Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule XXII, at 5 p.m. today all postcloture time on the Ruiz nomination expire; and that following the confirmation vote, the Senate vote on the motions to invoke cloture on the Puttagunta, Lopez, and Staples nominations in the order listed, without intervening action of debate; further, that if cloture is invoked on any of the nominations, the confirmation votes be at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader.

I want to notify all Senators that they should expect four rollcall votes beginning at 5 p.m.

Mr. President, there is a photograph that we have all seen: six battle-weary victorious marines raising the American flag on Iwo Jima. It is one of the most iconic photos of World War II.

It was taken 77 years ago this month. Among those six brave marines was a coal miner's son from western Pennsylvania. His name was Sgt Michael Strank. At 25 years of age, he was the oldest of the six flag raisers. The men in his rifle squad idolized him. One of them said: ``He was the kind of Marine you read about, the kind they make movies about.''

Sergeant Strank used to tell his men: ``Follow me and I'll try to bring you all home safely to your mothers.''

One week after he raised the American flag atop Mount Suribachi, Michael Strank was killed in the Battle of Iwo Jima. He was the first of the six flag raisers to die.

Today, he is buried among America's heroes in Arlington National Cemetery, but that is not the end of the story.

In 2008, a Marine security guard based at the U.S. Embassy in Slovakia discovered that Michael Strank was not a natural-born U.S. citizen; he had received his citizenship through his father when his father became a U.S. citizen in 1935. So where was this marine's marine born? He was the first child born into an ethnic Ukrainian family in what is now Slovakia. Like my own mother, who was born in Lithuania, Michael Strank came to America with his mother as a toddler, as soon as his father could save the money for their passage.

Those who were there that day on Iwo Jima will remember that a loud cheer went up from thousands of marines when they saw, finally, that red, white, and blue of the U.S. flag flying over the highest peak on that island. They knew that that day, in the war between freedom and tyranny, freedom had won.

Today, almost 80 years later, the battle between freedom and tyranny continues, and one of its new flash points is Ukraine. The Ukrainian people have made it clear: They want to be free and independent. They want to chart their own future. They want to choose their own leaders through elections that they conduct.

This is the future that more than 92 percent of Ukrainians chose in a referendum in 1991, after Ukraine declared its independence from the crumbling and corrupt Soviet Union, but Russian President Vladimir Putin--the old KGB agent--refuses to acknowledge Ukraine's right to exist, its right to independence, and its right to self-determination.

For almost 100 days, from November 2013 to January 2014, the Ukrainian people waged a ``Revolution of Dignity'' to force from office a corrupt, Russian-backed, puppet President--and they won. In retaliation, Russia invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula and parts of eastern Ukraine and installed a Russian-friendly government. This forceful occupation of parts of Ukraine by Russia marked the first time, the first time since World War II ended, that one nation had redrawn the map of Europe by force.

For the last 8 years, Russia has tried relentlessly to destabilize the democratically elected Government in Ukraine. This is part of the reason that President Trump's efforts to withhold congressionally approved military aid for Ukraine in order to extract political favors was egregious. Now, Putin has amassed more than 120,000 Russian soldiers on the borders of Ukraine. Whether Putin is driven by megalomaniacal delusions of restoring the Soviet Union or is simply seeking to create chaos and sow dissension among NATO allies is unclear, but here is what is clear: A Russian invasion of Ukraine would constitute a grave assault not only on Ukraine, but on the institutions and agreements that have kept peace in Europe for almost 75 years.

A Russian invasion of Ukraine also could be seen as a danger to our NATO allies in Poland and in the courageous young Baltic democracies in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. It would be a catastrophic mistake on Putin's part, and President Biden has made that point over and over.

Chicago is home to one of the largest Polish communities outside of Warsaw, the largest Lithuanian community outside of Vilnius, and one of the largest Ukrainian communities outside of Kyiv. More than 46,000 Ukrainian Americans live in the Chicago area, the third largest Ukrainian community in the United States.

A week ago, I attended a celebration at the Cultural Center in Chicago, on Chicago Avenue in Ukrainian Village. Also speaking at that gathering was Oksana Markarova, Ukraine's Ambassador to the United States. I can tell you, the Polish and Lithuanian communities in Chicago were there standing in solidarity with the people of Ukraine-- and with the people of Poland, Lithuania, and the Baltic to decide their own futures.

Vladimir Putin and his henchmen should know that the United States, NATO, and the entire community of democracies also believe that it is the right exclusively of Ukraine and other young democracies to protect their territorial boundaries and decide their own fate. The United States made its position clear yesterday in the U.N. Security Council. Ukraine, the United States, NATO, and the entire community of democracies all want a diplomatic solution to Russia's threats on Ukraine. That is what we seek. If Vladimir Putin wants to avoid a debacle that will cost his nation dearly in lives and treasure, he will agree to this solution.

I commend President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and their teams for their strong support of Ukrainian independence and against Russian aggression. The Biden administration has provided significant military equipment for our Ukrainian friends to ensure that President Putin knows the price that a further invasion will cost. The administration has also bolstered the defense capabilities of our NATO partners in Poland and the Baltics. And if Putin is counting on partisan division in the Senate to weaken America's resolve to defend Ukraine and its neighbors, he is mistaken.

Yesterday, Senator Grassley and I introduced a bipartisan resolution celebrating 100 years of diplomatic relations between the United States and the Baltic States and reaffirming our close relationship with these young democracies. Later this week, Senator Shaheen and I and several of our colleagues, from both parties, will meet with the Baltic and Polish Ambassadors to reaffirm U.S. support for their nations.

I hope that we will also see strong, bipartisan support for legislation that is being drafted by Senators Menendez and Risch, the chair and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That bill will impose severe, crippling economic sanctions on

Russia for any further invasion of Ukraine. It would bolster similar bruising sanctions drawn up by the Biden administration. It will ensure that any Russian aggression against Ukraine or its neighbors will be felt in Russia by their economy and their people.

I mentioned that my mom came to this country when she was 2 years old, from Lithuania, in 1911. Her boat landed in Baltimore. At the time, Lithuania was under the control of Tsarist Russia. It was a brutal, repressive place.

After World War II, Lithuania became part of the USSR against its will, another brutal and repressive regime. But in 1991, Lithuania became the first Soviet Republic to declare its independence. In response, Soviet tanks under control of Gorbachev rolled in to crush the new Lithuanian democracy. I was there before those tanks arrived. Their Parliament is called the Seimas. They had put sandbags around the outside of it to try to stop the Soviets and their tanks. They took me in the back, in a small room off to the side, and showed me their arsenal. It consisted of about 10 rifles that had been borrowed from farmers in the countryside to try to defend their capital, Vilnius.

Kids were assembled outside, praying the Rosary in the snow, lighting little candles by the sandbags to show the solidarity of the people of Lithuania, their determination to survive.

Soviet tanks rolled in, killed 13 innocent people, and injured dozens more. But then, to the world's astonishment--and mine too--Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev ordered the tanks to withdraw.

Later, another Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, supported Lithuanian independence. Years after his death, Lithuania honored him with an award for his commitment to Lithuanian statehood and bilateral relations between Lithuania and Russia.

Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin understood that you can brutalize a people who are determined to be free, but you can never defeat them. Ultimately, freedom will win. It is a tragedy that Russian President Putin cannot or will not learn that same lesson of history today when it comes to Ukraine.

Seventy-seven years ago, an American marine born in Ukraine raised the American flag on Iwo Jima. Today, a generation of young Ukrainians raised in freedom are holding high the yellow-and-blue flag of their own nation and saying: We too want to be free. Our message to them is very simple and straightforward: You are not alone.

Like the shipyard workers in Gdansk and the other members of the Polish Solidarity movement who helped bring an end to the decrepit and brutal Soviet Union--like the 2 million Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians who actually physically joined hands to defend freedom across their nations--history and the free world will stand with you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico, (Mr. Lujan) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Madam President, in keeping with the remarks of the Republican Senate leader, I would like to start with recognition of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's contribution to America.

On July 12, 1994, a court of appeals judge named Stephen Breyer appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was the first day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. As he began speaking, Judge Breyer laid out his view of the law and its role in maintaining the fabric of American life.

He said: ``I believe the law must work for people.''

He argued that our Nation's vast web of ``Constitution, statues, rules, regulations, practices and procedures . . . has a single basic purpose.''

That purpose, he said, ``is to help the many different individuals who make up America, from so many different backgrounds and circumstances, with so many different needs and hopes, live together productively, harmoniously, and in freedom.''

In his nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer has lived by those words. He has helped ensure that the law is a force for good, a force for unity, and a force for freedom and equality.

So, for me, I have truly mixed feelings as I stand here today and look back on the incredible legacy of Justice Breyer, who announced last week that he would retire at the end of this term.

And what a legacy he leaves.

Born in San Francisco, Stephen Breyer attended Stanford University and Harvard Law, and just 3 years after graduating from Harvard, he returned to the school as a professor, a role in which he inspired a generation of jurists, public servants.

He held a few other occupations as well. He served our country as a corporal in the U.S. Army and in the Army Reserve. He was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, a member of the Watergate special prosecutor's office, and chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I am honored to chair. From there, he was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where he served for nearly 14 years before his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.

And I might add, for the record, his vote on confirmation to the Court was 89 to 7. It was a remarkable showing of strength and support for a man whose politics were clear, as he served with Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee as his lead counsel for many years.

Justice Breyer's record when he came to the Supreme Court was nothing short of awe-inspiring. From voting rights to women's reproductive freedom, from criminal justice to consumer protection, from campaign finance to immigration, Justice Breyer's voice has been powerful, pragmatic, thoughtful, and enduring, whether in the majority or in dissent.

Consider, for instance, Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion in the 1995 case, United States v. Lopez. In that case, the Court's conservative majority overturned the Gun-Free School Zones Act, finding that the statute exceeded Congress's power under the commerce clause, a clear departure from existing, standing precedent. In his dissent, Justice Breyer melded sound constitutional interpretation with his signature pragmatism. Citing the facts and the law, he methodically explained how the widespread problems caused by gun violence in and around schools clearly affected and threatened commerce.

He concluded: ``Holding that the particular statute before us falls within the commerce power would not expand the scope of the Clause. Rather, it would simply apply preexisting law to changing economic circumstances. It would recognize that, in today's economic world, gun- related violence near the classroom makes a significant difference in our economic as well as our social well-being.''

That was one of the many opinions that captured Breyer's vision of the law as a force for productivity, for harmony, and for the well- being of the American people.

Fast forward 20 years. The case was Glossip v. Gross. In that case, they challenged a form of lethal injection as violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court's conservative majority rejected the challenge. But once again, Justice Stephen Breyer responded with conscience and clarity. With his keen analysis and pragmatic reasoning, he explained the constitutional infirmities of the death penalty. He wrote: ``Nearly 40 years ago, this Court upheld the death penalty under statutes that, in the Court's view, contained safeguards sufficient to ensure that the penalty would be applied reliably and not arbitrarily. The circumstances and the evidence of the death penalty's application have changed radically since then. Given those changes, I believe it's now time to reopen the question.''

Let me say, parenthetically, it is interesting for me to note how many Supreme Court Justices, late in their term, facing retirement or nearing it, reflected on the death penalty. Justice Blackmun was another. And it says to me that these cases that they decided, once with an eye towards consistency, weighed on their consciences, and they came to conclude that the death penalty truly needed to be questioned under our constitutional values.

Justice Breyer, in that case, recognized that in our system of justice,

punishment must not only be firm but fair. During his 28 years on the Court, Stephen Breyer has been a stalwart defender of Americans' constitutional rights.

As I mentioned, years before he was confirmed to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer sat on the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, located in Boston. Today, on the banks of Boston Harbor, stands a building that reflects his lifetime of service: the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse. Let me add, I knew Joe Moakley. He was my colleague and friend in the House. Then-Judge Breyer helped design that courthouse, and he still has an office there.

The building features a curved glass wall, stretching across tens of thousands of feet, so passersby can peer into the courthouse during the day. It is designed to provide a clear view into the administration of justice. Engraved on the wall in the building are the names of the workers who had a hand in building it. Alongside the names of bricklayers and carpenters, etched in equal standing, is Stephen Breyer.

Those two principles reflected in the building--transparency and equality--have, in many ways, defined Stephen Breyer's legal philosophy and his contribution to America. He understands that our system of justice is stronger when the American people understand how the law works and when the law works for them.

Now, we must carry that tradition forward. Soon, President Biden will announce his selection for Justice Breyer's successor to the Supreme Court--big shoes to fill. But I have no doubt that President Biden will select a jurist who parallels Justice Breyer in intellect, ability, and dedication to public service.

With his retirement, we have an opportunity to confirm another outstanding Justice, one who will indeed champion the freedoms and liberties we hold so dear, one who will also remain faithful to the rule of law and who will approach her work on the Court with the same thoughtful dedication displayed by Justice Breyer.

We don't yet know who the nominee will be, but here is what we do know: No matter the nominee, we will undertake a process in the Senate Judiciary Committee that is both fair and timely. This process will afford Senators an opportunity to review the nominee's record and question the nominee thoroughly, while at the same time ensuring the nominee is treated respectfully and receives a prompt confirmation vote. We owe that not just to this nominee but to the American people.

Let me close by turning to Justice Breyer's opening statement before the Judiciary Committee--July 12, 1994. America was watching when Justice Breyer said: ``You are now considering my appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. That Court works within a grand tradition that has made meaningful, in practice, the guarantees of fairness and of freedom that the Constitution provides.''

He said, ``I promise you, and I promise the American people, that if I am confirmed to be a member of the Supreme Court, I will try to be worthy of that great tradition.''

There is no doubt in my mind or in the mind of any objective analyst, Stephen Breyer has proven himself worthy of that great tradition.

Whoever his successor may be, I am confident she will do the same.

I want to personally thank Justice Breyer, as a Member of the Senate but as an American citizen first, for his thoughtfulness, his spirit of collegiality and consensus building, and for always working to advance the Constitution's guarantees of fairness and freedom.

Madam President, this week, the Senate will consider three judicial nominees for the Northern District of Ohio.

Before I speak on the nominees themselves, I would like to commend Senators Brown and Portman for working across the aisle to develop a bipartisan selection process.

All three of these nominees were recommended to the White House through a judicial commission that Senators Brown and Portman established.

As Senator Portman noted at our hearing on these nominees, the members of the bipartisan screening commission committed significant time and effort to ensure that they recommended well-qualified candidates for the bench.

As a result of that process, we will soon vote on three distinguished nominees.

The first nominee to the Northern District of Ohio is Bridget Brennan.

For almost 15 years, Ms. Brennan has served as a prosecutor, rising through the ranks of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio.

Last year, as a testament to her skills and leadership, she was named Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio.

Ms. Brennan has a wide breadth of experience, having led her office's Civil Rights and Criminal Divisions.

She has received a ``Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, has the strong support of Senators Brown and Portman, and received a bipartisan vote in the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. Brennan has demonstrated a commitment to justice, integrity, and the rule of law, all of which will serve her well as a district court judge.

We also will be considering Charles Fleming, another highly qualified nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Mr. Fleming is an experienced litigator who has demonstrated a decades-long commitment to ensuring equal justice under the law. He has earned degrees from Kent State University and Case Western Reserve University Law School. After graduating, he spent a year working in private practice before dedicating his career to public service.

For more than three decades, Mr. Fleming has worked as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Northern District of Ohio. During this time, he has tried 17 cases to verdict and has gained a truly remarkable breadth of courtroom experience.

As I noted, Mr. Fleming has the strong support of Senators Brown and Portman. He received a bipartisan vote in the Judiciary Committee. He also has received a ``Well Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association.

He is clearly committed to maintaining a fair, respectful temperament in his courtroom and will decide cases based on the law, the facts, and precedent--not on his preferred outcome. He will make an excellent addition to the District Court.

Finally, we have David Ruiz. For more than 5 years, Judge Ruiz has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Ohio. In this role, he has presided over more than 80 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment.

Prior to assuming the bench, Judge Ruiz served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for several years. And before that, he spent 10 years as a litigator in private practice.

Judge Ruiz received his undergraduate degree from The Ohio State University and his law degree from The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. And he received a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association.

As I mentioned at the outset, Judge Ruiz has the strong, bipartisan support of Senators Brown and Portman.

He also received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee--with Ranking Member Grassley, Senator Graham, and Senator Tillis joining with Democratic members to support his nomination.

Senator Portman stated that Judge Ruiz's ``experience, temperament, and high ethical standards have served him well as a federal magistrate judge'' and ``make him well-qualified to continue serving the Northern District of Ohio as a federal judge.''

Once confirmed, he will be the first person of Hispanic origin to serve as an article III Federal judge in Ohio's history.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting all three of these outstanding nominees.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letters in the Congressional Record.