what is here, we would not choose to include.

Let me conclude by saying, Donald Trump wants to campaign on the border, not fix it. The question is whether my Republican colleagues are so beholden to him that they will follow that lead like lemmings off a cliff and, at the end of the day, take the country with them.

My Democratic colleagues and I are not giving up. To the Dreamers, we will keep faith with you. To the undocumented millions around the United States who are paying taxes, working hard, following all the rules, we will keep faith with you. To businesses that want more visas so they can have workers, skilled and others, we will keep faith with you. We will keep faith with America on this issue. We are not abandoning this effort. We are not going away.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am honored to follow my colleagues who have spoken so powerfully on this issue and grateful to my colleague from Connecticut for his leadership, as well to Leader Schumer.

We are a Nation of immigrants, proudly and gratefully. Immigrants have made this Nation the greatest in the world, and yet we have a broken immigration system.

Fortunately for our Nation, people want to come here. Every week, I try to go to the immigration and naturalization ceremonies in my State of Connecticut. They are held in the courthouses. And I tell new citizens on those occasions that they are to be thanked for wanting to become United States citizens. They will never take it for granted. They pass the test that most Americans couldn't pass, and they smile or laugh because they know it is true. They have already contributed to their communities. Some have served in uniform.

I look at them, and I say: This is what America looks like. This is what my dad looked like in 1935 when he came to this country speaking no English, knowing no one, having not much more than the shirt on his back.

My immigrant story is not unlike many in this Chamber--certainly in this Nation. And this broken immigration system is unworthy of our great Nation. We need to fix it. We tried with comprehensive immigration reform in 2013. I was part of that effort and helped to write the bill that was passed overwhelmingly in the U.S. Senate on a bipartisan basis with support on both sides of the aisle and never was given a vote in the House.

We can do bipartisan immigration reform. And we know how to do it. In fact, Democrats and Republicans came together about 100 days ago and arrived at some solutions that put us on a path to fixing our broken border. It is not the 2013 bill because it is not comprehensive. That bill provided a path to earn citizenship for undocumented people in this country--millions of them. It provided a path for Dreamers. It provided for border security--literally, tens of millions of dollars-- and for more visas.

The bill that was negotiated 100 days ago and that should have passed 100 days ago would have begun the painstaking, laborious, difficult, complex task of immigration reform. We often hear Republicans talk about the need to secure the border. At almost every Judiciary Committee meeting that I attend, Republicans talk about the border. And they want to talk about the border so much that they actually sent us contrived Articles of Impeachment against a Cabinet Secretary for the first time in 150 years, knowing that it would go nowhere.

They are making border security a political weapon. Really, it is a political stunt. And that is why they refused to vote for the negotiated compromise that will be before us beginning tomorrow again and next week.

The conversation on the floor tonight is a prelude to the battle that we will have again tomorrow and, I hope, next week when we will all be given a chance to go on record. All we are asking of our Republican colleagues is that they put their votes where their mouths are.

America is angry--and America should be angry--about the lack of border security and about the lack of serious purpose on the part of my Republican colleagues and on their failing to do their job simply because of the political directive of one Donald Trump. It is another example of how the cult of Donald Trump has infected our political process to the grave damage and detriment of all America.

Democrats spent months negotiating with Republicans and developed that compromised border bill, the strongest bill in a generation, endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, and the union of Border Patrol agents. And it would have reformed our asylum system, as you have heard, and empowered the President to help manage challenges at the border. But it also would have expanded work opportunities and some legal pathways to enter the United States, including Afghan nationals who assisted our Armed Forces and our diplomats, stood by them at grave risk to themselves. It was a tough compromise. And it limited asylum claims in ways that many Democrats and I were wary of, because it was a compromise.

As soon as the bill was released and after it was agreed to by Republicans' chosen negotiator, the Republicans torpedoed it. And they torpedoed it for one reason: Because they wanted it as a political issue. They killed the bill because Donald Trump demanded it. As we have heard tonight, Donald Trump said: ``Please, blame it on me.'' And we are here tonight to do it, because the blame is well-deserved.

So Trump and his allies have repeatedly shown that they prefer talk over action, that they prefer political gamesmanship over the hard work of bipartisanship on this issue. But we are not giving up. We are not going away. We are not abandoning this effort. It will continue to be our work, my life's work as the son of an immigrant, dedicated to sensible and responsible immigration reform--comprehensive reform.

This bill is not the last word, but it is a start. And we will pursue bipartisan action over political gamesmanship. Republicans need to decide if they want to take action or just continue to talk.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Daniel ``Dan'' Nolan, a courageous firefighter and dedicated public servant, inspiring community leader, and dear friend to so many-- including myself. Reflecting the enormous loyalty and love felt for him across the community--indeed, our State--thousands of mourners attended calling hours last Friday in Wethersfield, where I joined in thanking his beautiful family for sharing him with us.

Born in Hartford, CT, on July 29, 1962, Dan joined the military upon graduating from Windsor High School in 1980 and served in the Army National Guard for 38 years. Dan quickly rose to the rank of captain and was deployed three times--to Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In Iraq, Dan was detached to the 130th Combat Engineer Battalion from Puerto Rico, where he performed route clearance missions to clear improvised explosive devices--IEDs--from the streets of Baghdad. While in Afghanistan, Dan served as commander of the 246th Fire Fighting Detachment at Forward Operating Base--FOB--in Zabul. Dan led over 300 outside the wire missions and was the recipient of many commendations including the Combat Action Badge and the Bronze Star. Always looking to help others, Dan also developed his own community outreach programs in Afghanistan to provide food, clothing, shoes, and toys to needy local villagers.

Dan was a second-generation firefighter, first joining the Hartford Fire Department in 1984. He rose to become deputy chief of training and was one of the many Hartford firefighters who served at Ground Zero following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Dan is remembered with deep affection by his fellow firefighters for his leadership, bravery, and encyclopedic knowledge and expertise in the firefighting profession.

Dan was a longstanding active member of his local community. He was a lifelong member of the Irish American Home Society in Glastonbury and was a prominent leader of the Irish History Committee and the annual Hartford St. Patrick's Day Parade. He was also involved in countless charitable organizations, most notably Amy's Angels, as well as Lea's Foundation for Leukemia Research, where he served on the board of directors since its inception in 1998.

So many of the remembrances offered by people close to Dan reflect a common theme: ``He was always trying to help people.'' One friend recalls working as a server at a local restaurant where Dan was a regular and always asked to put someone else's bill on his tab. A barber who cut Dan's hair every few months shared that he always arrived with advice about scholarships or access to veteran benefits. A neighbor remembered Dan helping her move into her new house amid frigid temperatures and snowfall.

My friendship with Dan deepened when I worked closely with him during his years-long effort to bring his translator Mohammad and his Afghanistan family to the United States. Dan showed boundless, tireless compassion and persistence in this endeavor. Every week, or even more often, Dan would check on Mohammad's case. Dan refused to relent, and Mohammad and his family arrived in Connecticut at the end of last Veterans' Day weekend. Dan's determination and resolve are an enduring tribute to the difference that one person can make in the lives of others.

Dan was truly an extraordinary man who touched so many lives so positively and enduringly. He was also a deeply humble man, who delighted in crediting others for his own contributions. His good deeds speak more eloquently than my words. I treasured my friendship with Dan and will forever admire his incomparable compassion and courage. My wife Cynthia and I extend our deepest sympathies to his family during this difficult time, particularly to his wife Jill, his stepdaughter Raven, his siblings and aunt, as well as his many nieces, nephews, cousins, and loyal friends. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Dan's life and legacy, both large and lasting.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of Connecticut Humanities, CTH. CTH is a trusted leader and public/private partner with the State of Connecticut, having supported vital, widely accessible humanities programming throughout its 50-year history.

Founded in 1974 as the Connecticut Humanities Council at the request of the National Endowment for the Humanities, CTH has dedicated itself to connecting residents of Connecticut to the humanities through grants, partnerships, and collaborative programs. Over the past 50 years, CTH has inspired storytelling, lifelong learning, informed public dialogue, and civic engagement throughout the State of Connecticut and, in doing so, has strengthened communities and enhanced the quality of life for all residents.

Connecticut Humanities has created and promoted a number of incredibly worthwhile projects in Connecticut. CTH created the Connecticut Center for the Book, a State affiliate of the Library of Congress that promotes the written and spoken word. Along with its partners, CTH created Why It Matters: Connecticut's Civic Reconstruction, a program that provides frameworks for meaningful discussion regarding often difficult and divisive topics, instruction on civic processes and participation, and avenues that safeguard participation in our democracy for all citizens. CTH has also participated in the Democracy and the Informed Citizen initiative, supporting connections between the humanities and journalism and fostering an informed citizenry and a democratic society.

Connecticut Humanities has long been a champion of the enduring value of public humanities in our lives and civil society. By implementing and supporting strong, viable, and sustainable cultural organizations that play a pivotal role in promoting the educational, cultural, and economic vitality of Connecticut, and ensuring that their programming is widely accessible to diverse and new audiences across the State, CTH continues to play a central role in the preservation of the humanities and the promotion of civic engagement.

It is my hope that Connecticut Humanities will continue to grow and expand their vital work in the years to come. I applaud Connecticut Humanities for their exemplary work and hope my colleges will join me in expressing our gratitude and admiration.

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

Mr. President, I am very proud to be here today to join my great colleague from the State of Washington to support the Veteran Families Health Services Act.

At a time when there are many, many complex and difficult issues-- some of them nowhere near black-and-white; a lot of gray areas of policy abroad and at home--there is one issue that ought to be absolutely clear, unequivocally, in terms of what we should do--the right thing to do--really, the obligatory thing to do. And that is to make sure that our men and women who serve in uniform and our veterans have access to the healthcare they deserve and, in particular, reproductive healthcare and, most especially, IVF treatment.

The Alabama Supreme Court in the LePage decision is another step in the assault on women's rights and women's healthcare and, in fact, on women. The kinds of restrictions placed on IVF treatment have been, essentially, disowned and disavowed by many Republicans who want to run away as far as they can as quickly as they can from that decision and are saying: Well, we are in favor of IVF but not against laws that restrict IVF.

They can't have it both ways. Here is a chance for them to show, in supremely important terms, that they are in favor of this kind of treatment for our men and women who, in some sense, have earned it and deserve it more than or as much as any other American because they are the ones who put on uniforms and defend our rights and our freedoms. And they are the ones who, afterwards, come back to their community as veterans and continue to serve us.

This measure, essentially, provides guarantees for Active-Duty servicemembers and veterans access to IVF. It expands adoption assistance at the VA and counseling services for couples navigating that process. There is very little to be said that wouldn't repeat the basic common sense of this proposal, and it shouldn't even be needed

to be said that military families don't choose where they live. They are assigned to one State or another, one country or another. When they answer the Nation's call, they don't sign up for service in Connecticut at the subbase. They sign up, and they raise their right hand. And their access to IVF shouldn't be dependent on the State where they are assigned or the country. It ought to be available to every servicemember regardless of their posting. They defend our rights every day, and we must protect theirs with this bill.

And veterans who have completed their service honorably deserve the same protection and access to family planning services. Our veterans who receive care at the VA deserve the highest standard--the gold standard--not some diluted standard because of a State law that restricts access to IVF. Their lives are already complex and challenging enough. We shouldn't complicate them further with administrative barriers.

I will just repeat what I said on the floor the other day in favor of IVF treatment. There is nothing so moving and so profound as a family who wants a child and is having difficulty having it. There is nothing so moving as two parents or people who want to be parents. And in our military, that predicament is especially moving because they have committed to give up a part of their lives--one could say their lives-- to serve our country, and we should make sure that they have access to this fundamental right.

Again, I thank my colleague from the State of Washington, and I thank other colleagues who will be here today and all who are supporting this important measure, which we should be proud to support.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, as part of what we are doing here today, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each prior to the scheduled votes: myself, Senator Kaine, Senator Warren, and Senator Wyden.

Madam President, I have been really awed and humbled by the eloquence of the women Senators who have preceded me, and I hesitate to add to what they have stated so powerfully already. But, of course, I am a man, and this bill is about women's reproductive care and women's rights, but it is also about the rights of all of us. The name of the act is the Access to Family Building Act. It is about families. It is about men, like myself, whose most awesome moment in life was the time they held their newly born child.

Men have an equal stake in the issue that brings us here today. Men should be as scared and angry as women are about this trend, which is so destructive to basic rights and liberties. Women's rights are human rights. The rights at stake here are rights that are American. What could be more American than wanting to bring a child into the world?

And what could be more heartbreaking? We have all been through it, through friends, neighbors, maybe our own family. A man and woman in love, wanting to have a child, miscarriages, other obstacles that prevent it, and there is a hole in their hearts, a hole in their homes and their families, as they struggle with issues of fertility and childbirth. This measure very simply guarantees the right for women and families everywhere--in Alabama, in Connecticut, in every State in this country--to access the fertility care they need to bring children into the world.

You know, over 3 years ago, before Dobbs was decided--and we never could have imagined that Roe v. Wade would be overturned--and the Republican Party eviscerated access to abortion care, I posed what I thought was a really easy question to a Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. I asked: Is it constitutional to criminalize IVF treatment? She dodged. She dodged. She refused to answer. I thought it was self-evident. It is not constitutional to criminalize IVF treatment. That was before Dobbs. That was before the legal landscape was volcanically uprooted by this Supreme Court, which has been captured by a far-right fringe.

Some may have wondered why at that time I asked what seemed like a very far-fetched, obtuse, arcane question. A lot of people probably didn't even know what it meant, and they may have also wondered why Justice Barrett refused to answer such an obvious question with such a self-evident answer. Wasn't it settled that IVF treatment is not only legally protected but also a scientific miracle? Think of it for a moment, the science here that is now accessible to every American, everyone in the world. Wasn't IVF pro-family, having children, parents who wanted a child? And they may have wondered as well, wasn't IVF the last, best hope for so many people struggling with infertility, desperately seeking to experience the miracle of childbirth for themselves? Who could possibly object to that miracle in the lives of a family who would not only relish but raise a child to contribute to our great country?

What has become devastatingly and tragically clear is that the Republican Party's animosity toward women's health and women's rights doesn't stop at abortion. It is why I asked that IVF question in 2020, and it is why I didn't get a clear answer from a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court. The war on women and on reproductive choices by women and the war on families hasn't stopped at abortion or even IVF.

So I conclude by thanking my colleagues who have brought this measure to the floor, particularly Senator Duckworth, and I regret that Republicans have blocked this measure.

Mr. President, I am grateful to my colleague Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire, as well as Senator Bennet of Colorado, Senator Cardin of Maryland, and I will be followed by Senator Peters of Michigan. We are among the group, but we are hardly the only ones who feel so passionately about this issue.

For anyone who has visited Ukraine--and I have been there four times over the last couple of years--seeing and hearing are so powerfully inspiring, so deeply moving. I will never forget my first visit after the invasion when I went to President Zelenskyy's office--really a bunker--and spoke to him about what it was like to have the Russians literally 10 minutes away by car from his door.

Then I went to Bucha, where I saw the remains of Russian tanks where they were stopped by Ukrainians using handheld missiles in the snow against these huge weapons of war, but simply by dint of their courage and indomitable spirit, they stopped the Russians--but only at Kyiv's doorstep.

President Zelenskyy told me then and he has told me since: We will fight with pitchforks if we need to. We don't need your soldiers. We need your help. We need the military equipment that you can provide.

He told us they needed more Javelins, and we provided them later than we should have. He said: We need HIMARS artillery. He said: We need ATACMS. We provided them later than we should have. Bradley and Stryker vehicles. Again, we provided them later than we should have. Of course, Abrams tanks and F-16s. They are there or on the way--later, but we did the right thing.

Winston Churchill once said America always does the right thing after it tries everything else--an exaggeration, but there is a kernel of truth in Winston Churchill's comment, which is, we are often late in doing the right thing.

Now we have no more margin of error in Ukraine. Deliveries of weapons are one-third of what they were only 7 months ago, and the failure to appropriate funds here means that supply of arms will be at 10 percent of what it was.

I have met those veterans, Ukrainian soldiers who have fought on the front, who described to me what it means to be fighting against the entrenched Russian forces--landmines, their artillery pouring onto the Ukrainian troops, shells and drones that keep them at constant risk and force them back when they have sought to make advances. And they have made advances, and they have been successful on the front, both in the east and in the south. It has been yard by yard, mile by mile, moving forward, sometimes pushed back, and the Russians laying waste to whole cities.

I have also visited Bucha and Irpin. We know what happened in Mariupol. The killing in Bucha was an atrocity that the world should never forget--men and women and children, hands tied behind their backs, shot in the head, and then buried in mass graves that I saw. Talking to people who live in Bucha whose memories will be seared forever and their children traumatized by these Russian atrocities.

Vladimir Putin is a war criminal. There is a warrant for his arrest, rightly, from the international court of criminal justice. There should be warrants for arrests for all of the Russian officials who have participated in taking children from Ukraine, by the thousands--tens of thousands--and

then indoctrinating them, reeducating them in Russia or Belarus.

Russia has launched an unprovoked, criminal, murderous attack on a nation. That constitutes genocide. Those people in Bucha and in many other places around Ukraine were killed for one reason alone: They are Ukrainian. The world's outrage is well-founded.

Many of my colleagues have expressed that same outrage. Senators are good at summoning outrage in words that are far more eloquent than mine, but we will be judged not by our words but by our actions. We will be rightly judged by history as to what we do or what we fail to do here.

And we have missed opportunities in Ukraine before. The Senator from New Hampshire will recall well our efforts after the first invasion, when Russia seized a huge part of Ukraine and a bipartisan effort was made in the Armed Services Committee to provide more lethal aid to Ukraine so that it could use it, before this second invasion, to push back the Russians and show that we could deter them.

And after my first visit to Ukraine, which was a little bit before the second invasion, I came back, and I said to anyone who would listen, including the President of the United States: The only way to deter Putin is with force, delivery of what Ukraine needs to defend itself. Vladimir Putin is a thug. He understands only force.

And, unfortunately, we missed that opportunity. The second invasion occurred 2 year ago, and the effects in Ukraine are visible, again, to anyone who would visit: bombed-out buildings; transformers for power, destroyed; Ukraine's delivery of grain to a world that needs more food, blocked.

These effects are not abstract, and they are not limited to Ukraine. There are a lot of people in the United States who watch what they see on TV, and the images are horrifying. And their reaction is, of course: Thank goodness it isn't here, and thank goodness it doesn't affect us.

Well, the fact of the matter is, it affects Americans. It affects all of our allies. It affects the supply of energy and the cost of it--and the effect on the world economy. It affects the availability of grain-- Ukraine is the bread basket of many parts of the world--and the cost of food. It affects the diplomatic relations of nations, and, ultimately, it will affect our men and women in uniform.

Right now, President Zelenskyy can fight and win without men and women from America on the ground. But if he keeps going--and he will keep going, if he wins; he has told it to us. We have only to listen to him. It will be Poland or Romania or Moldova or Finland and Sweden.

Does anyone have any doubt about why Finland and Sweden want to be part of NATO? After years of neutrality, it is simply fear of Russia and Vladimir Putin's savage indomitable appetite for more territory and his long-range vision for restoring the Russian Empire and the old Soviet Union.

So anybody who thinks that what happens in Ukraine has no effect on America, you are in denial. Anyone who argues that we should be repairing our roads or building more schools or providing more food and heat for people who need it in America, you are right, but not at the expense of our national security. We can do both. We have done both.

And throughout American history, there have been people who have said: Let's pull back; let's care only what happens within our shores. And they have been proved wrong by history because of their denial, and, ultimately, America has done the right thing, as it did in World War II, and as it has done again and again and again by defending freedom and democracy.

This imperative is a moral obligation. It is a political necessity, but it is also a national security imperative.

The arms that we deliver to Ukraine already have helped degrade the Russian military by one half. Talk to our military leaders about the effects on Russia's military of Ukraine's defense. It has degraded the Russian Armed Forces by one half, and we have invested less than 5 percent of our military budget, without a single American casualty--not a single American in uniform killed or wounded. That is an investment that we need to continue, because the alternative is for us to be putting our troops on the ground there to defend, under our NATO obligation, those countries that will be invaded next--whether it is Poland, Romania, Moldova, or Finland and Sweden.

Let me say, finally, I was very proud yesterday to vote for a supplemental that serves our national security--our national security in Ukraine, our national security interest in Israel. It is defending itself against a terrorist organization that wants to eradicate Israel and annihilate the Jewish people, and it is doing so at our urging, with pressure from the United States, with reduced civilian casualties, more humanitarian aid, and maybe, most importantly, working toward a pause to bring home the hostages. Some are American.

And our security interest in Taiwan, in the Southeast, where, again, an aggressor threatens the rule of law and the order that we have established.

And, of course, national security at the border--we need to control the border. Our immigration system is broken. We need comprehensive immigration reform, but we need steps now to reform a completely shredded system at the border.

But this cause of Ukraine should bring us together and has brought us together. When we first started 10 years ago in the Armed Services Committee, one of our leaders was John McCain. I have traveled to Ukraine with Senator Graham. We have been part of a bipartisan movement. It should bring us together as Republicans and Democrats. There should be no red or blue part of it.

And I know--let me just say finally--that the people of America, at heart, are with us. I know that the Ukrainian community in Connecticut has stood steadfast and has been such an example. When I have told President Zelenskyy about the strong support in our Ukrainian community, his eyes have lighted up. And that is true throughout America. Ukrainians have remained steadfast in their loyalty to the freedom of their country, and they have been inspired, as have we.

Vladimir Putin is counting on us to fail. He believes democracies are decrepit and corrupt. He thinks that an autocratic dictatorship is superior, that everyday people don't know how to govern themselves, that he can continue to divide us by misinformation and disinformation.

He is wrong. Let's prove him wrong. Let's do it without delay. Let's do the right thing, without doing everything else first.

I thank my colleagues, and I am proud to stand with them today to urge that both Chambers pass this supplemental as quickly as possible.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize my friend and fellow Connecticut resident, Chris George, on the occasion of his retirement from Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services--IRIS-- after 18 years of remarkable leadership in resettling individuals and families seeking to build a new life in our country.

In 2005, Chris joined the organization that would later be known as IRIS, which operated out of a small office in New Haven with an eight- person staff. Over the following 18 years, Chris guided an enormous expansion of the organization, with 150 employees now helping to resettle 1,000 people per year across Connecticut. During Chris' tenure, IRIS has been at the center of Connecticut's response to refugees and other immigrants fleeing from persecution and violence, working with those displaced from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ukraine, and many other places worldwide. Chris and IRIS performed lifesaving work to accommodate refugees, especially through the expansion of their community cosponsorship program.

The success of IRIS under Chris' leadership has made New Haven and Connecticut national leaders in refugee resettlement. In January 2023, the organization was selected by the U.S. Department of State as one of five agencies to lead a consortium of nonprofit organizations as a part of the launch of the Welcome Corps program. In this role, IRIS is responsible for coordinating and managing the newly created Welcome Corps program infrastructure, which includes vetting, certifying, and training private sponsors, as well as monitoring and evaluating the overall success of the program.

I have been deeply honored to work with Chris over the years and witness his incredible accomplishments firsthand. I will always remember collaborating with him closely during the evacuation of Americans and allies from Afghanistan in 2021. From the outset of the crisis, Chris worked tirelessly, oftentimes communicating with those trapped in Afghanistan directly in order to secure their safe evacuation. Chris was quick to recognize the complexities that the evacuation from Afghanistan presented and was able to secure humanitarian parole for hundreds of refugees resettling across Connecticut. Chris has also been a key contributor and spokesperson for the Afghan Adjustment Act, aiming to affirm the legal status of the refugees who have been able to make it to the United States. Chris and IRIS were critical in not only advocating for and assisting in the safe escape of these individuals from the Taliban, but also in helping them to find housing, connect with healthcare, enroll in school, find jobs, and learn English.

Chris has been a fierce advocate on behalf of all fleeing oppression across the world, and his remarkable career is a testament to his diligence, leadership, and compassion. Although he is stepping down from IRIS, he plans to continue advocating for humanitarian causes, including working at the newly created Welcome Corps. I applaud Mr. Chris George for his incredible work and hope my colleagues will join me in expressing our gratitude and admiration.