Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor in advance of next week's summit in Geneva during which President Biden will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin for the first time as Commander in Chief, and I would like to share my views on the current state of U.S.- Russian relations and how we must respond to the Kremlin's continued aggression.

I have spent years deeply engaged in efforts to hold Russia accountable for its aggressive and destabilizing behavior under Putin.

During the Obama administration, I worked to hold Russia accountable for its invasion of Ukraine. Indeed, I was sanctioned by Putin himself for taking up the cause of Ukrainian sovereignty and freedom.

During the 2016 election cycle, I sounded the alarm over Russian efforts to sow chaos in our elections long before we knew of the extent and sophistication of the Russian cyber campaign to undermine American democracy.

Throughout the previous administration, I called out President Trump for cowering to Putin at every turn. Trump's refusal to hold Putin to account for attacking our elections was a key motivator behind the Senate's passage of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, otherwise known as CAATSA. This comprehensive framework for oversight and accountability in U.S. policy towards Russia remains the law of the land and the guiding mandate for how the United States must respond to Kremlin aggression.

Now, I appreciate the Biden administration's desire for a stable and predictable relationship with Russia, but sometimes we don't get to choose the circumstances of our engagement. When we take stock of Russia's behavior in recent years, we see that in every arena Putin has chosen escalation over stability and predictability.

Next week in Geneva, I have every expectation that President Biden will be more assertive with Putin than his predecessor. I urge him to seize this opportunity to call out the Kremlin for its litany of aggressive actions and announce appropriate measures in response.

The President can start with Russia's growing aggression in cyber space, starting with last year's SolarWinds cyber attack. We know that Putin's foreign intelligence service orchestrated this attack and that he must be held accountable for it as well as the more recent hack of USAID and its network of contractors and grantees.

While I am unaware of any evidence that the most recent ransomware attacks on U.S. infrastructure were orchestrated by the Russian state, we know, however, that criminal gangs operate on Russian soil, and we believe that it is those criminal gangs that did such attacks. The United States has to make clear that harboring criminals who seek to attack American businesses, hospitals, pipelines, city governments, and other institutions is wholly unacceptable

Let me move on to Ukraine. I urge President Biden to reiterate our policy of nonrecognition of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and a call for a serious return to the negotiations to end the war in the Donbas. The United States must have a seat at the table in the Normandy Format and make a concerted effort to end the war on Ukrainian soil that has gone on for far too long. An acceptable resolution to this conflict will not come without robust U.S. engagement the likes of which we have not seen for years.

I am glad that President Zelensky will visit Washington in the next month or so, and we look forward to meeting him in the Senate.

NATO, too, shares a responsibility to take concrete steps next week in support of Ukraine. The essential security assistance provided by the United States and others must be backed up by tangible progress towards NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. The door was opened 13 years ago at the Bucharest summit. We have seen little progress since then. As these countries continue to pursue the necessary reforms necessary for ultimate entrance into NATO, NATO has an obligation to start the membership action plan process.

On Nord Stream, the administration should reconsider sanctions waivers on NS2 AG and Matthias Warnig. If the pipeline is completed, the United States should work to ensure that it does not become operational. This pipeline is a bad deal for Europe and its energy security and strongly opposed by citizens across the European continent. Despite what some have said, it is not too late for the United States to make a tangible difference here. We can stop this malign Kremlin influence project if we act with resolve and real diplomatic strategy.

Last week, Putin said that Ukraine must show good will--Ukraine must show good will--if it wants gas to flow through to Europe. So what is Putin's definition of ``good will'' exactly? For the people of Ukraine to cease defending their sovereignty? Such bellicose statements tell us that Putin is confident; he is emboldened. Does anyone really believe that Putin would not cut off gas flow through Ukraine once Nord Stream is complete? The United States cannot accept this insidious behavior. We need a real strategy with respect to Nord Stream.

In Syria, Russia continues to aid and abet the brutal and criminal Assad regime only to secure its own interests; namely, military access to the Mediterranean through which it can threaten Europe's southern flank. Indeed, last year the United Nations accused Russia itself of war crimes in Syria for multiple incidents of launching indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas. In 3 years alone, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimated that Russian military activities in Syria caused nearly 18,000 casualties, including 8,000 civilians.

Let me be clear. These are war crimes, and there must be accountability. Even as President Biden looks for limited ways to cooperate with Russia in Syria to try to promote some stability and humanitarian access, he must not overlook this grim track record and seek to hold Putin to account. The world is watching whether the United States will stand up for the vulnerable and the voiceless.

Let me now turn to the ongoing and tragic repression of the Russian people. Earlier this year, the world drew inspiration from the courage of Russian protesters who rallied in support of Alexei Navalny and a democratic future. We know that it will be the people of Russia, not the United States or anyone else, who will steer their struggle for democracy and ultimately determine their own destiny. Yet, as Americans, we must stand in solidarity with the Russian people.

I applaud President Biden's commitment to make democracy and human rights the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy, but what does that mean for our approach to Russia? First, we must respond to egregious chemical weapons attacks whenever and however they take place. The Chemical and Biological Weapons Act required the administration to announce a new round of

sanctions by June 2 in response to Russia's chemical weapons attack and poisoning of Alexei Navalny. This deadline has passed.

The Trump administration regularly missed congressionally mandated deadlines. I think back to the Skripal attack and how President Trump delayed a decision for months. However, I expect better from this administration. President Biden and his team must announce these sanctions this week, for Putin has shown no remorse for these vile actions, and Russia has taken no steps to rectify them.

A democracy- and human rights-centered foreign policy also means countering corruption, so I welcome the White House initiative announced last week. Since January, we have seen the President back up this commitment by imposing sanctions on corrupt actors from Bulgaria, to Albania, to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But, moving forward, we must do more to focus this tool on Russia, the primary source of so much of the corruption we see around the world.

The most effective sanction on Putin's inner circle of oligarchs is to deny them and their families access to the West. We must cut off their ability to travel and use the Western financial system to funnel the assets they systematically have stolen from the Russian people over the course of several decades.

Alexei Navalny and others, like the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, have done excellent work exposing Putin and his cronies. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the European Union should evaluate their research and chart a course for action.

We must also directly engage with the Russian people and make clear that our problems are not with them but their government. I urge President Biden to make a direct appeal to the Russian people over YouTube, communicate our views and concerns to the Russian people, and provide his vision for what a positive U.S.-Russia relationship could look like. The United States should also increase exchange programs with Russia, assuming the Russian Government would allow its people to participate

Unfortunately, everyday Russians' access to fact-based information and reporting is dwindling in the face of Kremlin crackdowns on journalism and pervasive propaganda. I am especially outraged by the Russian Government's decision to label Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Russia as a foreign agent, subject to fines and to being kicked out of the country, all for supporting Russian journalists who report on the truth--a commodity in short supply in Russia these days. These actions are disgraceful. And it is worth noting that, as legitimate news sources like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty come under fire in Russia, Kremlin propaganda arms like RT and Sputnik continue to operate freely here in the United States. We allow them to freely operate, but they are Russia state-sponsored enterprises. Perhaps it is time we reconsider how easily the Kremlin can disseminate disinformation to the American people.

Meanwhile, several Americans remain unjustly detained in Russia, including Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed. The Kremlin's Kafka-esque treatment of American citizens must stop, and President Biden should make their return a priority of the visit.

Finally, our Embassy presence in Moscow faces increasing, growing pressure from the Russian authorities as they seek to restrict visas for Embassy staff. This has to stop. In my view, if Russian diplomats' visas expire here in the United States, then they must leave. Extensions should only be granted when we see reciprocity on the Russian side. No more games. We have tolerated Kremlin abuse of this process for too long, and it has to stop.

In the short time I have stood on this floor today, I have provided but a glimpse of some of the most challenging issues facing the U.S.- Russia relationship, most of which were ignored by the previous administration. President Biden has to correct course and forcefully press these matters in Geneva. However, there is one area that demands real negotiation with Moscow: the issue of arms control.

I supported the extension of the New START treaty. It advances U.S. interests, constrains Russia's strategic nuclear forces, requires stringent verification to ensure Russia meets its commitments, and affords us the flexibility needed to maintain a safe, secure, modern, and effective nuclear deterrent.

The question is, With New START extended, where do we go from here? I agree with President Biden that establishing a strategic stability dialogue with a country capable of destroying the United States is essential.

Russia continues to pursue new destabilizing nuclear systems and actively threaten our allies with shorter range nuclear weapons. However, we cannot view this challenge solely through a military lens. Diplomacy must lead our efforts to reduce nuclear tensions going forward, and this summit would be a good place to start.

Last week, in the Washington Post, former Ambassador to Russia Mike McFaul wrote that the Biden administration ``cannot freeze U.S.-Russia relations in place to focus on the greater challenge of China.''

I believe he is right. Addressing one challenge cannot come at the expense of other critical U.S. interests.

Whether we like it or not, the Kremlin clearly sees the United States as its primary adversary and remains intent on challenging us at every turn. Past administrations have tried to ignore or minimize the threat. It doesn't work. We need an assertive and comprehensive strategy, one that holds the Kremlin accountable and even puts them on their heels from time to time.

The United States of America always aspires to have a stable, predictable relationship with every country around the world. But stable and predictable partners do not use chemical weapons to wipe out their political opposition. Stable and political partners do not tear chunks of territory from their neighbors. Stable and political partners don't commit war crimes in places like Syria. Vladimir Putin has been President for 20 years now. After all this time, we know what we are dealing with; it is not a stable and predictable partner. We are dealing with a mafia state run by a vicious authoritarian and his inner circle of corrupt oligarchs, not a normal country. We are dealing with a criminal enterprise, not a democratic government. And as President Biden knows, and has said, when it comes to Putin, we are dealing with a ruthless killer. We should act accordingly.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is a fear that one should have as to who gets the microphone last, but nonetheless, no need to fear. I think that statement about better looking is a Pinocchio on your part, in any event. But I will stop before I get called out of order.

Madam President, it is with great urgency that I come to the floor to urge support for the confirmation of Julien Xavier Neals to be a U.S. district court judge in New Jersey. My distinguished colleague, who knows Mr. Neals extraordinarily well, can speak to all the elements of him as a human being, as a lawyer, and as someone who was a judge at one level and, in fact, can be and will be an extraordinary district court judge.

We are known in New Jersey as having one of the busiest courts in the entire country. As of last year, more than 46,000 cases were pending before it, many of them among the most complex and challenging cases in the Nation. Yet multiple judicial vacancies on the court have led the Judicial Conference of the United States to declare a judicial emergency. The court is short-staffed by a third, leaving each of our seated judges with a mind-boggling caseload of 2,700 pending cases. That is a caseload more than three times higher than the national average.

Fortunately, this week, the Senate has an opportunity to begin alleviating this judicial emergency by confirming Julien Neals to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey. Mr. Neals is an outstanding nominee who has devoted his entire career to the practice of law in my home State of New Jersey. Throughout his three decades in the legal profession, he has served in many diverse roles. Every step of the way, he has impressed those around him with his integrity, sound judgment, and commitment to equal justice and fair administration of the law.

He clerked on the Superior Court of New Jersey, practiced civil rights, employment discrimination, and intellectual property law as an associate and partner of a Secaucus-based firm. He served the city of Newark during my distinguished colleague Senator Booker's time as the mayor of that great city of Newark and since 2015 has worked as counsel for Bergen County, the most populous county in all of New Jersey.

As you heard, my colleague still speaks glowingly of Mr. Neals' achievements during his time as chief judge of the Newark Municipal Court, how he improved the efficiency and the culture of the institution, created the first community court in the State of New Jersey, and in less than 2 years presided over more than 6,000 cases, while supervising 11 full-time judges.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Neals will be an asset to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey as it emerges from this pandemic and works to reduce its backlog of pending cases. He is qualified, and he was qualified to serve on the Federal bench back in 2015 when President Obama first nominated him to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey. Unfortunately, the politics of the time didn't get him a vote, and he is even more qualified today.

Mr. Neals already commands enormous respect in our legal community. From serving on the Supreme Court of New Jersey's Committee on Character and Fitness to serving as chairman for the Volunteer Lawyers for Justice, he personifies the meaning of public service. His tremendous breadth of experience, even temperament, and sound judgment make him a superb candidate to serve on the Federal bench. Clearly our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee here in the Senate came to the same conclusion when they reported him out of committee by a large bipartisan margin.

New Jerseyans have waited too long for the Senate to fill this vacancy, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to confirm Mr. Julien Neals without further delay. I am thrilled to join my colleague from New Jersey in advocating for him and especially thankful to the junior Senator from New Jersey for advancing his name so that justice can be realized in the State of New Jersey.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to waive all existing time and move towards the vote.

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 ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I like calling the Presiding Officer ``Mr. President.''

Let me appreciate the Presiding Officer's support about what I am going to speak today to address one of the most significant foreign policy challenges of our time, which is the U.S.-China relationship; a challenge that the Senate, I believe, is ready to meet with bold, bipartisan action.

Just weeks ago, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made history when we passed the Strategic Competition Act of 2021 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 21 to 1. This historic, bipartisan legislation is clear-eyed about the challenges we face, and it is designed to meet this consequential moment in U.S.-China relations.

Over the past few years, China has accelerated its rise to power and sharpened its efforts to undermine the liberal international order that brought the American people and our allies so much prosperity and stability in the 20th century.

We invited China to be engaged in the international order. We invited them into the World Trade Organization. We invited them into an international forum. We opened markets with them, all with the expectation that China, by being ultimately invited into the international order, would be part of the international order.

Unfortunately, instead of playing by the rules, China, under Xi Jinping, has

sought to undermine them. Today, China is challenging the United States across every dimension of power--political, diplomatic, economic, innovation, military, even cultural--and advancing an alternative and deeply disturbing model for global governance based on old-fashioned military antagonism, predatory economic practices, and digital authoritarianism.

The breathtaking scope, scale, and urgency of these challenges demands a policy and strategy that is genuinely competitive. Because of China's actions, the national security and economic future of the United States depends on framing our relationship with China today through the lens of strategic competition.

This is not about a zero-sum relationship or resurrecting a cold war mentality. This is about recognizing that in the 21st century, our strategic competition will revolve around the geo-economics of the future and America's ability to successfully compete in new and emerging technologies and other hotly contested domains. This is about securing a regional and international order for the 21st century built on progressive values, one that encourages healthy and fair economic competition, promotes global security and stability, and strengthens human rights around the world.

So how do we achieve this vision? Ranking Member Risch and I incorporated input from almost every member of the committee to build the Strategic Competition Act. I believe the Presiding Officer had amendments as well, which mobilizes all of our strategic, economic, and diplomatic tools to clearly confront the challenges China possesses to our national and economic security.

So I am eager to see the Strategic Competition Act move on the floor, alongside the other pieces of this package, recognizing, as I have for years, that America's ability to compete with China begins at home, replenishing the sources of our national strength. That is why the investments in the Endless Frontier Act provisions and the other domestic measures drafted by various committees are equally important.

But even if we did all of those things alone, it would not meet our challenge with China because, first and foremost, China is a foreign policy challenge. That is why the Strategic Competition Act reaffirms our alliances and partnerships. It prioritizes building functional, problem-solving regional architecture in our Indo-Pacific strategy. Every witness we had before the committee, as we prepared for this legislation, said, You have to get your Indo-Pacific strategy right in order to be able to meet the challenge of China under Xi Jinping.

It promotes U.S. leadership within international organizations. It counters malign efforts by the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party to influence those institutions, and it grounds our foreign policy in American values by authorizing a broad range of human rights and civil society measures to address abuses in Xinjiang with ethnic Uighurs and to demonstrate our commitment to the people of Hong Kong, Tibet, and China's civil society.

It counters China's predatory economic practices by addressing their rampant intellectual property theft and unfair state subsidies. It helps other countries work together to counter China's corrupt practices. China goes throughout the world holding itself out as being generous to nations in Africa and Latin America and elsewhere, but what it ends up being is a debt trap of diplomacy where these countries become hostage to China--not only economically, but then, in a transactional basis, China says, Well, you can't recognize Taiwan anymore; or China says, You have to vote with us at the U.N. Human Rights Commission and a whole host of other international forums.

And it bolsters U.S. economic statecraft, those economics tools we can deploy to advance our foreign policy goals like investing in supply chain security, infrastructure development, digital connectivity, and cyber security.

Now, I do want to take a couple of minutes today to directly address an emerging line of criticism I have heard that this bill is somehow seeking to ignite a new cold war with China. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that for more than 40 years, the United States has sought to draw China into the international community as a responsible stakeholder. But any clear and accurate assessment of China's behavior and, particularly, its behavior in recen years under the hypernationalist leadership of Xi Jinping suggests that simply continuing down that path would only result in disaster for the United States, for China, and for the entire world.

Let's just review some of China's actions. China is committing genocide in Xinjiang against the Uighur people through forced labor. China has dismissed, out of hand, the ruling of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea with regards to its excessive maritime claims in the South China Sea, which it is militarily building up on and trying to intercede in the rightful passage of nations in the South China Sea.

China has walked away from the commitments it made to respect intellectual property rights. China has chosen to betray its legally binding obligations and its own commitments to the people of Hong Kong, crushing ``one country, two systems'' and the vibrant democracy, economic activity, and autonomy of the people of Hong Kong.

China refuses to respect the religious, cultural, and linguistic autonomy of the Tibetan people and is seeking to subvert the religious succession of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. China is using its Belt and Road Initiative to exploit lesser developed economies to its own advantage. China threatens the efforts of the international community to deal with climate change by building more coal-fired power plants at a rate that outpaces the rest of the world.

So we must empower Americans, our partners, and our allies to protect against these egregious efforts to undermine human rights, security, and our environment. We simply cannot turn a blind eye to China's actions or wish it into becoming a better international actor.

Now, I realize that in discussing the Strategic Competition Act, I laid out a laundry list of big, structural policy issues with China that we will need to confront as a nation, but it is essential that the United States meets this moment if we hope to build a more perfect world, one that reflects our cherished commitment to free societies, free markets, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and the dignity of all humankind. At the end of the day, that is what this Strategic Competition Act is all about.

So I look forward to a robust debate and discussion with my colleagues over the next week or two about how to restructure and rework U.S. policy towards China so that we can be, after far too long, genuinely competitive. Together, we have to ensure the United States reclaims our place as a leader of nations and a force for good in a chaotic and increasingly complex world.

Middle East

Mr. President, now, on another note, I know we have great challenges in the world. We are having a great challenge in the Middle East. I would just simply say that I am not a fan of having resolutions brought to the floor of the Senate without the appropriate consideration of the committee of jurisdiction--in this case, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--so that informed, deliberate debate and consensus agreements come together in the best pursuit of foreign policy.

It is easy to get caught up in the passions of the moment. It is much more difficult to think about what is the right policy and procedure and action the United States should take in any given part of the world.

So I know there is a bunch of resolutions that are being flown around--none of which have gone to the committee--some that have merit in each and every dimension but also have challenges. They fall short of what I think would need to be done, and I would urge colleagues to, particularly at this moment, have restraint, and I would urge the ability for the committee to be able to consider what is the appropriate course of action, whether it be at this time or any other time, as our Nation faces global challenges.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think I will get done before, but, in case, I ask unanimous consent to be able to finish my statement before the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the nomination of Ambassador Samantha Power to be our next Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Ambassador Power's qualifications for this position are beyond dispute. Her lifelong commitment to protecting human rights and preventing global atrocities, combined with the foreign policy experience she gained during the Obama administration, make her impeccably qualified for this role.

I want to highlight, in particular, her leadership on the international effort to end genocide. Our struggle against these horrific crimes is ongoing and unrelenting. Like Ambassador Power, I was proud to see the Biden administration formally recognize the Armenian genocide, a recognition by the U.S. Government that was long overdue.

Ambassador Power's intellect, energy, and focus will be an enormous asset to USAID in the Administration's efforts to end poverty around the world, help victims of conflict, improve food security, and build the kind of resilience that ultimately benefits the security and prosperity of the American people.

This work is not easy, but it is exactly the sort of work that President Biden described in his inaugural address when he spoke of the United States as ``a strong and trusted partner for peace, progress, and security.''

It is also the work we must do to confront the immense crises we face around the world. Many of the conflicts Ambassador Power contended with during her time at the United Nations continue today. New conflicts, as we know, are brewing in Ethiopia, Haiti, and Burma, and creating hundreds of thousands of innocent victims and refugees.

Climate change is increasing food insecurity, intensifying natural resource scarcity, and beginning to drive mass migration.

And, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic is an ever-evolving threat, and its proliferation around the world will continue to endanger our public health here at home. As long as there is a COVID-19 virus anywhere, it can be everywhere. We cannot hermetically seal off our Nation. That is why this particular role of USAID is going to be increasingly important.

As we reengage with our partners in the world to meet these challenges, Ambassador Power will play a critical role. I am confident her experience, tenacity, and drive to build a better, more prosperous, peaceful world are exactly what USAID and our country need at this moment.

I urge all of my colleagues to support Ambassador Power's successful confirmation.

With that, I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.