Floor Statements

Madam President, I want to show you photographs of two individuals. Two years ago, I had the privilege of meeting this man, Vladimir Kara-Murza. He is a patriot and a Russian opposition leader-- what a risky business to be in.

Putin twice tried to poison him but failed. After his recovery here in the United States, he made a conscious decision that I couldn't believe. He said: I am going back to Russia. Someone has to be willing to fight and die for freedom and democracy in that country.

I said to him, as he was leaving: You are going to face certain arrest and imprisonment.

He said: I know it, but I have got to do it.

He had to continue the fight. I will never forget that moment of bravery and conviction in my office. Not long after his return to Russia, he was arrested for criticizing Putin's war in Ukraine.

He showed the same kind of patriotic courage as his compatriot Alexey Navalny, who died just a few days ago at the hands of Vladimir Putin's henchmen.

Putin tried to kill Navalny by poison too. He barred Navalny from running for office, from sharing stories of massive Kremlin corruption, and from speaking of the horrors of the Ukraine war.

Through it all, like Kara-Murza, Navalny was undeterred, and we know what happened--his tragic fate in that Arctic prison where he had been exiled. He was murdered by Vladimir Putin for fighting for freedom.

Navalny, Kara-Murza, and the Ukrainians on the frontlines are the brave patriots in this world, heroes Congress should look to for inspiration and courage, instead of a resort in Florida known as Mar-a- Lago.

In this small but lasting tribute to Navalny's courage today, Senator Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, and I are introducing legislation to rename the street next to the residence of the Russian Ambassador to the United States. The new name will be ``Navalny Way.''

This will not change what Putin has done or the unspeakable harm he has caused the Navalny family or millions of Ukrainians, including those children who have been kidnapped. But unlike the hooded Putin thugs trying to erase Navalny's memory by arresting mourners and quickly removing fliers left at makeshift memorials, this will force Russian diplomats in Washington to be reminded every day, as they drive by, of their crimes.

I hope Congress will quickly pass this symbolically important measure and, in a larger tribute to Navalny, our Ukrainian allies, and the thousands of kidnapped Ukrainian children, pass the supplemental without further delay.

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

Mr. President, let me join the comments of the Independent Democratic Senator from Maine and the kind words for his colleague because what she said in a brief period of time is so important at this moment of debate.

I note with pride that of the top nations, on a proportional basis, supporting the effort in Ukraine, the Baltics ranked at the top and that these small nations, determined to be free, know what it means to invest in the cause of the Ukrainians.

I also note and I believe she made reference to the fact that a country like Poland, which ranks fifth on the list of proportional assistance to Ukraine, is giving so much that is not accounted for in the ledger books. The people of Ukraine, when they left in a panic over the invasion of the Russians, went to Poland and were accepted in that country as neighbors that were going to give a helping hand when the Polish people opened their homes. The leader in the Polish Government said to me: Senator, you look all over Poland. You won't find a refugee camp of Ukrainian refugees. They are living in our homes.

That type of assistance is not calculated easily in the accounting books, but it is meaningful.

I might add that among the top five nations I noted on the chart was Finland. Finland, because of its leadership, decided to join NATO. And their arrival, it is my understanding, and their accession into NATO doubled the border that Russia has to face of NATO countries in size. Finland is a very large country. We are glad to have them as part of NATO and its future. That is at stake as well.

I don't want to get political in this issue about the future of NATO, but I think it is pretty clear there are those of us who believe 31 nations in NATO are indispensable for maintaining security in Europe for years to come--decades to come--and we have to invest in it.

If the United States should step away from this NATO commitment to Ukraine by its action on Capitol Hill, shame on us. There is so much at stake here in terms of the future of democracy.

Last night--I will close with this--as I was leaving Capitol Hill in the darkness, I passed by four or five people standing on the sidewalk outside. They were Ukrainians and Ukrainian Americans who were there to beg us to stand by their country in this hour of need. They have been keeping a watch for weeks and months at a time so that the U.S. commitment to Ukraine is appreciated by them, and they express it to us as Members of Congress.

I saw them standing in the dark and realized there may be many Americans going about their business, but these Ukrainian Americans know that this decision by the U.S. Congress and the Senate and the House could literally decide the future and fate of their homeland in Ukraine.

I think it is an essential responsibility on a bipartisan basis. And I thank Senator McConnell for his inspiring words this morning. On a bipartisan basis, we need to stand with Ukraine in their hour of need.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, many people who follow the Senate

may be asking a basic question: What are you doing? Why is it that the Senate is only voting once every other day or why does it seem like it is every other day? Why aren't you in business? If you are here this weekend, can't you have something to do of a positive nature for this country?

It is a reasonable question. I would like to describe where we are at this moment and where I hope we will be soon.

It started with the President of the United States asking for a defense supplemental bill--a supplemental bill for military spending. There were several major priorities in that major ask by the President. One, of course, was the war in Ukraine and our continued support of the Ukrainian effort to stop the ruthless invasion of Vladimir Putin and the Russians. This has been going on for 2 years. We have been standing by the Ukrainians, and they were running out of money, equipment, and ammunition. President Biden stepped up and said: We are going to provide assistance to Ukraine as part of this emergency supplemental.

The same thing is true when it comes to the Israelis fighting the terrorist Hamas after the invasion of their country on October 7. There is money to provide assistance to them in their effort to end that terrorism that had such a dramatic, negative impact on Israel.

The third provision relates to Taiwan and the Asian theater. They, too, are our friends and allies and need assistance from the United States.

Equally important is a substantial humanitarian aid package needed in many places around the world, including Gaza, that is part of this package.

These are four critical priorities that, in the usual course of business, would be approved on a bipartisan basis--but not this time. This time, many of the Republican leaders in the Senate said: We will not consider these important subjects without some provision dealing with America's border security.

It is true--I think it is obvious--that the situation on our southern border is currently unsustainable and needed to be changed. The Republicans insisted this would be part of the package, and there was no argument on our side of the aisle.

We sat down to find a solution. Now, solutions relating to immigration are illusive. I know that as well as anybody. We have spent three decades trying to come up with immigration reform legislation. Virtually, both parties concede that our immigration system in its entirety is a shambles and needs to be rewritten. So the suggestion was made that we put together a bipartisan committee to put together an alternative on border security to be added to this package that I just described.

The Republicans said that they wanted James Lankford of Oklahoma to speak for them. Several of them came to me and said that he has worked on this long and hard; he is prepared to accept the task of brokering a bipartisan solution to the border; and we trust him. We want him to be the spokesman for the Republican side.

No objection on this side of the table.

Two Senators joined him in that bipartisan effort--Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. They worked for weeks and weeks and weeks to put together a bipartisan border security package, and they finally succeeded.

The Republicans said: We don't want to move on that type of a package unless we have 72 hours to carefully review it before we take the first vote. Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, said that is a reasonable request, and he filed the original version of this bill last Sunday, if I am not mistaken.

Then, on the following Wednesday of this week we are closing, we brought this matter to the floor. To our surprise, the Republicans reversed their position on border security and, despite the best efforts of James Lankford on behalf of the Republicans, decided that, overwhelmingly, they were going to reject any border security measure.

Why the change of heart on the Republicans' side? The cause is very obvious and very public. Donald Trump, the punitive Republican nominee for President, announced that he was opposed to the package. Republican Senators who were open to it or in support of it walked away from it and, in walking away from it, did not produce enough votes for us to bring the border security measure up as part of this package.

Think about that for a second. We were told for months that we couldn't move on the underlying bill because we didn't have a border security proposal. We put together a bipartisan proposal, and we brought it to the floor. The same Republicans who were insisting on border security as part of this package turned on it and opposed it.

We took the vote, which told the story. At that point, Senator Schumer said: We will move forward with the rest of the package.

Those measures are now pending before the U.S. Senate and do not include border security, at least in the package produced by the bipartisan group.

I think what I have just given you is a rough summary of where we stand at this moment. So we are going through the labored process, under the Senate rules, of burning hours off of the clock--30 hours at a time--until we can reach these seminal rollcalls to determine whether we move forward. As Senator Schumer said just a few minutes ago, we face the next one of those rollcalls tomorrow, at around 1 o'clock in the afternoon. That is 30 hours after the last vote.

But there is a way to avoid this kind of inactivity on the floor of the Senate and to really get to the questions at hand, and that is what we normally do, that being a unanimous consent--both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican--to take up certain amendments or measures. We are at that point. We should be moving forward so that we can finish our work on this important legislation and go home for a break over the Presidents' holidays.

We don't know what is going to happen today. If we follow the book and don't reach a unanimous consent agreement, there may be little or nothing happening on the floor today, but if we can reach a bipartisan agreement on a list of acceptable amendments on both sides of the aisle, we can move forward, and the Senate can be the Senate as it should be. That is what is pending.

So that is a rough summary of where we stand. I am disappointed that a good-faith effort by these three Senators that produced a measure-- and I don't agree with it in every detail--which is a reasonable step forward, has been summarily rejected by most Senate Republicans.

As for Senator Lankford, I listened to him on the floor. He spent 30 minutes explaining what was in this package. There are some things that are absolutely necessary: resources at the border that we know that we need; people--professional people--to deal with the onslaught of refugees and asylees who are coming to our border; in addition to that, money for technology.

Doesn't everyone concede, on both sides of the aisle, that we need to do everything humanly possible to stop the flow of narcotics, particularly fentanyl, into the United States? I don't think that is even debatable. The bill that Lankford and the others proposed had provisions in there and resources to accomplish that goal.

The same thing is true when it comes to resolving the status of people who present themselves at the border. There are people who are desperate and fearful for their lives, who are staying in certain countries and escaping to the United States in the hopes that they will be safe. For more than 50 years, we have honored that pursuit and given a means for people to reach their goal. Now the standards are going to be tougher under the Lankford legislation, and it means that people are going to be held to a higher standard.

Also, there are provisions that those who are at the border will have their cases ultimately resolved in a much more expeditious way. I think we all agree that waiting 1 year, 2 years, 5 years or more really creates a hardship on the system and an uncertainty that needs to be resolved. It takes more immigration judges and people at the administrative level for processing, and the Lankford bill did that.

What I have just described in the provisions of the Lankford bipartisan bill was rejected by the majority of Republicans because Donald Trump announced that he was against it. He went so far as to say: Blame me if we do nothing on border security.

Well, I certainly think he is deserving of blame. He stopped Republicans who were positive of the subject from moving forward and helping us to do something positive on the immigration front.

There is another part of this story that I want to speak to very quickly this morning, and it relates to a measure that I introduced in the Senate almost 20 years ago. It is called the DREAM Act.

Yesterday, Senators Padilla, Cortez Masto, others, and I filed an amendment to offer the Dream Act as an amendment to this bill as part of the package if we are going to have a bipartisan package of amendments. I introduced this legislation, as I said, more than 20 years ago. It provides a path to citizenship for young immigrants who were brought to the United States as children and allows them to remain in the United States--their home.

These are kids brought here by their parents. There wasn't a family vote or a family decision; they were kids, and they did what their mom and dad told them to. They end up in the United States undocumented. They went to school here. They stood up each morning in the classroom and pledged allegiance to that same flag we just pledged allegiance to. They believed they were part of this country. It wasn't until they were usually 10 or 12 years old that their parents leveled with them and told them: Your legal status is uncertain. You are undocumented. We don't know what your future holds. Be careful. If you are not careful, you could be deported, and we could be deported with you.

That terrible circumstance prevailed for hundreds of thousands of young people in this country. The DREAM Act said: Give them a chance. Give them a chance to earn their pathway to citizenship. That is what the bill said when it was introduced. They have known no other home. Yet, without congressional action, they spend every day in fear of deportation.

Let me tell you about one of these Dreamers. Her name is Tatiana Vasquez Lopez. She attends college in my home State of Illinois.

This is the 140th time that I have told the story of a Dreamer here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I can make speeches about the subject, but if you meet these young people and hear their life story, it is a much more convincing experience.

Tatiana was born in Guatemala. She came to the United States when she was 11 months old. She grew up in Alabama and became an important part of her community. She volunteered at her local church during the COVID pandemic to help families in need. She also completed a teaching internship, during which she visited schools across the school system to support teachers and students. She did all of this while she was in high school.

Tatiana is currently studying at Dominican University in River Forest in my home State of Illinois. She is a leader in the Chicagoland community as president of the Organization of Latin American Students. What is her goal? A Ph.D. in psychiatry so she can work as a trauma therapist helping families and children. She wants to continue giving back to communities in need and helping provide lifesaving resources to others--resources she wishes her family had received when they came to the United States.

She is currently protected from deportation thanks to the DACA Program. DACA stands for ``Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.'' The DACA Program was an outgrowth of the DREAM Act. When we couldn't pass the DREAM Act on the floor of the Senate, former Senator Barack Obama from Illinois, as President of the United States, was importuned to consider doing it by Executive action.

I wrote a letter--the first letter--to President Obama, cosigned by Richard Lugar, the late Republican Senator from Indiana, asking Barack Obama to consider Executive action to protect young people like Tatiana. Then I sent another letter with about 23 Democratic Senators supporting the same goal. Fortunately for us, Obama was a cosponsor of the DREAM Act and agreed with our goal in this legislation, and he went to work to create DACA.

That program he established has changed hundreds of thousands of young lives like Tatiana's. DACA has protected more than 800,000 young people in America from deportation, and it has allowed them to pursue higher education and enter our workforce.

Unfortunately, since President Obama established the program, Republicans have waged a relentless campaign to overturn it and deport these young Dreamers back to countries they may not even remember.

Last September, a Federal judge in Texas declared the DACA Program was illegal, but the decision left in place protections for current DACA recipients like Tatiana while the appeal is pending. All of them live in fear that the next court decision will dramatically change their lives.

Until a permanent solution is written into law, Tatiana's service to her community is at risk, as is the service of Dreamers who work as doctors, teachers, engineers, and so much more across America.

I introduced the DREAM Act, as I said, more than 20 years ago to provide a solution, a path to citizenship for Dreamers. That solution is long overdue and should be acted on as quickly as possible.

We should all be able to agree that Dreamers only make America better, and we in Congress must do better by them. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Dreamers and to work with me to provide them with a path to be part of America's future. This amendment would do just that.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me say at the outset that I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his words on the floor in support of assistance to Ukraine in its hour of need. I thank him for being consistent in that message.

Yesterday, after months of delay, 17 Republican Senators joined in a bipartisan effort to advance critical security and humanitarian aid. I want to thank them for stepping up and urge them to continue moving this bill to final passage and moving it to passage in the House of Representatives.

All the while, while we were giving our speeches here on the floor of the Senate and other places, Vladimir Putin has been sitting back and waiting for the United States to finally walk away from the Ukrainians, as they fight bravely to repel his bloody onslaught. Putin is hoping that Donald Trump will be reelected and that this Congress will discontinue aid to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the ``message man'' for the MAGA movement, Tucker Carlson, was in Moscow interviewing the former communist KGB agent Vladimir Putin, hoping, no doubt, to further his cynical strategy.

Is there anyone here who could remotely have imagined that many in the party of Ronald Reagan and John McCain would be actively voting against aid to stop Russian tyranny, that they would bend to the will of former President Trump, who has spoken favorably of the Russian despot?

This photograph captures a moment a few years ago. It captures a moment, 37 years ago, at the Brandenburg Gate, between East and West Germany, where President Reagan stood resolutely for freedom and told Gorbachev to tear down the wall.

This second photograph is more personal to me. About 10 years ago, when Senator John McCain and I were part of a delegation that represented colleagues from Arizona, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Wyoming, we went to Ukraine's Maidan Square in Kyiv to honor those who had been killed in the fight for freedom.

I am not alone in asking the same question that was asked yesterday by the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk. He said, ``Ronald Reagan, who helped millions of us win back our freedom and independence, must be turning [over] in his grave'' with what is happening now in Washington.

The Polish people are staunch allies of Ukraine and the United States, and they have long memories of Soviet tyranny. They know that critical American resolve is part of overcoming that tyranny, and we should never forget it.

I am proud to represent the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois. There are many Polish Americans there--great people. I think what they have done during this Ukrainian war is an amazing story. They have literally embraced the refugees from Ukraine. As one of the Polish officials told me: Senator, you won't find a refugee camp for Ukrainians in Poland. We bring them into our homes.

It is an amazing outpouring. When you ask them, what is motivating you?

He said: We remembered no one would do that for us when we faced the same tyranny in our own history.

They have made a difference. It is not just because of their love for their neighbors in Ukraine, but it is also the realization that, if Vladimir Putin conquers Ukraine, the next target could easily be Poland or the Baltic nations. They know that this fight, which is being waged against Putin in Ukraine, is their fight. We should realize the same.

Next week, a bipartisan group of us are attending the Munich Security Conference. It is an annual conference in Germany where we bring together the European nations and many others to discuss topics of the day. You can bet the No. 1 topic will be Ukraine. God forbid we fail to pass this defense supplemental before the Munich Conference. I don't know what I will say to our friends and allies in NATO and in Europe who stood by us and by the Ukrainian people for so long if we abandon them here in the U.S. Senate.

The first question that they will ask is, Will we approve the money necessary to buy the ammunition and equipment for the Ukrainians to fight on? We are going to answer that question here in the U.S. Senate in just a matter of hours.

NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg recently said that if Putin isn't stopped, he will continue his war beyond Ukraine, with grave consequences.

And make no mistake, it is not only Putin watching and savoring our failure to act. It is Iran, China, North Korea, and many others.

So let's get this done. Let's show Putin and the other tyrants of the world that they cannot divide and weaken us at home or with our allies abroad.

For months, my Republican colleagues refused to provide critical aid to Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, and Taiwan and to address urgent national security and humanitarian needs until we would consider and pass legislation to secure the American border. This week, we had an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan bill that would help us to secure the border and provide this essential national security funding. I had some concerns about the language in this, but I realized it was a bipartisan compromise.

Senator James Lankford, speaking for the Republicans, had been negotiating literally for weeks to get the right language that could appeal to both Democrats and Republicans.

I want to thank Senator Murphy and Senator Kyrsten Sinema for their resolve as well.

While I had some concerns about the proposal, as I said, I was prepared to support it with some changes. I am happy to report that it received the support of the National Border Patrol Council, the union that represents Border Patrol agents.

Despite all of this, Senate Republicans said they wanted to offer amendments. Well, the way to offer an amendment is, first, to pass a motion to proceed to the bill. When that measure came up for support, we didn't have enough Republican support to pass it on the floor. Almost immediately after the bill was released, numerous Senate Republicans had come out in opposition to it.

And when the bill came to floor, they voted not to even consider it. Why? Why? Because Donald Trump told them not to. And he was very bold about it. He said: Blame me, if you will. But any attempt to make border security changes should be stopped now so he can use the issue in the campaign. He said: ``Blame it on me'' if the bill fails.

Well, we will. Trump is apparently fearful that a bipartisan effort to secure the border would undermine his campaign rhetoric.

His interference could not have come at a worse time. We are facing the worst refugee crisis in modern history. With outdated laws and underfunded agencies, our immigration system is not up to the challenge. As a result, many migrants are stuck in our processing backlogs for years, without a work permit.

Most people don't know this fact, but I want to make it for the record. We have had about 36,000 migrants come into the city of Chicago, primarily from Texas. They were sent there under false pretenses that there were accommodations waiting and a job waiting for them. That was not the case. But the Governor of Texas didn't care, and he didn't care about their outcome and their plight--36,000, trying to find shelter for them. Some went to police stations and slept on the floor. Some slept in churches. The Catholic charities did an amazing job, as well as many others, to try to take care of them. And it has been a real hardship on the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois-- 36,000 people.

There is one thing most people don't realize. In the past year and a half, we have absorbed, in Chicago, 30,000 Ukrainian immigrants who have come from war-torn Ukraine to the city of Chicago.

Now, I hope you can understand that a city that has a section known as Ukrainian Village certainly welcomes these people. Families that sponsor them said that they would stand by them. And they became part of our society and part of our economy quickly, without a lot of rancor and with the understanding of people that they were going to add to America. And they were in desperate need.

So 30,000 Ukrainians were absorbed into Chicago without much fanfare. I have seen them at the churches and their schools, working in restaurants, doing the kind of work that immigrants are used to doing in America.

But the 36,000 who came in as migrants from Texas were sent in by the busload, without any warning and without any effort to try to assimilate them into the area before they arrived. The difference is very stark.

The legislation that we were going to consider before the Republicans killed it would have created a new system to process migrants quickly. It would have funded our frontline officials and immigration officers with $20 billion to ensure that they are processed efficiently.

Think about that. The Republicans have been saying publicly for months that we need more resources at the border to stop the onslaught of people who are arriving. And they also believe--and I share the belief--that we need more surveillance at the border, not only for those coming across the border but also for those bringing across the border narcotics and other contraband dangerous to America.

So the bill, which they stopped this week with their vote on the floor, would have provided $20 billion to ensure that they would be processed efficiently at the border and provide $20 billion, at least, in new technology and resources to stop the onslaught of narcotics and drugs.

It would have ensured that asylum seekers with legitimate claims can get a work permit quickly and start working, as so many businesses across the Nation need.

Despite my concerns about this legislation, because it left out Dreamers, I was prepared to consider it and support it. The DREAM Act was a measure that I introduced some 22 years ago in an effort to give these young people, who were brought to this country by their parents and who grew up here and became part of America, a chance to finally prove themselves and earn their way into citizenship. I think it should be included in any measure that addresses immigration from this point forward.

I hope we can all agree on one thing: We need to work together in a bipartisan way to secure the border, after years of congressional failure. Bipartisanship requires compromise.

After all of the Senate Republicans' TV appearances, campaign photos at the border, and impassioned speeches on the floor, it only took one man to destroy this agreement, this hard-fought bipartisan agreement-- Donald Trump.

I know my Republican colleagues understand the urgent need to secure the border. I am disappointed that they would let their fear of one man stop this body from doing its job.

We still have a chance to do the right thing when it comes to security. We can stand behind the people in Ukraine who are fighting bravely every single day.

I cannot imagine how America can explain to the world why it would walk away from this battle against Vladimir Putin. We know his ambitions beyond Ukraine are terrible, and innocent people will suffer. Let's let the Ukrainian soldiers fight bravely with our support with a vote in the Senate today.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, if I am not mistaken, the Senator is also considering attending the Munich Security Conference.

As am I. And for those unfamiliar with that conference, leaders from around the world gather to discuss the current state of affairs when it comes to security.

And if we are there, we are bound to be asked as a first question: Just what is the U.S. position on the defense of Ukraine?

Has the Senator come up with an answer?

As a student of history, I am sure the Senator remembers, as I do, the lengthy ordeal when the British came to us before World War II and begged us to come to their assistance, and we waited and we waited. We came up with an alternative, Lend-Lease and other things. But we didn't commit until that fatal day, December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and we were drawn into the war.

Can the Senator think of a time in history when the United States has walked away from an ally fighting for its life?

I would like to ask the Senator through the Chair again: In this circumstance, we have seen the revival, in my estimation, of an alliance which was so important 50 or 60 years ago and now is critical, and that is the NATO alliance. We have seen not only the strength of that alliance, but we have seen nations like Finland and Sweden announce that they want to be part of that alliance in the future. What does this say of the NATO alliance if the leading nation--the United States--walks away from Ukraine?

My last question, of course, relates to the aftermath if we abandon Ukraine. I have a special connection and affection for the Baltic nations as well as Poland, which is so ably represented in the State of Illinois and city of Chicago. We are very proud of that fact. What does this say to those countries that are literally in the sights of Putin as the next victim if we walk away from this situation in Ukraine?

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, after I complete my remarks, the following is going to be the schedule of speakers on the floor before the rollcall vote. It is a bipartisan agreement. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote: Senator Lankford of Oklahoma for up to 30 minutes; Senator Murray

of Washington, up to 10 minutes; Senator Sinema of Arizona, up to 15 minutes; and Senator Schumer for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I listened to the statements that were made this afternoon on the floor of the Senate, and there were some omissions of fact which need to be reminded to the people who are following.

It was 4 months ago when we faced a deadline to come up with assistance for Ukraine. You know what has been going on there for 2 years: a war fought by the most courageous people I know--the Ukrainians--against the invasion of Vladimir Putin.

The United States, NATO allies, and many others have been standing behind Ukrainians, and we knew that they needed additional resources to continue the battle this year.

Four months ago, the President put together a supplemental appropriations bill for that purpose. It also addressed the situation in the Middle East, the Far East, and the looming humanitarian crises around the world, including Gaza, that needed to be addressed.

We wanted to move on this on a timely basis, but there was an objection. The objection came from the other side of the aisle, Republican Senators who said: You need to include border security. What is happening on our southern border cannot be ignored.

We discussed it for a period of time and then agreed with them. We were going to work together on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats, to change what was happening on America's southern border to make us safe and to bring order to the situation.

Several of our colleagues were chosen to engage in the negotiations for this issue.

This is a tough issue. Any issue involving immigration is extremely difficult. That is why it has been over 30 years since Congress has passed immigration reform, when we know that the body of laws that governs our immigration and our border needed attention long ago.

Three Senators, very diverse Senators, were chosen to negotiate an agreement if they could. They were led by Senator Lankford, James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, who was chosen by the Republican Senate caucus to be their negotiator. Several of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle assured me that he had worked hard at it, understood the issue, and was prepared to accept this challenge and responsibility. So Senator Lankford led in that regard. Two other Senators--Senator Sinema of Arizona, who is characterized as an Independent Senator at this point in her career, and Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut were the second and third Senators who sat down and started negotiating together.

They put together a package. It took them 4 months. We had to postpone the negotiations for Christmas and for other breaks that were normal in the Senate calendar. But they were given wide berth to come up with an agreement, a bipartisan agreement, and it was announced last Sunday.

Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, released it on Sunday and said: I will heed the advice of Senators from both sides of the aisle that Members should have 72 hours to review this document before they have to vote on it.

The vote we are talking about this afternoon is that vote, more than 72 hours after this proposed bill was released.

What did this bill do that would gain the support of the Democratic and Republican Senators who were negotiating? What it did was to address many issues--primarily border issues--that related to security.

The current situation on our border is unsustainable. We are being overwhelmed by the number of people who are showing up in record numbers. That reflects several things--a refugee crisis around the world.

Those of you who watched ``60 Minutes'' this week noticed that there were people from China who are now coming to our southern border to come into the United States. No one anticipated that when we talked about the asylum laws several years ago, but that is a fact of life. People are coming from all around the world to come to our southern border, and they are overwhelming the resources of that border.

This bill--this agreed-to bill, this bipartisan bill--that is being considered here this afternoon was an effort by both sides to limit the number of people coming across the border at any given time. It gave new authority to the President of the United States to cap and limit the number of people crossing the border at a given time.

When those on the other side say we don't need this bill, that is legislative authority the President currently doesn't have, and it was included. There were billions of dollars of investment in technology to stop the flow of not only those who are undocumented and illegal but also the flow of fentanyl into the United States, just to name two major features of this bill. It had many provisions hammered out over months of negotiations.

Those of us who came back this week said we were finally going to do something on the border, and the good news is, it is bipartisan. Senator Lankford has signed off on it, and the other two Senators, representing the Democratic side of the aisle, signed off on it as well. We were prepared to see this pass and hope for the best in the House of Representatives.

Then the bottom dropped out. One thing happened that we didn't anticipate. One person in America came out against the proposal. One person said to the Republican Senators: Sorry, no matter what you agreed to, it is unacceptable. Blame it on me, he said, but we are not going to have a bipartisan agreement on the border. This is unacceptable.

That one person is Donald Trump. He made that announcement at that point. Many of the Republicans who had indicated interest in this measure walked away from it, and today, I am afraid we are going to see that in the vote. It is really sad when you consider what is at stake, the lives that are at stake all across the United States. People who are trying to come to this country with good intentions and good purposes and would make us a better nation are being caught up in this political battle.

So when Senator Schumer comes to the floor and expresses his disappointment, he speaks for the entire Senate Democratic caucus. We are disappointed that we came up with a bipartisan bill with Senator Lankford, who has been a stalwart in this whole experience. He has shown principle and values and negotiated in good faith. He produced a bipartisan bill, and we are prepared to vote for it this afternoon.

The sad reality is that the assistance to Ukraine, which was one of the original reasons for this conversation, is still in doubt. I hope at the end of the day that the Democrats can lead the way, with the Republicans, and provide the survival assistance absolutely necessary for the people in Ukraine. They are watching carefully.

At the end of next week, a group of us will be going to the Munich Security Conference in Germany. It is held each year. It is a bipartisan delegation. We go to speak for the United States. What we have to say to our European allies will depend on the votes that will follow today, the first and the second vote. Will we stand by Ukraine or will we walk away from it and let Vladimir Putin have his dream of an expansion of the former Soviet system? I hope not.

The people in Ukraine deserve better. We need to stand together with them. There is much to be said as to what this means to the rest of the world, but we have been reminded by our NATO allies, who have been loyal to a fault so far--and I hope they continue to be--that we can't walk away from that situation without inviting disastrous consequences around the world.

I am afraid that if we walk away from Ukraine, they will struggle to survive. And I hope they do, but it will be a real struggle. In the meantime, it heartens Vladimir Putin and our adversaries around the world to see us waiver when it comes to staying with the Ukrainian people.

I hope that vote this afternoon--that both votes are in a positive way, that we can take that message to the rest of the world that we are still there.

I also want to say that it is hard to imagine that the party of Ronald Reagan and John McCain--the party that claimed to take a strong stand

against communism--just played right into the hands of former KGB apparatchik Vladimir Putin's hand. That is right--the same Putin who called the collapse of Soviet tyranny ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.''

Putin and his Iranian and North Korean enablers are trying to roll back Western democracy and restore Soviet glory, and the front of the line is Ukraine, where the United States and European allies have helped these heroic Ukrainians to repel the Russian invasion.

What is Putin's strategy after suffering staggering losses in equipment and personnel? To bet that the United States will allow partisanship to interfere with its support of Ukraine and hope that former President Trump returns to the White House. That is Putin's dream.

Just as we learned when it came to the agreement--the bipartisan agreement--on border security, Donald Trump has made it clear that he opposes this continuing assistance to Ukraine.

You may recall that in 2018, Trump stood next to Putin in Helsinki and said he believed Putin's denials about interfering in our election, while Putin smirked at the podium.

By failing to pass national security funding, we would be playing into Putin's hands.

Many congressional Republicans have spoken loudly about defending Ukraine and the NATO alliance. They have traveled to NATO summits and even Munich security conferences to support this mission. They have also visited Ukraine, followed by press conferences with belligerent claims that President Biden just wasn't doing enough. But today, the fate of Ukraine hangs in the balance on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

It seems too many of my colleagues have collectively cowered to Donald Trump, who wants to tank the supplemental funding agreement for his own cynical reasons. Is that who congressional Republicans are going to entrust with stopping Russian aggression? Make no mistake, it is not only Putin watching and savoring this failure to act; it is Iran, China, North Korea, and others.

I think of the late John McCain and how he would look at the situation on the Republican side of the aisle today. He was a fierce critic throughout his life of Russian tyranny, especially Putin's tyranny. He was the target of Putin's early sanctions, as many of us were as well. John McCain took that as a badge of pride, and I do too.

It is time we show the same courage here in Congress and make sure that we pass emergency national security funding. Last I checked, protecting democracy and safeguarding American security were bipartisan causes, and they should be still.

I would like to make one last point. It is hard for me to see us visit this issue of immigration and not mention an issue that has been near and dear to me for more than two decades.

Today, I want to tell you the story of a Dreamer, Dr. Jacqueline Solis. Hers is the 139th Dreamer story I have told on the floor of the Senate. Jacqueline was born in Peru and immigrated to this country when she was 10. She wanted to become a doctor. She didn't think it was possible because she was undocumented.

Twelve years ago, in response to a bipartisan request from myself and the late Senator Richard Lugar, President Obama established DACA Program. It has protected more than 800,000 young people like Jacqueline. Thanks to DACA, she was able to attend medical school. I am proud to say that last year, she graduated from Loyola University Chicago's Stritch School of Medicine, the first medical school to accept DACA applicants. She is now completing her pediatrics residency at Emory University Hospital. DACA allowed her to come out of the shadows and give back to the country she grew up in, the country she loves: the United States of America. She hopes to be an agent of change in her community where she mentors medical students and first- generation, low-income students. One of her goals is to open a mobile clinic where she could drive to different communities and help patients.

Ask yourself: Would America be better off if Dr. Jacqueline Solis and Dreamers like her were unable to work in the United States? Still, 20 years later, we are trying our best to make sure these young people have a fighting chance to be part of America's future.

Last September, a Federal judge in Texas declared the DACA program illegal, though the decision left in place protections for current DACA recipients while the appeal is pending. These young people live in fear that the next court decision will upend their lives. That would be a disaster.

When we get on the subject of immigration, the border is critical. It is important. I want to be part of that conversation. Please, don't forget the Dreamers, and don't forget so many people who have proven over and over again that they are our future and our strength, if given that chance.

I yield the floor.

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

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

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Amy M. Baggio to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

Judge Baggio received her B.A., cum laude, from Wake Forest University and her J.D. from Lewis & Clark Law School. After law school, she became a public defender in Portland, where she represented clients in State court.

From 2002 to 2012, she served in the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Oregon in Portland. She handled both trials and appeals in that role, representing her clients in Federal district court and before the Ninth Circuit. In 2012, Judge Baggio opened a solo practice in Portland, where she worked until 2019. During her time as a litigator, she tried 12 cases to verdict, including 8 jury trials.

In 2019, Judge Baggio was appointed to the Oregon State Circuit Court in Multnomah County by then-Governor Kate Brown. Judge Baggio was subsequently elected to the position in 2020. Over the past 5 years, she has handled civil, criminal, and family law matters, and she has presided over more than 40 trials.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Baggio ``well qualified'' to serve on the District of Oregon. She has deep ties to Oregon and enjoys the strong support of both of her home State Senators, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Merkley. Her extensive litigation background and experience as a State court judge will serve her well on the Federal bench.

When Senator Wyden introduced Judge Baggio at her confirmation hearing, he noted that she has never had a party before her file a request for a different judge, a testament to her fairness. I strongly support this nominee, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.

Mr. President, I was saddened to learn last week of the passing of a trailblazing former member of our Senate family. Senator Jean Carnahan was the first woman ever to represent Missouri in the U.S. Senate.

She was appointed to the Senate in December 2000, after her husband, then-Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan, lost his life in an airplane crash in the closing weeks of his Senate campaign. The Carnahans' eldest son Randy and Chris Sifford, a longtime political aide to the Governor, also perished in the plane crash.

It was too late to remove Governor Carnahan's name from the ballot so 1 week before the election, Missouri's acting Governor announced that he would appoint Jean Carnahan to serve in her late husband's place should the people of Missouri elect Governor Carnahan posthumously.

In her first remarks in the Senate, Senator Carnahan told her new colleagues, ``I know I did not come to the U.S. Senate in the same way you did. I did not have a long-term, personal commitment to a campaign. My name has never been on a ballot. On election night there was no victory celebration. You are here because of your win; I am here because of my loss. But we are all here to do the work of this great nation.''

The first Senator to greet her after she took her oath of office was someone who also knew the searing pain of losing a spouse and child. As Senator Carnahan later recalled, then-Senator Joe Biden assured Missouri's new Senator that she could endure her crushing loss. He also shared with her the same advice that had been given to him when he was elected to the Senate shortly after his wife Neilia and baby daughter Naomi were killed in a car crash.

His advice was, ``Lose yourself in the work.'' In fact, as President Biden remarked last week after Senator Carnahan died, ``she found herself'' serving the people of her State in this Senate.

She was elected as a Member of the first 50/50, evenly divided Senate. The 2 years she served were some of the most tragic and turbulent in our Nation's history. They included the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the anthrax attack on the Senate.

In a time of growing political division and acrimony, Senator Carnahan was a quiet but determined consensus seeker and a practical politician. She joined the Centrist Coalition, a bipartisan group of Senators. She focused on national security, conditions for members of the military, and military families. And she was part of the first congressional delegation to Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

While she had never held public office before, Jean Carnahan was not new to politics and public service; she had been serving the people of Missouri her entire adult life. She was born Jean Carpenter and grew up in a working-class section of Washington, DC. Her father was a plumber, and her mother was a hairdresser. She met her future husband, the son of a Missouri Congressman, when they were both 15 years old. They met first at church and a few days later at Anacostia High School, where they were seated next to each other.

On their second date, he told her that he was going to marry her, and he was going to move back to Missouri to run for Congress. They married 5 years later. The following year, Jean Carnahan graduated from George Washington University with a degree in business and public administration, the first member of her family to graduate from high school or college.

True to his word, Mel Carnahan returned to Missouri and was elected to Congress, representing the Bootheel area of southeastern Missouri. He would go on to serve two terms as a popular Missouri Governor.

In their early campaigns, Jean Carnahan was her husband's speechwriter and press secretary, and she was always his best and closest political confidante. She made the position of first lady of Missouri a full-time job and developed her own slate of child- and family-centered causes. She advocated successfully for establishing daycare centers at workplaces. Her focus on childhood immunizations helped boost Missouri's childhood immunization rate from 49th in the Nation to tenth. She also led a successful effort to renovate Missouri's Governor's mansion. She also was a gifted writer, author of seven books.

Weeks before the end of her time in the Senate, in another cruel twist of fate, a different plane crash claimed the lives of another beloved member of this Senate, Senator Paul Wellstone, along with his wife Sheila, their daughter Marcia, three campaign staffers, and the plane's two pilots. In the dark days that followed, no one was a greater support to the devastated Wellstone staff than Senator Carnahan and her staff.

In 2002, Senator Carnahan ran in a special election to serve the remainder of what would have been her husband's 6-year term. She lost in a razor-thin vote.

In her final remarks on this floor, she thanked the people of Missouri for allowing three generations of Carnahans to serve their State. She also had some wise words of advice to the Senators that served with her and those who would follow her. I think her parting words are even more important today.

Senator Carnahan implored us ``[W]hen my colleagues think on the role of government, seek a balance. Seek a balance between one that does everything and one that does nothing. And where there is talk of war, let there be the free and open debate that becomes our great Nation. And when there are judges to be appointed, let them be selected for their temperament and jurisprudence and not for political ideology that satisfies a special interest group.''

She continued ``When we lay out our energy and environment policy, let it not be for short-term gain but for the well-being of our grandchildren and the survival of our planet. And when my colleagues speak of leaving no child behind, let that not be a mantra but a

mission, fervent and funded. When health care is thought about, the health care needs of children, family, and seniors--and I hope that will be often--I urge my colleagues to lay aside partisanship and heed the plight of the hurting and the helpless in our society.''

We would all do well to heed her thoughtful counsel.

Loretta and I offer our sincere condolences to all those who are mourning her passing and especially to her family: her daughter Robin, Missouri's former secretary of state and the current head of the Federal General Services Administration, her sons Tom and Russ, a former Missouri Congressman, and her five grandchildren.

Senator Jean Carnahan was an immensely strong and brave woman who made history and made this Senate, our Nation, and her beloved State of Missouri better. She will be missed.

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

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

Madam President, I am heartened and encouraged that there is finally a bipartisan agreement to provide Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, and Taiwan critical funding to meet their urgent national security and humanitarian needs. It should have happened months ago, but Republicans demanded that any discussion of this assistance be tied to changes in border policy here in the United States, using national security as a bargaining chip and gambling, sadly, with people's lives. The future and fate of Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific hung in the balance.

Last week, the European Union reached an agreement to provide an additional $54 billion to stand by Ukraine and shore up its war-ravaged economy, bringing the total European Union support to well over $100 billion and comparable to what the United States has done.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin continues to think he has more resolve than we do, reveling in his belief that Western democracy is unable to sustain its rejection of Russian tyranny. But more than just Putin, other destabilizing forces around the world are watching what we do, from Iran to North Korea. We must prove to them our commitment to democratic ideals.

Our response to Putin's aggression has consequences--not just in Ukraine or even in Russia but global and historic consequences. In fact, NATO's Secretary General Stoltenberg recently issued a very plain warning to all of us in the West. He said:

If Putin wins . . . there is a real risk that his

aggression will not end there.

Putin will continue to wage his war beyond Ukraine. Further, if other despots sense Western weakness, they will be emboldened to attempt their own aggression.

Stoltenberg went on to say:

Our support is not charity. It is an investment in our

security.

It is time for Speaker Johnson and Republicans to realize that bipartisanship is the only--the only--way to ensure that Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and innocent civilians in Gaza will receive critical, lifesaving assistance.

Let's not flinch when it comes to standing up to such obvious threats to democracy and the rule of law. The world is watching. That is why we must pass this national security package.

But this agreement also addresses our immigration policy. And let me be clear. We do need to fix our disastrous immigration laws and secure the border. That has been a fact for more than three decades. That is why I have worked for years to pass bipartisan legislation that would fix our immigration system.

Leader Schumer came to the floor earlier and recalled the time when the so-called Gang of 8--four Democrats and four Republicans--worked for months to put together a measure which passed with a bipartisan rollcall on the floor of the Senate. I was honored to be part of that effort.

This bill that we have before us includes important measures, such as a one-time increase in green cards and protections for the children of H-1B visa holders who age out of legal status when they turn 21.

I am deeply, deeply disappointed that this bill does not include a path to citizenship for Dreamers, recipients of temporary protected status, farmworkers, or other essential people who have spent years contributing to our society. These individuals fill a critical role in America.

A study showed that undocumented immigrants--undocumented immigrants--pay nearly $80 billion in Federal and $40 billion in State and local taxes every single year. Many of these immigrants were brought to the United States as children. They don't know any other home. Yet, without congressional action, they spend each day in fear of being deported.

Madam President, 12 years ago, in response to a bipartisan request from myself and the late Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, President Obama established the DACA Program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. It really was a reflection of the DREAM Act, which I had introduced over 20 years ago.

DACA has protected more than 800,000 young people from deportation, all of whom arrived in our country as children. These young people are known today as Dreamers. They grew up alongside our kids, and many have gone on to serve our Nation as servicemembers, doctors, first responders. They believe in the American dream.

I have come to the floor of the Senate 138 times--this is it--to tell their stories. I don't think there is any more compelling argument to be made for the Dreamers and DACA than to let people know exactly who they are, what they have done, and what they dream of.

This is a story of a young woman who came to America at the age of 4, Alyssandra Abrenica. She first arrived in Orange County, CA, from the Philippines, and she vividly remembers sharing a single, tiny room with all six of her family members.

While attending college, Alyssandra discovered a passion for healthcare, and she applied to the only medical school which was accepting Dreamers at the time, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine in Chicago. In 2020, she was accepted to the school and received one of the first of the American Medical Association's DREAM MD Equity Scholarships, which is given to DACA recipients or first- generation immigrants to study medicine.

DACA was always intended to be a temporary solution, and since President Obama established the program, Republicans, for reasons I cannot explain to you in any political or human terms, have waged a relentless campaign to overturn it and to deport these Dreamers back to countries they may not even remember.

Last September, a Federal judge in Texas declared the DACA Program illegal. Although the decision left in place protections for current DACA recipients like Alyssandra while the appeal is pending, they live in fear the next court decision will end their careers and upend their lives.

Until a permanent solution is written into law, Alyssandra's service to her community is at risk, as is the service of other Dreamers who work as teachers, doctors, engineers, and in so many more important professions. The permanent solution is enacting the DREAM Act, a piece of legislation which I have mentioned that I introduced two decades ago. It would provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers across America and allow them to live stable lives and to live out the American dream, which they richly deserve.

Immigrants have been a vital part of the American success story. Our Nation still needs them. If DACA is struck down, experts predict that our economy will lose over $11 billion a year in lost wages. Moreover, as we face a decreasing population and shortages of medical professionals, immigrants can help mitigate that gap. Without continued immigration, the U.S. working-age population will shrink by over 6 million by the year 2040. As Americans retire, this could lead to a 23- percent reduction in monthly Social Security payouts to retirees. Remember, these immigrants, even undocumented, and Dreamers are paying taxes and paying into Social Security for us, for our children, for the next generation.

To resolve these challenges, we need to create additional lawful pathways for immigrants while also providing legal status for our undocumented population who have been here for decades. That is why good-faith efforts to reform and improve our broken immigration system cannot stop with this bill.

Madam President, I think about the situation with these Dreamers and what they are facing and how many of them I have met over the years. When I first introduced the bill, they used to come up to me in Chicago, wait until it got dark outside so that no one would see them, and they would whisper to me: ``I am a Dreamer. Can you help me?''

It became a cause for me, and certainly I have worked at it. I am disappointed that I cannot tell a story of success even greater than we have achieved with DACA. But they are still waiting to hear.

This bill that we are considering gives some help to what they call documented Dreamers. Here is how it works. The H-1B visa is offered to foreign experts and professionals to come to the United States and work for 3 years--renewable 3 years. They can bring their families with them.

A lot of people from China, from India, and from other places come and take some critically important jobs in our economy under this program of H-1B. They are accompanied by their families. They continue to work, extending year after year, in the hopes that eventually they will become citizens themselves of the United States through what is called a green card. While they are doing this, their spouses cannot legally work in many instances, and their children are running a real risk.

You see, when these kids reach the age of 21, they are no longer eligible to stay with their families. Now, these kids could have spent their whole lives in America because their families came here. They could have gone to school and succeeded over and over again. But to have a future in America, they need a green card. And if they don't get it by age 21, they are eligible for deportation.

Does that make any sense at all? Well, this bill starts to solve that problem. And I certainly support the efforts to solve it and applaud those who are behind it.

But the same conditions apply to Dreamers, brought here as little children. They were raised in the United States, went to school in the United States, stood up and pledged allegiance to that flag in the classroom every single morning. And they asked to be a part of our future. They did nothing wrong. They were kids when they were brought here. Why they weren't included in this bill, I don't know.

I am sorry to say, I think there are a few Senators who are just dead-set on stopping the Dreamers and DACA every chance they get. What a loss that would be to America--for us to lose that talent, that drive, that determination, that important part of our future. And what a commentary it is on us as Americans that our Nation of immigrants has no room for Alyssandra and so many others who can make this a better nation.

There are thousands of them. There were 800,000 under DACA, initially; and there are many more who are still eligible. I am sorry this bill does not include that provision for the Dreamers. But I will tell you this: I will fight for every opportunity I have to bring the Dream Act before the U.S. Senate in the hope that one day we will give these young people exactly what they deserve--part of America's future.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Joseph Laroski to the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Mr. Laroski earned his B.S.F.S. from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law. After graduating, he clerked for Judge Dominick L. DiCarlo on the Court of International Trade. Following his clerkship, Mr. Laroski joined the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom as an associate. During his time in private practice, Mr. Laroski represented a host of clients, including domestic companies, international producers and exporters, industry associations, U.S. importers, and trade unions. He has also spent 9 years in the Federal Government, serving as associate general counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, advisor to the Office of the General Counsel at the U.S. International Trade Commission, and Director of Police and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Police and Negotiations at the International Trade Administration. In these roles, he represented the United States in dispute settlements under free trade agreements, served as agency counsel on import injury investigations, advised senior Department of Commerce officials on trade policy matters, and oversaw negotiation and compliance efforts on international trade agreements.

Over the course of his career, Mr. Laroski has handled trade matters before the International Trade Commission, the Court of International Trade, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the World Trade Organization, and regional trade agreement dispute bodies.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Mr. Laroski ``qualified.'' His extensive experience in international trade litigation, both in private practice and the Federal Government, ensures that he will be an asset to the Court of International Trade. I will vote in favor of his confirmation and encourage my colleagues to do the same.