Floor Statements

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Wyden.

In the corporate alternative minimum tax, there is some question as to whether companies that operate in foreign countries with standard tax years that are different from the U.S. could lose foreign tax credits strictly because of these non-conforming years. This may especially be an issue in the very first year of the corporate alternative minimum tax's application.

Does Treasury have authority to issue regulations dealing with potential issues with foreign income taxes relating to nonconforming foreign tax years and how that impacts foreign tax credits in the corporate alternative minimum tax? This would include fair rules for the utilization of foreign tax credits in the law's first year.

I thank the chairman for this clarification of the provision.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Warren for beginning this debate, and we will move to a consent shortly. I want to thank her for working together with me on this most important issue.

At this moment, there are millions of women who face an uncertain future after the repeal of Roe v. Wade, millions of women who no longer have the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies. It is a heart-wrenching choice, no doubt one of the hardest decisions anyone will ever have to make.

But in the midst of this, in this post-Roe landscape we find ourselves in, there are organizations, as has been discussed here, known as crisis pregnancy centers that are preying on the fears of women, exacerbating the problems caused by the Dobbs decision.

Make no mistake, crisis pregnancy centers are anti-abortion organizations that cloak themselves in benign language about ``providing answers'' and ``offering advice.''

They have an agenda; namely, to steer women away from abortion through a combination of guilt, concealment, harassment, and downright lies.

Crisis pregnancy centers in my State of New Jersey pretend that they are there to educate, support, and empower women facing unplanned pregnancies. And yet at the bottom of their websites, in very small print, you will find a disclaimer that lays it all bare.

Crisis pregnancy centers do not offer or refer for

pregnancy terminations or birth control. Information should

not be relied on as a substitute for professional and/or

medical advice.

That is a disclaimer. You can hardly read it, but it is there. This is pulled straight from the web page of one center in my State. I will repeat that ending again.

Information should not be relied on as a substitute for

professional and/or medical advice.

Ironically, this is the only objective and accurate piece of information you will find on the site and others like it.

As Senator Warren mentioned, crisis pregnancy centers are not required to have a physician or a registered nurse on staff. Very few of them do.

They are not required to provide contraceptive care or even stick to medically sound claims. And because they claim to only provide so- called education services, they can promote blatant lies about how abortion increases risk for breast cancer.

Women in America do not deserve to be lied to. They shouldn't be preyed upon during moments of vulnerability or any other time. When assessing healthcare, they shouldn't have to shift to what is real and what is not.

And they certainly shouldn't have to parse through the carefully constructed language of crisis pregnancy centers that promote an anti- choice agenda.

Our bill, the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act, would empower the Federal Trade Commission to issue rules prohibiting false advertisement of abortion services. It would allow the FTC to penalize those who are found in violation. And it would provide greater oversight over crisis pregnancy centers that profit from the pain of unplanned pregnancies--sometimes while double-dipping on the taxpayer's dime.

Senator Warren and I are leading this bill to end the practice of deceiving women and girls through false advertisement. We are leading this bill to promote truth in advertisement, to end misinformation and disinformation, and to protect women from harassment. Yes--harassment.

As Senator Warren said, crisis pregnancy centers have no duty to uphold HIPAA privacy protections--the most significant information that you can give about your health and the status of your health and your condition. You do that thinking that you are in a medical center. And now you have given all this information that has enormous consequences to it if it is misused to these deceptive entities.

And after divulging personal information to them, they can freely sell it to scammers who would want to take advantage of them.

So I ask my colleagues, let's end the assault on bodily autonomy and the right to access reproductive care.

Let's end the barrage of attacks on their healthcare. Let's end deception in any delivery of any service. Let's end the fraud in any delivery of any ``service.'' Let's end the barrage of attacks on their healthcare.

Join us in passing our bill so that in the hardest moment of their lives, women all across our country can rest assured in knowing that what they are getting is the truth, not some biased agenda pretending to be medical advice, not some one-sided talking point that steers them toward one outcome, the truth--the truth.

Pregnant women in America deserve the truth, and that is what this bill does. To oppose our unanimous consent request is to promote deception, is to promote fraud. I don't think anybody really wants to do that.

As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 4469 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

While my colleague is still here, I would like to propound a question to him through the Chair.

Does the First Amendment allow you to promote fraud? Does the First Amendment allow you to promote deception? Is it great work to lie to someone about what you are providing them? Is it great work to allow someone to get your vital health information believing that you are a health provider and then being able to use that private information?

Mr. President, if I may continue to ask my colleague through the Chair, is it right, no matter who gets the information by fraud, to give your most private health--surely, as a doctor, the Senator would say that no one should give up their health information to an entity that does not preserve it under HIPAA laws.

So could the Senator not join us if we limit it to fraud that ultimately has that fraud create the insecurity of HIPAA information?

I would like to answer the Senator's question, and that makes eminent sense that we would protect HIPAA information, regardless of who is in a position to maybe have access to collecting it. And therefore, in the first instance, you shouldn't collect it, if you are not a medical entity, but if you do, you should be ultimately bound by the same guarantees that anyone else would be guaranteed. You know, it would baffle me that particularly a medical professional, a doctor, would suggest that HIPAA information is something that we shouldn't protect.

I think that at a minimum, we should all be able to agree to that.

Mr. President, I was happy to listen to my colleague from Colorado's erudite exposition of what the opportunity is before us and what it means for the American people, and so I very much appreciate it.

Tribute to Keith Roachford

Mr. President, I come to the floor today for a very important reason. I rise not to introduce a bill nor to ask my colleagues for unanimous consent. No.

I am here for one simple reason, and I want to make sure that the C- SPAN cameras are capturing this moment for posterity.

I come to the floor today to honor Keith Roachford, a member of my staff who has faithfully served the State of New Jersey, the U.S. Senate, and the United States of America for more than 35 years.

As you can see from Keith's face, it is clear that he had no idea this was happening. We told him he was coming for another reason, and I don't think we would have gotten him otherwise.

But, nonetheless, I rise today because, after 35 years and 18 Congresses, Keith is retiring from the Senate, and as result, I wanted to come to the floor to send him off with a tribute befitting his legendary career.

A native son of Willingboro, NJ, Keith has served not one, not two but four U.S. Senators for the Garden State. He is the very definition of institutional knowledge, and countless fellow staff members can attest to his experience, which has saved the day on more than one occasion.

Keith has sometimes said that he has been here so long he came with the furniture. It is a classic Keith line, a glimpse not only into his sense of humor but also his view of how staff work behind the scenes gets things done.

Now, that may be the case, but today, Keith, I rise to shine a spotlight on your illustrious career.

To start, I would like to share some of the stories that his colleagues have sent me:

Keith has not only been a mentor to me, he's also been a

friend to anyone lucky enough to come into contact with him.

When I think of Keith, the words that come to mind are

helpful, generous, thoughtful--a patient and understanding

team player.

Another one said:

He is so kind to everyone, from interns to the Chief of

Staff, and is always--always--willing to share his knowledge

with others.

So it brings me immense joy to speak these words into the Congressional Record so that, like Keith's legacy, they may stand the test of time.

But beyond his accolades, beyond his track record and sterling reputation, Keith, at heart, is a humble man. I know it isn't easy for him to be sitting here, listening to me shower praise on him, but to that I say: Well, you are still on the payroll so you will have to bear with it.

But above all, Keith is a family man, a devoted husband to his wife Sandy and an incredible father to his beloved children, Rick, Daniel, and Lauren.

He is a man that every day for the last 36 years has braved the brutal beltway traffic to come into work in the Hart Senate Office Building. And he is a man that every weekend has made a similar trip with his family to attend

services at St. George's Episcopal Church here in DC.

Keith credits his faith for guiding him throughout his life, and he would be the first to tell you that it has been a moral compass for him, season after political season. But as the Book of James asks, ``What good is someone who says they have faith but does not have works?''

Fret not. In addition to his duties as senior warden of the Vestry at St. George's, Keith takes the time to give back to his community. He is a member of the Brotherhood of St. Andrew. He serves as the secretary of the convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, and he is a Boy Scout leader.

At every opportunity, he goes out of his way to give back. It is a trait he learned growing up. As the son and grandson of public servants, Keith was taught from an early age that service to others is the highest calling.

His grandfather was a transit operator for the city of New York, while his father, a veteran of the U.S. Army and the New Jersey Army National Guard, worked for the sanitation department for 37 years. It is no surprise, then, that Keith has followed in their footsteps. He is a throwback to a previous era, one where individuals spent years, if not decades, working for the same organization.

I know Keith never intended to spend 36 years working in the Senate. He used to joke with colleagues that he came to Washington fresh out of the college just to try it out. But in the process, he has gone from working as a constituent liaison, to mail director, to deputy chief of staff, and so much more.

Today, Keith is an indispensable resource for our legislative staff. He is our go-to person for appropriations, defense, veterans' issues, homeland security, and the budget.

He has had a hand in passing countless initiatives for our office, from supporting community development financial institutions to shoring up supply chains and expanding senior housing, to inserting provisions in the PACT Act--that is how we got him here, telling him that is what we were going to talk about--that addresses the needs of veterans suffering from Gulf war illness.

Keith has had a hand in far too many legislative wins to count, but suffice to say, the legend of Keith Roachford has led to what we call ``the Roachford Rule,'' which is simple: With every appropriations letter I sign on to, with every bill I cosponsor, for something to pass the Roachford Rule, it needs to have a tangible benefit for New Jersey families.

Much like the man it is named after, the Roachford Rule is about connecting what we do here in DC to the people whose lives it affects back home.

Long after Keith has left the Senate, his rule will live on, a testament to his relentless pursuit of good government, a trademark for a public servant devoted to the common good, a namesake that all of us in this Chamber would do well to emulate.

I will end with this: Last March, I came to this floor to rebuke the words that a colleague used in reference to the January 6 attack. I won't use the time to rehash what I said; instead, I will use this time to once again lift up the bravery and the courage of the man who compelled me to act.

Late one night, Keith sent me an email that outlined the pain and the outrage he felt after reading our colleague's comments. In personal terms, he relayed how his entire life he has had to endure--in overt and covert ways--the harmful legacy of racism and the stain of White supremacy.

Knowing Keith, it could not have been easy to type that message to his boss, a sitting U.S. Senator.

But as I said in that speech, there comes a time when you either ruffle some feathers and speak the truth or you fail to do justice to the values you hold dear.

The U.S. Senate is a better institution, and I am certainly a better Senator, for having Keith Roachford work in these Halls. He is man of principle, a man of God, a man who has put every ounce of his being into the work that New Jerseyans have sent us here to do.

He is the first person to tell you that he is not perfect, the first to say that he has certainly seen it all over 36 long years of service, but, by God, I cannot help but feel so thankful, so grateful that we have been blessed with his presence. He is a calm and steady hand that has helped guide our office since 2006.

He is the quiet one, the one who keeps his powder dry and plays the long game; the one who never loses sight of the ultimate goal, which is to improve the lives of hard-working American families.

John Madison, one of the Framers of our Constitution, once said:

If men were angels, no government would be needed.

I have never met an angel, but I have worked alongside Keith Roachford for 16 of those 36 years. He has served with me longer than any other of the U.S. Senators he has worked with. And it is why I can truthfully say without pause or equivocation that Keith Roachford is truly doing God's work here on Earth.

When Keith first mentioned to me that he was thinking of leaving, he said the most incredible thing. He said:

You know, Senator, it's just that with the pandemic and

with work from home, I've just gotten to spend more time with

Sandy and the kids.

We don't want to wait any longer to get started.

We make breakfast and we take walks. . . .

I just don't want to wait any longer to do that.

That is Keith in a nutshell. That is who he is. So I want to congratulate Keith on an incredible 36 years of Senate service. We are going to miss you, certainly so. But to you, to Sandy, and to your three children, we wish you all the best on a well-deserved retirement.

Thank you, Keith.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as we bring to an end this debate about the accession treaty for Sweden and Finland, I have been listening in my office to my colleagues' comments, and I think it has all been very constructive. But I do have a different view--a view on some points that have been made that I think are wrong--and before this body casts a vote, I think they should understand why.

I appreciate Senator Paul's focus on Congress's prerogatives with respect to war powers. Like Senator Paul, I have a deep respect for the critical role that the Constitution assigns to Congress in this area, and I believe our democracy is stronger for it. But I rise to convey that Senator Paul's amendment is unnecessary, unprecedented, and, if adopted, will be deeply damaging to NATO and our relationship with NATO allies.

That is why the Foreign Relations Committee, in marking up these treaties, overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan vote, voted down a substantively identical amendment offered by Senator Paul.

The amendment before us today is not necessary. There is no question that the North Atlantic Treaty and the Finland and Sweden protocols do not and cannot supersede the Constitution. No treaty can. This is a well-established and well-understood point that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed.

The amendment, however, would be deeply damaging to our core national security interests. Neither the United States nor any other NATO ally has ever insisted on a reservation--a statement that would limit and call into question our adherence to NATO obligations. But that is exactly what this amendment does.

If adopted, it would be shared with all NATO members and would signal to them that we are limiting our obligations to NATO with regard to article 5 of the NATO treaty. If we go down this road, we can expect that other countries will do so, as well, gutting the core commitment that NATO members make to each other.

Particularly at this time, with Putin's rampage in Ukraine, his energy war against Europe, and his constant saber-rattling, it would be self-defeating to do anything that casts doubt on our rock-solid commitment to NATO and our NATO allies.

So let me reiterate: There is no question that neither the treaties we are voting on today nor any treaty can supersede the Constitution. That position is clear in law and clear in logic: The Constitution is supreme.

From there, we have one task before us: providing advice and consent to Finland and Sweden's accession in a manner that strengthens the NATO alliance and strengthens our allies. The amendment before us would do the opposite.

And for those reasons, I oppose that amendment and urge all my colleagues to do so as well.

Finally, let me address some of the other critics of Sweden and Finland's accession to the NATO alliance. Each day we fail to act we send a message of indecision and division. Some Republican critics oppose Sweden and Finland joining NATO because they are worried about the cost to the United States, but that is simply untrue. Sweden and Finland will reduce these costs.

Instead, we should be asking: What is the cost of delaying NATO expansion? What is the cost of debating protection for Europe's democracies? What is the cost of denying security to Sweden and Finland?

I will tell you, these eleventh-hour concerns standing in the way of this process only serve Putin's interest. Other critics want an amendment undermining article 5 of the NATO charter, which says an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. But as I said before, this was overwhelmingly rejected by both sides of the aisle in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

And then there are still others who say we shouldn't accept Sweden and Finland into NATO because China, not Russia, is our greatest foreign policy threat. Let me just say one thing, if you want to make sure you defeat the China challenge, the first thing you want to do is defeat Russia in Ukraine.

Xi Jinping is looking at what is happening in Ukraine. He is looking at what the West is doing in Ukraine. And he is making calculations as it relates to Taiwan and elsewhere in the world. You want to make sure that you defeat Russia in Ukraine.

And let me also say, as someone who has worked on foreign policy for three decades and who is intimately aware of the danger and risk that China poses, we have to be able to meet that challenge in multiple dimensions. Sometimes we face more than one threat at the same time. Sometimes our values and commitments compel us to stand up for what we believe in, and this is one of those times. Putin's regime continues to push and probe for weakness, and NATO is the best institution we have to check his push for power across the continent.

Over the course of the last 70 years that NATO has existed, it has used an open-door policy when it comes to accepting new member countries. These countries must be functioning democracies. They must treat minorities fairly. They must resolve conflicts peacefully and be able to contribute to the NATO alliance. And this criteria describes Sweden and Finland to a tee.

So I urge my colleagues to vote yes to accept these prosperous democracies into NATO. Vote yes to reduce the cost on the United States and the entire military alliance. Vote yes to embracing the values and modern militaries of Sweden and Finland. Vote yes to having these two democracies join us. Vote yes to strengthening the North American Treaty Organization today.

I yield the floor.