Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, most Americans agree that the cost of prescription drugs is too high. Most Americans agree that President Biden has done the right thing by reducing the monthly cost of insulin to $35 so that millions of people facing diabetes can afford their medication. Most Americans agree that it is almost impossible to explain why American drug companies sell the same drugs in Canada for a fraction of the cost they charge American consumers. Most Americans agree that the pharmaceutical companies should be able to take advantage of basic research by Agencies like the National Institutes of Health but, when it comes to their profit-making, they ought to be reasonable with the American taxpayers, who started them down the road to a successful product.

Most Americans also agree that the No. 1 driver in the cost of health insurance premiums is the cost of prescription drugs. BlueCross BlueShield of Chicago has told me as much. It stands to reason.

That is why it is very difficult to understand the statement just made by the Republican leader in the Senate, who is suggesting that the idea of negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies so that Medicare, for example, doesn't pay the highest price for drugs isn't a reasonable thing.

What I heard from the Republican leader was this was prescription drug socialism--socialism--that we would go to the private sector and say: Lifesaving drugs should be affordable. You are entitled to a profit, but you are not entitled to rip off taxpayers or consumers across America.

That seems like a reasonable approach. In fact, it seems so reasonable that someone suggested we do that for our veterans years ago. The Veterans' Administration has been negotiating prescription drug pricing for years.

What the Senator from Kentucky refers to as ``unelected bureaucrats'' are the officials of the Veterans' Administration who, on behalf of the veterans and their families, sit down at a table and negotiate a reasonable cost so that veterans will always have those drugs available to them and the government will pay not the highest price but a reasonable price for the product.

That has been going on for decades, and I don't recall any Republican--or Democrat, for that matter--who stood before the Senate or the House and said: That is a bad idea. The Veterans' Administration ought to pay a much higher price for drugs, and taxpayers ought to foot the difference.

The reason you don't hear that is it doesn't make sense. We should be able to negotiate reasonable pricing for pharmaceutical drugs in Medicare, just as we do in the Veterans' Administration. That is what President Biden has suggested.

If you took a look at the top 10 drugs that the Medicare system is buying across America, not surprisingly, these drugs, which have tongue-twister names, are familiar to most Americans. Why?

The pharmaceutical companies have put so many ads on television for the drug Xarelto that we can not only pronounce it but we can spell it. And Xarelto, of course, is a drug that appeals to many people but certainly to senior citizens.

Now, for the record, there are only two nations in the world that allow television advertising of pharmaceutical drugs: the United States and New Zealand, of all places. So why do the pharmaceutical companies spend more money on television advertising and marketing than they do on research to find new drugs and cures? Well, they do that because they make money at it.

They are trying to reach American consumers--in this case, senior citizens--and convince them, the next time they go for a doctor's appointment, to ask for one of these drugs.

Now, the doctor may decide to counsel the person that that drug is not appropriate for the challenges of the medical situation they face. He may say there is a generic that is much cheaper, and he may try to talk them out of the idea. But, after some time, the doctors usually give in to the patients. They have a limited amount of time to debate with them, and they have got to move on to another patient. And so the high-priced prescription drug advertised on television is then sold to the senior citizen. And as a result, the taxpayers, through Medicare, pay for a large portion of that high-priced drug. That is an unfortunate system, but it is very profitable for the pharmaceutical companies.

So to call this socialism is to ignore the obvious. We want Americans to have access to affordable, effective drugs, whether they are buying them as private citizens or through programs like Medicare and Medicaid. What the President has said is: I should take my authority as President, given to me by Congress with a measure that received only Democratic votes, and negotiate drug prices down to an affordable level--for the government and for individuals.

Some may call that ``prescription drug socialism.'' I call it common sense. We should protect American consumers from high-priced prescription drugs. Why the Republican leader takes the opposite position is his business, but I think most Americans believe it is a reasonable approach.

Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, on a separate issue, I rise today to discuss the critical role that U.S. attorneys play in keeping America and our communities safe. Unfortunately, this is not the first time I have come to the floor to request unanimous consent to take up and confirm U.S. attorney nominations.

Across the United States, men and women are chosen to head U.S. Attorney Offices through the Department of

Justice. It is a major responsibility. I have seen many U.S. attorneys in my lifetime and my time in the Senate, and I know them to be carefully screened before they reach this level. They go through background checks--extensive background checks--to make certain there are no questions about their background before they are appointed to this position. They then go through the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, which I chair, carefully screened by both Democrats and Republicans. Then they are voted on in the committee and sent to the floor here for approval.

Unfortunately, we have run into an obstacle. Last year, we went through an exercise twice when a Republican Senate colleague refused to allow the Senate to confirm nearly 12 Justice Department nominees by voice vote, which is the typical approach used under Presidents of both political parties. Thankfully, the Senator involved in that particular issue lifted his objections in time for these 12 to be appointed to U.S. attorney posts across the United States.

We were able to get the U.S. attorneys and marshals confirmed and in place so they could go to work. And, thank goodness, we did.

Unfortunately, here we stand again today, finding ourselves in a position where a single Senator objects to the timely confirmation of U.S. attorney nominees.

In short, one Senator--one Senator--is making it more difficult for us to put women and men in the position of U.S. attorney for the prosecution of violent criminals, tracking down fugitives, and protecting Americans from gang violence, cyber crime, terrorism, narcotics, and fraud.

It is an awesome job to be U.S. attorney because of the possibilities of all of the vulnerabilities of American citizens.

Remember when extreme voices were crying out ``defund the police''? We knew better as Americans. Sure, reform is appropriate, but we need the police, just as we need prosecutors--criminal prosecutors. Now, we have one Senator who has decided to stop this effort at criminal prosecution by these new U.S. attorneys.

It is worth taking a moment to think about what U.S. attorneys do. The position of U.S. attorney is nearly as old as the Nation. It was created as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was passed by the first Congress and signed into law by President George Washington.

U.S. attorneys are empowered to prosecute all Federal criminal offenses; and we have recognized, since the founding of America, that they are an integral part of our justice system.

U.S. attorneys play a critical role in enforcing the law, promoting public safety, protecting our communities. Blocking the confirmations of U.S. attorneys threatens public safety and puts many Americans and their families, including the most vulnerable among us, at greater risk.

Why would we knowingly want to put our families that we represent in States across America at greater risk by holding up the employment of U.S. attorneys?

Now, we have heard a lot of tough talk about law and order from a lot of Senators. But when it comes to law and order, we shouldn't allow one Senator to prevent us from confirming well-qualified law enforcement nominations today.

This Senator has vowed to ``grind the Department of Justice to a halt.''

Let me repeat that.

This Senator has vowed to ``grind the Department of Justice to a halt.''

And all of this because of why? He is upset that special counsel Jack Smith has indicted the former President of the United States on multiple felonies. This is a protest, a political protest, for an action taken by a special counsel. But he is doing it at the expense of families all across America.

Let me repeat that.

A Member of this body is undermining our government's efforts to prosecute violent crimes, terrorism, and crimes against children because he does not like it that one of his political allies is being held accountable for his actions. He is doing so despite the fact that these are exceptional--exceptional--nominees for U.S. attorneys, and there is no principled basis to delay their confirmation.

Let me describe some of these U.S. attorneys who are being held up by this one Republican Senator.

Todd Gee, nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, is dedicated to the rule of law and longtime career in public service. A native of Vicksburg, MS, Mr. Gee attended George Washington University and Tulane Law School. He spent several years as an assistant U.S. attorney right here in the District of Columbia. He prosecuted homicides, carjackings, and gun crimes. In one case, he was the lead prosecutor in securing the convictions for seven members of a deadly street gang that had been indicted for multiple murders. Since 2018, Mr. Gee has served as Deputy Chief of the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice. He is a dedicated public servant with significant experience as a Federal prosecutor. He is the person for the job of U.S. attorney in Mississippi.

Don't take it from me, take it from both Mississippi Senators, both Republicans, who approved his nomination. And yet he is being held up.

Tara McGrath, nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, devoted her legal career to keeping America safe. Ms. McGrath attended Boston College and the University of Michigan Law School before beginning her career as Deputy Staff Judge Advocate with the U.S. Marine Corps. She was honorably discharged after 6 years of service in the Marine Corps and then began serving as Federal prosecutor in the Southern District of California.

During her time with the U.S. Attorney's Office, she received awards for her work on crime prevention and prisoner re-entry and handled drug importation, human trafficking cases, and gang prosecutions.

Notably, Ms. McGrath led the investigation of a large-scale racketeering and drug-trafficking operation run by the Mexican cartels in San Diego County that resulted in 51 indictments against 40 defendants.

How many times have we heard Members from the other side of the aisle talk about the scourge of fentanyl in the United States, the narcotics that are killing too many Americans every single day? What is going to stop that? A lot of different things. But one thing that has to be part of the equation is a criminal prosecutor who knows how to bring them to court and hold them responsible for the deadly narcotics and deaths across America.

Why in the world would we stop Ms. McGrath from becoming a U.S. attorney in California, where she has a proven record of doing just that? By holding up her nomination for no specific reason, we are jeopardizing the safety of so many people who innocently expect us to do our duty.

These are individuals--the ones she has prosecuted--responsible for drive-by shootings, child abduction attempts, meth distribution. Thanks to Ms. McGrath, they are off the streets.

She recently returned to her military roots, served as a lawyer for the Marine Corps in Okinawa in Japan since 2019. She has represented America admirably. She will be an outstanding U.S. attorney.

A third U.S. attorney nominee who is being held up by this Senator is Rebecca Lutzko. This one is interesting. She was nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, the home State of the Senator who is holding up her nomination.

She is a longtime Federal prosecutor. She attended Boston University and Georgetown University Law before clerking on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

After 7 years in private practice, Ms. Lutzko joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio, handled cases involving prescription drug trafficking, gun crimes, and corruption. She eventually became Appellate Chief of the office's Criminal Division.

For nearly a decade, Ms. Lutzko was the lead counsel in prosecuting an online pill-mill organization that illegally distributed well over 4 million pain pills to customers in all 50 States. She secured convictions on all 12 defendants in the case, and the organization was forced to surrender $4 million to the U.S. Government in criminal proceeds.

She has served her office with distinction. She would be an outstanding U.S. attorney.

April Perry, nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, has significant experience in the private sector and as a Federal prosecutor.

She attended Northwestern University and the Northwestern Law School and then clerked on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Then she served as Federal prosecutor in the Northern District of Illinois for over a decade, where she handled narcotics, gang violence, public corruption, and fraud cases. Notably, Ms. Perry specialized in child exploitation prosecutions and spent 6 years in the office as Project Safe Childhood Coordinator.

As an assistant U.S. attorney, she investigated a former police officer who was convicted of raping a person he had arrested, and she secured the conviction of a former priest who was accused of sexually abusing more than 20 children.

Ms. Perry has since served as Chief Ethics Officer for the Cook County State's Attorney's Office and is currently working as the GE Healthcare a senior counsel for Global Investigations and Fraud and Abuse Prevention.

She has the qualification and leadership abilities to serve as U.S. attorney with distinction.

The interesting thing about all of these nominees that are being held up by one Senator from the other side of the aisle is the extraordinary records they have already written in their lives as criminal prosecutors. That is why Senators from both political parties in the U.S. Senate have said they are entitled to a promotion and entitled to an opportunity to lead these U.S. attorney's offices.

By keeping these posts vacant, by refusing to give us a vote in the Senate on their nominations, we are jeopardizing the efforts of U.S. attorney's offices to control narcotics and crime.

These men and women are on the frontline of keeping us safe in America. To hold up their nominations without any specific complaint about any one of these nominees is just unacceptable.

We have a responsibility here to keep America safe. We can't keep them safe by using a political reason to hold up the nominations of these well-qualified people. If you are truly for law and order, if you are truly for law enforcement, if you want the prosecutors across America to keep us safe, then, for goodness' sake, lift the hold on these nominations.

Mr. President, I am prepared to make a unanimous consent request at this point.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 129, No. 266, No. 314, and No. 315; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, my colleague says he is holding up these critical law enforcement positions because former President Trump is being treated unfairly. He promises to grind the Department of Justice to a halt in loyalty to his political ally.

President Biden has continually demonstrated his respect for the Justice Department's independence. He has never interfered in any investigation into himself or his family. In contrast, President Trump treated the Justice Department as his personal law firm for 4 years, and he continues to undermine the rule of law by repeatedly threatening and making baseless accusations against judges, prosecutors, grand jurors, and witnesses.

Former President Trump has been indicted four separate times--once, of course, a State indictment in Georgia. As the criminal charges mount, President Trump is becoming even more reckless in threatening judges, prosecutors, jurors, and witnesses. That is what inappropriate interference in our judicial system looks like.

Instead of directing his concerns there, the Senator from Ohio is attacking law enforcement officers who want to keep our families and communities safe. In fact, one of the nominations that he is holding up, in argument that the Department of Justice has become a political tool, is a nomination which he notified the Judiciary Committee he supports--from his home State of Ohio. If this person is a political tool, why did he support this person for this nomination? He is holding him up today for political reasons.

Despite the tough talk from the Senator of Ohio about crime in America and all the references I have to put up regularly with the other party making references to crime in the city of Chicago, I can't think of a better way to fight crime and protect communities than by confirming all these qualified nominees, especially one for the Northern District of Illinois.

While the Senator from Ohio stands in the Senate talking about crime in my home State and other places, Ms. Perry could be leading Chicago's Firearms Trafficking Strike Force in cracking down on the illicit flow of illegal guns from other States into Chicago.

The Chicago Police Department recovered more than 10,000 guns every year from criminal investigations for the last 2 years--10,000 guns taken off the streets. Ms. Perry could be helping to coordinate these efforts with ATF and other law enforcement agencies.

Instead, thanks to my colleague's political position, our law enforcement agencies and U.S. attorneys are missing key officials who would otherwise be leading these efforts.

If you are for law and order, if you are for safety in the streets, if you want to reduce gun violence, how in the world can you rationalize stopping the nominations of U.S. attorneys, the

lead criminal prosecutors of the U.S. Department of Justice?

I would like to give them the help and leadership they need, but the Senator from Ohio blocks it. These offices and the safety of the public they serve should not be subject to politics. These are highly qualified nominees who deserve to be swiftly confirmed. Until we do so, our law enforcement agencies in Ohio, Illinois, Mississippi, and California are going to be limited on how they can fight crime.

I really am saddened that this has become the new standard for Senate Republicans. One Senate Republican has stopped 300 military promotions for 6 months or longer. Deserving men and women, many of whom risked their life for our country and have served us so well, are being punished because of a political item on the agenda. As important as it may be, you have chosen the wrong targets to take your political revenge.

The same thing is true when it comes to these nominees. For goodness' sake, give the Department of Justice the tools it needs to stop the spread of fentanyl and narcotics in the United States, to stop and slow down violent crime in the United States, to do something to protect children from being trafficked. To stop these nominations is to turn a blind eye to the reality that faces crime in our country. I can't explain it. I won't even try to.

I just beg the Senator from Ohio to think twice. Grinding the U.S. Department of Justice to a halt, as you have promised, is nothing to be proud of. We will not be safer as a nation; we will not be better off in terms of the safety of our children; and this political strategy is, unfortunately, ill-intended and is going to have a result which is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.

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

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Vernon Oliver to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Judge Oliver's long career on the bench and in public service make him an outstanding nominee to the Federal bench.

Born and raised in Connecticut, Judge Oliver received his B.A. and J.D. from the University of Connecticut. After spending approximately 3 years in private practice, Judge Oliver devoted the rest of his legal career to public service, serving as an Assistant State's Attorney in the division of criminal justice and as an Assistant Attorney General in the child protection unit of the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General.

In 2009, Judge Oliver was appointed to be a judge on the Connecticut Superior Court, presiding over criminal, civil, habeas corpus, and housing matters. On the bench, he has presided over more than 320 trials that have gone to verdict or judgment. He has also sat by designation on the Connecticut Appellate Court in three matters.

Judge Oliver has strong support from his home State Senators, Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Murphy. In addition, he was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Judge Oliver's deep ties to Connecticut and significant courtroom experience, as a longtime litigator and on the bench, make him well-positioned to serve the District of Connecticut with distinction.

I urge my colleagues to support Judge Oliver's nomination.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

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, what you just witnessed here is, we hope, a new day in the U.S. Senate. You see, we have the responsibility of appropriating the money for the Federal Government. We do it in 12 different bills. The total cost to the taxpayers for the resources for the government come to the neighborhood of $1 trillion, so it is a big undertaking.

For 5 years, we failed to pass those 12 bills individually. We passed them in a group known as an omnibus. It is usually done either at the end of the fiscal year, which ends September 30, or a few weeks or months thereafter.

So this year, we decided in the Senate to try to do it differently, do it better. What we have done through the

Appropriations Committee, which I serve on, is to take up each individual bill of the 12 bills. We are trying to pass them on a bipartisan basis because this body is divided, 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans.

We picked two of the best legislators in the Senate to accomplish this--Senator Patty Murray, who just spoke, from the State of Washington, a Democrat, and Senator Susan Collins, a Republican, from Maine. The two of them did miracle work in the committee; they got all 12 bills individually passed.

We are in the process of trying to consider three of those bills at a time--three of those bills now. That is what we were embarking on last week. In order for us to take up these bills, we needed to suspend the rules of the Senate because of the procedure that we face. When we tried to do that, one Senator, a Republican Senator from Wisconsin, objected. Because of his objection and the nature of the Senate, we were back to the starting point, and it led to what we saw today.

Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, and Senator Murray, the President pro tempore and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, have asked for permission to take up those three bills and to amend them and debate them and pass them. In order to do that, we have to suspend the rules of the Senate. It is not an easy thing. Usually we do it by saying, ``Do I have unanimous consent to suspend the rules?'' and it happens. This time, when we said, ``Do we have unanimous consent?'' that one Senator objected. He has his own reasons. He can explain them. But it meant we had to come back here today and start to suspend the rules. It takes a two-thirds vote, 67 votes, in the Senate.

So, you see, this isn't an easy Chamber in which to get things done, but I think we are on the right track. It is a bipartisan undertaking, and we are considering each of the bills and subjecting them to amendments--just the way it used to be for many years, for many decades. I think that is better.

Contrast that with what is going on in the House of Representatives. At this point, they can't pass any bills. They couldn't pass any appropriations bills, and now they are considering a bill for short- term spending for our government. Speaker McCarthy said he will call for a vote this week. I don't know if it will pass or not. There is quite a feud going on over there.

We are following an orderly, bipartisan process to have a closer look at each of the spending bills for the Senate and for taxpayers in this country. I think this is the right way to do it. I hope the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives can get their act together. We will find out this week.

That is not the reason I came to the floor, but I wanted to make sure that we made a point of what Senator Murray said. This is a historic, bipartisan undertaking. I think the American people more than anything want us to get along and work together and solve some problems, and this will be a step in that direction.

So that is what we just went through.

Ukraine

Madam President, each year, the United Nations in New York has a General Assembly meeting. Countries come with their leaders from all around the world.

Many people--myself included--watch ``60 Minutes'' on Sunday. Last night on ``60 Minutes,'' Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, talked about what he is facing with this Russian invasion by Putin and what it has meant to his country. He said that he is coming to New York to make a presentation to the United Nations.

I think it is important that he does this. I want him to remind the American people, who, through the NATO alliance, have been steadfastly in support of the Ukrainian people, what is at stake.

Vladimir Putin said he wants to restore Russia's so-called ``lost glory.'' That is the twisted rationale behind his disastrous invasion of Ukraine, one that has led to nearly half a million Ukrainians and Russians being killed or wounded simply for Putin's bloodthirsty ambition.

Putin will not be traveling much outside Russia. If you wonder why, it is because the International Criminal Court, when it looked at the activity of the Russian invaders in Ukraine, ended up issuing an arrest warrant, branding Vladimir Putin a war criminal.

Why would they call him a war criminal? Because they killed innocent civilians certainly but equally because they had a mass abduction of Ukrainian children into Russia--something that has hardly ever happened in history, but Putin has done it.

So they issued an arrest warrant for Putin over the war crimes. It is the first time in history for a leader of one of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to be so charged. It is no surprise when you see what he has done and what he threatens to do. Putin has isolated Russia. He has arrested Russians for political dissent. He has quashed the freedom of the press. He is destroying the Russian economy.

Despite these clearly tragic outcomes, he is doubling down even further in a move my Delaware colleague, Senator Coons, aptly called the ``devil's deal.'' You see, international sanctions, global isolation, and a determined Ukrainian military have left Putin scrambling for military supplies and weapons. He first turned to help from one of the world's worst rogue nations. You might have heard Senator McConnell talk about Iran earlier. That is right--while the Iranian Government was beating, murdering, and repressing mass protesters who were demanding basic freedoms, Putin was there, hat in hand, pleading for military weapons.

Just last week--what classic photographs these are. He turned and asked for help from Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea. It is hard to imagine a more deadly duo than these two.

While the Iranian Government was doing these things, he is pleading for weapons; and now he has met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, further request for weapons. His effort to restore Russian glory has, instead, resulted in pleading for help from two global despots and fostered NATO enlargement along Russia's border. That is the thing that we have got to keep in mind that has been achieved by this war. There is more unity in the NATO alliance than anytime in its history. In fact, for the first time in recent history, we have expanded NATO to include Sweden and Finland.

It has been my good fortune to attend the Munich security council in Germany this spring and to meet, again, the President of Finland, President Niinisto.

This morning's New York Times has an article, which I commend to you.

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

Madam President, the September 18 New York Times, the Finnish leader, President Niinisto--now serving his second term--made an historic decision to ask for membership in NATO. He is a wonderful man; he is on a second term and is extremely popular in his country. And he asked to join the NATO alliance so that it could stand up against Putin.

He reminds us in this article that Finland has a great experience with its neighbor Russia and an 830-mile border with the Russian leadership.

He recalls ``Finland's numerous wars with Moscow, including the 1939 Winter War and World War II, when the Finns fought off the Soviets but had to cede some territory, Mr. Niinisto said European countries that let down their defenses after the collapse of the Soviet Union made a grave mistake.''

And so he has asked to join the alliance.

I was at a meeting with President Niinisto, and he said he picked up the phone one day and called Vladimir Putin in Moscow. It is hard to imagine, isn't it? But he said: I told him, point-blank, I am joining the NATO alliance.

Putin said: You don't have to. I am not going to invade your country.

He said: I can't trust you anymore after what you have done to Ukraine.

That is a message that Zelenskyy was delivering last night on ``60 Minutes.'' I want to make clear on the floor: Putin is not going to stop his ambition to acquire other countries, and there are many that are in fragile, dangerous situations.

I am blessed to represent the State of Illinois and city of Chicago, as the Presiding Officer does. And there are some wonderful groups of people who have come to the State and our city that have made us what we are today. Among them are the Polish people. They say that Chicago is the second largest Polish city in the world, next to Warsaw. It is probably true. They are great folks, and I am honored to represent them. They know what the Soviet occupation through the Warsaw Pact meant to Poland, and they understand the danger if Putin is successful in Ukraine. The neighbors to Poland feel the same way--the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. I have a special connection there. My mother was born in Lithuania. I have been there many times, and I greatly admire the people of all the Baltic states. But they are small countries; they couldn't stand a chance of fighting off Vladimir Putin if he decided to invade them.

The point made by Niinisto--the point made by the NATO alliance, the point that President Biden is making and, I might add, many Republican leaders, like Senator McConnell, is that it is in our best interest to stop Putin now in Ukraine because he has ambitions that reach far beyond the borders of that country.

The United States is not sending troops. We are sending military equipment, artillery, ammunition; and we are giving advice to the Ukrainians so that they can win this battle. This battle is not just for Ukrainian sovereignty; it is for our own protection in the years to come.

This week in Washington, we will be visited by President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. He will go to New York first to address the United Nations General Assembly. I think he is going to come through with a clear message to global leaders, to NATO, to Congress, and to the American people: Quite simply, Ukraine is fighting with the lives of its own people against a nuclear state--Russia--that threatens the world. If Ukraine falls, Putin will certainly go farther--to Poland, to the Baltic states--and trigger an even wider war. Putin cannot be changed, but he can be stopped in Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are showing extraordinary courage and determination.

I agree with President Zelenskyy. We must continue our support for these brave people fighting for their country and against Russian tyranny that threatens the world.

We can start by passing the Biden administration's most recent funding request. I am going to do my part in the Senate to make sure we get that done, and I call on my colleagues to do the same.

I would say to President Zelenskyy: Your message was delivered on ``60 Minutes.'' You are looking for allies who will stand up against the aggression of the war criminal Vladimir Putin. The United States and NATO will be those allies.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) is necessarily absent.