Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise this morning to express concern for the people of Ukraine and the hundreds of millions who are going to bed hungry across the globe.

Every day since that terrible day, February 24, we have watched in horror as Vladimir Putin and his army, his forces, killed innocent Ukrainians, over and over and over again like nothing--nothing--we have seen since World War II.

Russian forces continue to besiege and shell Ukrainian cities like Mariupol, where over the last two months, civilians have lived in bunkers under perpetual fire. These are civilians in those bunkers.

Only yesterday, 130 civilians managed to escape the battered Azovstal steel plant. Describing the last several months, one evacuee said:

You can't imagine how scary it is when you sit in the

shelter, in a wet and damp basement which is bouncing,

shaking. We were praying to God that missiles fly over our

shelter, because if it hit the shelter, all of us would be

done.

Sadly, 200 more Ukrainian civilians have been unable to evacuate, even as Russian forces began storming the steel mill just yesterday. So our prayers are with them and the remaining brave Ukrainian fighters continuing to hold on to this plant.

But atrocities continue across all of Ukraine. In Donetsk yesterday, three civilians were killed on their way to collecting water-- collecting water--for their families.

The United States, of course, must continue to help Ukraine fight against Mr. Putin and his forces. Mr. Putin is the incarnation of evil. It is as clear as any debate could be.

The good news is, countries all over the world are unified against him. But we have a long way to go. Now, I and so many others across the House and the Senate strongly supported the appropriation that Congress made back in March--$13.6 billion in emergency appropriations to support Ukraine, and I stand by President Biden's recent $33 billion request to help Ukraine defend itself over the long term.

Unfortunately, in that first number, the $13.6 billion, the good news is we had support for that in both parties. But I have to say for the record: Not enough support on the Republican side. Here in the Senate, 31 Republicans voted against the $13.6 billion. And when you add up the Senate Republicans voting against the $13.6 billion in the spending bill and add them to the House Republicans, which is, obviously, a much bigger number, it is more than 200 Members of the Republican Party in the U.S. Congress voted against every single penny of the $13.6 billion for Ukraine.

So I hope--I hope--when it comes to the $33 billion that I hope we will be able to pass--but I am sure it will be a number at least comparable to that. But whatever the number is for the people of Ukraine, I hope that we will get unanimous support in the U.S. Congress.

I hope we won't see more than 200 Members of Republicans in the Congress voting against the people of Ukraine. This is not a difficult choice. You are either on one side or the other.

I said Mr. Putin is the incarnation of evil--he is. The good news is, we have another choice. The other choice is Mr. Zelenskyy, the people of Ukraine, and those brave fighters in Ukraine. They are the personification of all that we claim to stand for when we talk about democracy.

This isn't a moment to theorize or to talk about democracy in glowing terms without taking actions. They are doing the fighting on the battlefield. The least that we can do is vote the right way. That is the power you have as a Member of Congress. House, Senate, Democrat, Republican or Independent, you have the power to vote. And I hope that we will have unanimous support for the $33 billion that the President has asked for.

Now, what will that funding entail? I won't go through all of it, but this funding will include $20.4 billion in additional security and military assistance for Ukraine. It is important to put that into context, so it is basically 20 of the 33 will be for security and military assistance. That is on top of what has already been appropriated just since the battle--the war in Ukraine started when Russia invaded.

With President Biden's leadership and with a lot of support in the Congress, we have been able to provide billions of dollars just on the military and security assistance, not to mention the humanitarian support, the sanctions, and the unified approach that so many countries around the world have taken.

But we have a lot more to do, and in my judgment, the $33 billion won't be enough. We are going to be back at it probably in a few months providing more. But at a minimum, we have got to get this done for the people of Ukraine. Part of that appropriation will be the replenishing of donated NATO weapons and equipment.

This help, in total--all of this security assistance and other humanitarian support--will be critical to Ukraine's

ability to prevail--to prevail--over Russian forces through the summer and the fall. We must continue to provide all of the artillery, the anti-tank, the anti-air weapons, and air defense systems and other capabilities that Ukraine can use to block Russian authoritarianism and support the Ukrainian people. However, regardless of how much support the United States, NATO, and other allies and partners provide, we must remember that nothing we do--nothing we do--is comparable to the awesome sacrifice for freedom and democracy that Ukrainians are now making every day when they give their lives--they give their lives in this war--and have their own families shattered in the process.

They are upholding--the people of Ukraine, those brave fighters on the battlefield every day, every week, every month now, those Ukrainians are upholding democracy, not just for themselves, not just for our country, but for the entire free world.

There are, of course, other consequences to this war. The war has already driven over 13 million Ukrainians from their homes. These Ukrainians, who are either refugees going to another country or internally displaced within Ukraine but are outside of their homes, that number is equal to the entire population--roughly equivalent, 13 million, to the entire population of my home State of Pennsylvania. Just imagine that, 13 million people being displaced. And, unfortunately, it doesn't seem like that will be the end.

So I want to commend the European Union and Ukrainian neighbors in the region for their warm welcome to such an unprecedented refugee flow from Ukraine. Now, recently, just two weeks ago, traveling through Italy, Georgia, and France, I saw everyday Italians, Georgians, Frenchmen and Frenchwomen opening their hearts and their homes to Ukrainian refugees, not to mention the people of Poland, who have done so much, and so many others.

Just one example, in Italy, faith-based nonprofits like Sant'Egidio that we had time to meet with on our trip have led the way in providing support to those in need.

I also commend the administration's work to support these refugees across Europe and those remaining in Ukraine, much of that work funded by part of the $13.6 billion that Congress appropriated in March.

Mr. President, let me move to another topic, but it is directly related to what we just talked about: food security. Our work on the overall strategy, as it relates to the people of Ukraine and protecting democracy, is far from complete.

The world has not yet felt the full effect--the full brunt--of the global effects of Mr. Putin's unprovoked, unlawful, and certainly unjustified war. While millions of Ukrainians have already become refugees, or internally displaced people, there are food shortages in more than one-third of the country. By the end of the year, tens of millions across the globe also will face immediate danger from hunger.

So this is a crisis for the people of Ukraine on a whole host of fronts, obviously, but it is also a food security crisis for the world at the same time.

The reason for that immediate danger that people face right now being unable to find the food that they need to survive is because of this invasion, as well as, obviously, the terrible impact the pandemic has had.

As a breadbasket of the world, before the war, Ukraine fed over 400 million people across the globe, and the greater Black Sea area exported more than 12 percent of the food calories that are traded worldwide. The war has cut off, cut off, these supplies while also raising fuel and transportation costs.

There is less food to go around, and it costs more to get food to those who need it the most.

This comes on top of the COVID-19 pandemic, as I mentioned, which increased hunger and complicated supply chains and climate change effects like severe droughts and floods.

It also costs more to grow food, as Russia previously dominated the world's fertilizer markets. Today, both food and fertilizer prices have skyrocketed to higher than ever before, and the World Food Programme estimates that 878 million people across 92 countries of the world do not have adequate food on their table--878 million people.

Over 276 million people now face acute food insecurity, meaning that they are in immediate danger of not being able to find their next meal. So they are the ones in the most trouble right now all across the world--276 million. It is not all the folks who are hungry and have a food security crisis but those who are in immediate danger.

Due to Putin's horrific war, by the end of 2022, another 47 million people will likely face those same dangers--47 million people. That will mean that around the world, almost as many people as live in the entire United States will face immediate danger from hunger. Most of these people live outside of Ukraine in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, where any further price shock may put entire communities at risk.

I see the distinguished majority leader. Does he want me to suspend?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader.

I will resume my comments about food security.

As I mentioned earlier, across the world now, we not only have 276 million people who now face acute food insecurity--as I said, meaning that they are in immediate danger of not being able to find their next meal--but what is ahead is an exacerbation of that problem. Another 47 million people will likely face these same dangers by the end of this year.

So a food security problem, which was a substantial problem before the pandemic, made ever worse by the pandemic, has gotten much worse because of the war in Ukraine--all caused by an attack on a sovereign country by a brutal dictator, Mr. Putin.

So this is one of the many reasons why this war in Ukraine--or why all of us, I should say, across the free world have a stake in what happens in Ukraine.

I wanted to also highlight what the United States is doing in the midst of this terrible food insecurity crisis.

We can't afford to forget and should not forget about the tens of millions who are struggling to survive as a result of this invasion. To feed all of those in need, the World Food Programme, which does such good work all across the globe--goes into conflict zones to provide food to people--that program estimates it will take more than $18 billion.

The United States must not share this burden alone, but if we don't lead the way, no one will. That is true in so many instances. It is true with regard to the President's leadership against Mr. Putin by helping the people of Ukraine; it is also true in terms of American leadership on food security.

President Biden's request for $33 billion for all aspects of the challenge in Ukraine doesn't include enough, in my judgment. It includes $1.6 billion for food security and humanitarian assistance. Now, that sounds like a lot of money, but it is not enough to meet the moment.

And despite my consistent urging, Congress has appropriated flat funding for the U.S. food security program, Feed the Future, over the last 10 years. Adjusting for inflation, the program has been cut by almost a third of its total programming, from almost $1.5 billion in today's dollars to just over $1 billion.

So, today, we face the same global food crisis which the Feed the Future Program was originally created to address after the 2008 recession. So after a recession, we had a global food security challenge, and now after a pandemic, and exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, we have potentially an even greater challenge.

So we must again rise to the challenge. When I say ``we,'' I mean the U.S. Government, the Congress, the branch of our government that appropriates money, has to rise to the challenge by providing the resources that are necessary to feed those who face famine--not just missing a meal here and there, famine itself.

We have got to support these smallholder farmers, who are the backbone of the world's food supply, and sustainably strengthen food systems to protect against the next war, the next pandemic, the next drought, or the next flood.

So that is why I am leading a letter to appropriators urging robust funding of all--all--global food security accounts in the fiscal year 2023 budget, specifically calling for an almost $200 million increase just for the Feed the Future Program, not to mention those other global food security programs and accounts.

This funding will only put a dent in the growing food security crisis, but it will inspire our allies and our partners to follow us. America leads the world in so many ways, and, fortunately, most of the time on food security we have led the world as well.

We need to do that again. We need to lay the groundwork for a more secure food future and save tens and tens of thousands of lives-- potentially a lot more than that--in the immediate future.

Mr. President, last week, I travelled overseas as part of a congressional delegation conducting meetings on Russian aggression, security, and food security, among other things. Our delegation was scheduled to return on Monday, April 25, but due to mechanical problems with our aircraft, we were delayed for a day.

As a result of that delay, I missed two votes. I take seriously my duties in service to the people of Pennsylvania, including voting on policies and nominations. Accordingly, I wish for the record to show that, had I not been absent due to mechanical difficulties with the plane, I would have voted yea on the following votes: yea on vote No. 135, on the motion to invoke cloture: Lael Brainerd to be Vice-Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; yea on vote No. 136, on confirmation: Lael Brainerd, to be Vice-Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Mr. President, I just want to make some comments regarding what the junior Senator from Missouri was just talking about on the floor, and I know that my colleague from Hawaii was providing commentary as well.

It is hard to comprehend how any Member of Congress, House or Senate, could come to the floor and make the criticism of the Biden administration regarding its Ukraine policy, especially with regard to the military assistance provided by this administration, and that same Senator, along with a long list of Republican Senators, voted against all the money for Ukraine just a couple weeks ago, $13.6 billion.

But, unfortunately, it is entirely consistent with what those same 31 Senators have been doing for the last couple of weeks. They voted against all the money in March, and then they criticize President Biden. In fact, the day of President Zelenskyy's speech to the Congress--that inspiring speech--that so many of us were moved by, people in both parties, both Houses, all across the country, in fact, across the world were moved by what he said and, frankly, challenged by what he said.

We have to do more, even in my judgment, than the $13.6 billion. But as the junior Senator from Missouri should know--I hope he knows this-- since the beginning of this administration, just on the military assistance, we have provided $2.6 billion. So more than $2.5 billion dollars just in military assistance, but the bulk of that is in that spending bill that we passed a couple of weeks ago that has the $13.6 billion.

Here is what the Washington Post says, and I will read the headline and the date, and then ask consent to enter it into the Record. Here is the headline:

More than two dozen Senate Republicans demand Biden do more

for Ukraine after voting against $13.6 billion for Ukraine.

Mr. President, dated March 17, 2022, a story by Mariana Alfaro and Eugene Scott, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Here is the subheadline:

Thirty-one Senate Republicans voted last week against the

$1.5 trillion spending bill to fund the government, increase

U.S. defense spending and provide humanitarian and military

assistance to Ukraine. In recent days, many of them have

clamored for more weapons and aid.

And it goes on from there, and I am not going to read all of it, obviously, but it chronicles the hypocrisy that we just heard here today and that we have heard for days now and weeks now, criticizing the President when they voted against all the money--so all the money from the $13.6 billion that will go to pay for the Javelin missiles that are taking out Russian tanks every day and have for weeks--every penny of that out of the $13.6. You could probably cut it in half in terms of what the military assistance will be.

So let's say, for sake of argument, probably half of that, $6 or $7 billion, but whatever the exact number is, that money is going to help pay for a lot more Javelin missiles that have been so effective. The Stinger systems that they have used, the antiaircraft systems, they are all going to be paid for. The ammunition and the body armor and all of the other assistance that we are providing is going to be made possible because most of the Senate--50 Democrats and just 19 Republicans, but we are grateful for their support--voted for the money.

So if you have a criticism about the administration's policy, you are certainly entitled to criticize the administration, but I think you lose your right to criticize the administration on military assistance and what we are doing or not doing on military assistance when you just voted against all the money--all the money. And yet they do it over and over again, as if no one is watching.

Well, I think the American people get it, and I think they know the difference between someone who can justifiably criticize any administration on foreign policy or defense policy or anything else. But I think you should admit on the record that you didn't vote for the money. Don't throw sand in the eyes of the people. Admit on the record that you didn't vote for the money, and then lodge your criticism. But, of course, he didn't do that and so many who voted the wrong way.

Now, the Washington Post also notes in this article that, obviously, it was a spending bill that will allow us to fund the government. We could talk about that, whether you support funding the government. But here is a point that was made in the article that I think a lot of people may have missed: It is that this funding bill also paid for a pay increase for our troops.

U.S. servicemembers got a pay increase in this bill, and yet you would never know that by listening to some of the folks who voted the wrong way on the bill. You would think that that wasn't part of this legislation.

So I think a lot of Americans probably expect that when you are making an argument against an administration, you have the right to do that, but I think it would be a lot more truthful if you were clear about where you voted on the biggest Ukraine spending measure in recent history, likely not just the biggest ever for Ukraine but the biggest ever for a lot of countries that we help.

So I hope that people across this Chamber and across the country will make note of that contradiction, because when you voted against those dollars for Ukraine, you were voting against not only the people of Ukraine and their ability to fight this war and obviously the soldiers in the field, but you were voting against that humanitarian support, as well, that will provide food and medical care and so much else.

Now, I am in no way satisfied that we have done enough. We have got to do a lot more. We have got to provide, in my judgment, a river, an ever-rushing stream of weapons--as many weapons as it takes to defeat Vladimir Putin.

So we are going to have more debates, and Senators will have more opportunities to vote the right way when it comes to supporting the people of Ukraine. But I think it would be better for the debate if folks would mention how they voted, that they voted against the Ukraine money, that they voted against the pay raise for the troops, and they voted against a lot of other provisions.

But to come on to the Senate floor and to criticize the President on military assistance, that is the height of hypocrisy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

When confirmed later this week, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will be the first Black woman on the U.S. Supreme Court in its 233-year history.

Yesterday morning, I had the privilege of meeting with her, and we discussed her judicial methodology as well as her story and her path in the law. Rising up to overcome so many barriers, Judge Jackson's story and her family's story is truly an American story. It is a story of hard work and sacrifice. It is a story of commitment to excellence.

Judge Jackson's academic credentials are impressive: graduating from Harvard College and Harvard Law School with honors from both college and law school.

Her unparalleled professional credentials and the breadth of her legal experience equal or exceed that of any nominee in recent history. She has worked in private practice. She has worked as an assistant public defender--Federal public defender--and as a law clerk at every level of the Federal judicial branch, including a law clerk to Justice Breyer, who is going to be retiring from the Court. Perhaps most important, she has worked as a Federal judge for nearly 10 years, presiding over trials and later hearing appeals.

During our meeting yesterday, Judge Jackson spoke about her career transition from attorney to Federal judge and specifically highlighted how her career as a trial attorney helped her grow into becoming a Federal judge.

Often lost in our discussions regarding Federal judges are the people, the people who are impacted directly by our legal system in our judges' decisions. At its core, our court system, more so than any other institution, is dedicated to the idea that everyone--everyone, not just the wealthy or powerful--should have a fair shot at justice and that no one--no one--is above the law.

The Beatitudes in the New Testament speak to this idea of justice. We have all heard it over and over again:

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for

they shall be satisfied.

The power--the power--of our judicial system and our judiciary stems from the integrity and the independence of our judges. It stems from their unrelenting commitment to the rule of law and to equal justice for all Americans.

Throughout her career but particularly as a public defender--a Federal public defender--Judge Jackson has fought for a more equitable and a more just America, representing individuals accused of committing crimes and those who cannot afford a lawyer. All of those cases are difficult cases for any lawyer. The lawyer must be committed to upholding a core American value that our legal system must protect all Americans, including defendants, to ensure ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' as is inscribed on the front of the Supreme Court itself.

Judge Jackson has lived this commitment to justice, to equal justice. She understands the awesome power that will be bestowed upon her as a Supreme Court Justice. She has seen firsthand the impact that a judge's decision can have on plaintiffs and defendants alike. It is why Judge Jackson has discussed how, when she was a district judge, she would often take extra care to communicate with defendants in her courtroom to ensure that they understood the complexities of the legal proceedings happening before them. For when a defendant is before the bar of justice, their liberty is at stake, and Judge Jackson wanted to make sure that they understood what was happening before them and what could happen to them.

Her commitment to equal justice is also evident by her impartial rulings and the widespread support she has received from across the political spectrum.

As a district court judge and as a circuit court judge, Judge Jackson has ruled for and against the government, in favor of prosecutors and for criminal defendants, for labor and for business, for civil plaintiffs and defendants.

Her nomination received the support from several Republican Senators, Republican-appointed judges, and former Republican-appointed officials.

She received broad support from law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and other top law enforcement officials, including former Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, as well as crime survivors, and other advocates.

Her nomination has received further support from civil rights organizations as well as business organizations.

Of course, Judge Jackson's nomination is about more than simply the great support that she has received and her impeccable credentials. Both are important, but that is not it.

Yesterday morning, after my meeting with Judge Jackson, she was kind enough to meet with several members of my staff who have graduated from law school or who are getting ready to apply to law school, some of whom have been accepted. She offered some salient advice about law school. I won't disclose what it was here, but it was good advice. And she encouraged them to keep going, to persevere.

Now, Judge Jackson is already today, and has been for weeks and months now, an inspiration to tens of millions of Americans. Her graciousness, her humility, and her legal acumen are simply unmatched. Her confirmation to the Supreme Court will also inspire many future generations, those yet to come and not simply future lawyers and advocates. And certainly and particularly, her nomination and her confirmation will be particularly inspiring to young Black women and girls to persevere, as she said to our staff yesterday.

The day of her confirmation will be a good day for America. She lifts our spirits at a very difficult time for our Nation. And while we have a long way to go, Judge Jackson's nomination is an important step to bringing us closer to having our institutions better reflect the great diversity of our Nation as we strive to be a more perfect Union.

I will go back to the Beatitudes again. ``Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.'' Judge Jackson, I have no doubt, will continue her work to strive for justice, to act with justice, as one of the great hymns tells us. She will do all of this as she discharges her duty as Justice Jackson.

I look forward to voting for her to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week Tuesday, I tested positive for COVID-19 during weekly surveillance testing. As per the CDC's guidance, I left the Capitol and began a period of isolation.

As a result of that isolation, I missed a number of votes. I take seriously my duties in service to the people of Pennsylvania, including voting on policies and nominations. Accordingly, I wish for the record to show that, had I not been absent due to a COVID infection, I would have voted yea on the following votes: yea on vote No. 98, on the confirmation on the nomination of Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California; yea on vote No. 99, on the confirmation on the nomination of Victoria Marie Calvert, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia; yea on vote No. 100, on the motion to proceed to H.R. 4521; yea on vote No. 101, on the confirmation on the nomination of Julie Rebecca Rubin, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland; yea on vote No. 102, on the confirmation on the nomination of Hector Gonzalez, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; yea on vote No. 103, on the confirmation on the nomination of John H. Chun, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington; yea on vote No. 104, on the confirmation on the nomination of Cristina D. Silva, of Nevada, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada; yea on vote No. 105, on the confirmation on the nomination of Anne Rachel Traum, of Nevada, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada; yea on vote No. 106, on the confirmation on the nomination of Alison J. Nathan, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit; and yea on vote No. 107, on the confirmation on the nomination of Andrew M. Luger, of Minnesota, to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota.

I am grateful to have only experienced mild symptoms of the virus as a result of being fully vaccinated and boosted. I encourage anyone who has yet to be vaccinated to do so and to get boosted if they are eligible.

Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Madam President, I rise, as so many of us have of late, to talk about the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. This invasion, as we know, started on February 24, and it is now, I guess, in its 21st or 22nd day.

At the time of the invasion--I think it was the day after or 2 days after--I was reading in a newspaper the reference to one resident of Ukraine who said the following about the onset of the hostilities by Vladimir Putin and Russia:

It was the worst sunrise in my life.

I can't even begin to imagine what that individual in Ukraine or tens of thousands of families were feeling on that day, and hundreds of thousands throughout the country--millions, even.

This attack, which is ongoing, was both unprovoked and unjustified. It is an attack on a sovereign nation by a murderous dictator who has no regard for human life and no regard for the rules-based international order. I think a lot of people knew that before the invasion, but now it is abundantly clear to the world what Vladimir Putin's intentions are and what his practices are when it comes to attacking a sovereign nation.

The New York Times told us last Friday, March 11, about Putin. I am quoting here from the New York Times, and they made reference in this story to his actions in Syria, as well as Chechnya:

[H]e has demonstrated in [the] past . . . a willingness not

only to bomb heavily populated areas indiscriminately but

also to use civilian casualties as leverage against his

enemies.

``[U]se civilian casualties as leverage''--that is the dictator that the people of Ukraine are dealing with right now. And I think it is clear from the reporting, and so many Americans have read the stories and have seen the coverage of the bombings. It is clear that he is bombing indiscriminately. It is clear that he and his army, his military, are targeting civilians.

All you have to do is look at the list of locations. And the list would be hundreds if we read all of them, but here are just a couple examples. Maybe the most graphic in the last couple of days was the bombing of a maternity ward and that footage of a stretcher coming out of that rubble with a pregnant woman, who has since died, as did her child. That is an example of that kind of indiscriminate bombing.

But in addition to a maternity ward, he has bombed a shoe factory, a psychiatric hospital, apartment buildings, cafes, homes, parking lots near a shopping center, bombing near a kindergarten, bombing of a mosque, bombing--we are told, the most recent number--34 medical facilities, damaged in Ukraine. And that number, of course, will grow. Most recently, just in the last day or so, a supermarket, and, I think, at least a 12-story residential tower.

And then, just today, another reference to just one example of the brutality of Putin: 10 people killed waiting in line for bread in Ukraine. The adviser to the mayor of one of the most besieged cities, Mariupol, said the following. This adviser said:

Humanity has not yet invented a word to describe what

Russia is doing to us.

I think that says it all. There is no way to describe what is happening. The world has never seen this, in recent history. Maybe the closest example would be what happened in Syria, which, of course, was also paid for and led by the Russian military, Mr. Putin.

Despite all that horror and all that bloodshed and all that is to follow, despite all of that grim reminder of the brutality of Mr. Putin, the Ukrainian people have inspired so many of us. When I say ``us,'' I don't mean just voting Members of Congress or people throughout the country. They have inspired people the world over. I have never seen anything in my lifetime that equates to the inspiration that they have generated; their courage--the raw physical courage of the people, of the military, and all the contributions they are making to their country--their resolute determination to protect their freedom, to protect their families, to protect their nation, and, really, when you think about it in a larger sense, to protect democracy itself, because that is really very much on the line in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian people's stubborn refusal to be intimidated by a ruthless autocrat and his military has inspired so many people every single day. I just saw another example this morning. Women who have left Ukraine with their children, to bring their children to safety, coming back into Ukraine to join the fight or, in some cases, I guess, to rejoin the fight--women putting their lives at risk for their country.

This morning the Presiding Officer and all of us, the Members of Congress, had the honor to listen to President Zelenskyy's address to the Congress, and I know the Nation saw it as well. His address this morning was also inspiring, every bit as inspiring as that engendered by his people. But his address was also a call to action for us to do more. We have got to do more. And we have got to provide additional support.

President Zelenskyy thanked our President, President Biden, and the American people for all the support that we have provided, especially in the last couple of weeks since the invasion began but also before that.

And President Biden responded just 2 or 3 hours later when he announced even more military assistance or security assistance, which, if you add up just that part of the support, just since he took office, is now at about $2 billion. That doesn't include other support like humanitarian support.

But here is just a quick list of what that security assistance is. I will just itemize a few. This isn't exhaustive, but it is just some examples: Stinger anti-aircraft systems--we provided many hundreds of them, and now we are providing a lot more than that--the Javelin anti- armor systems that have had such success against the Russian military, Russian tanks; helicopters; patrol boats; grenade launchers; guns and ammunition; grenades; mortar and artillery rounds; secure communications; military medical equipment; on and on and on.

And, as I mentioned, the President responded specifically today by announcing that the United States will add $800 million just on security assistance, bringing that total, as I said, to $2 billion since he began his administration. It was noteworthy that two of the component parts of that--the Stinger systems and the Javelins--both are being used with great skill by the Ukrainian fighters. The increase in those numbers is not just a few hundred. In both cases it is either doubling or tripling what we have already done. And we will do more. We will continue to do more.

Congress has passed a spending bill just a couple of days ago, at the end of last week, and the President signed it this week, which allowed that $800 million to be available.

So that is the good news: more money for weapons and other security assistance, more money for humanitarian support. That number is growing all the time because of the need that the Ukrainian people have.

The sanctions--the crushing, unprecedented sanctions--that already are having effect. I had a briefing today just on that topic of the impact of the sanctions, and it is substantial, and it will only grow as time goes by. We will have more time later to talk about that. And, of course, the contribution, as well--all of these are contributions of not just our government but our people. The American people made these contributions of military assistance and humanitarian support and our

ability to impose sanctions with our allies, with our NATO partners.

But at the same time, what gets lost sometimes in the discussion about Ukraine is the intelligence support we have provided--all kinds of offices throughout our intelligence community providing actionable intelligence or intelligence that the Ukrainians can use if they fight the battle, fight the war. That is probably incalculable in terms of the advantages given on the battlefield and beyond. So that bears emphasis as well.

I think one area of positive development in the last couple of months is the unity, not just the unity of NATO, which has never been stronger, probably never stronger since the 1960s or even more so, but the unity here at home--unity in the Senate, unity in the House, unity throughout the country to support the people of Ukraine--the people but also to support the military.

I have to say, though, as much as we have that unity with our NATO partners and here in the Congress, there are voices here in Washington and around the country that are not as unified. We know the voice of our former President and his continued approval of Putin's ``genius.''

Why would you ever say that about a murderous dictator? He is not a genius. He is, I believe, a war criminal, but that kind of language and that kind of support for Putin, at least by way of laudatory words, has tarnished that unity, has undermined that unity here at home and around the world. But it is not enough to break that unity.

I just hope that Republican Members of Congress, when someone in their party, especially a leader of their party or a Member of Congress or any other Republican official--I hope that when they say things about Vladimir Putin that are positive or in any way supportive that they would call it out and condemn it.

When you are supporting the people of Ukraine at a time of war, you have to use every tool in your toolbox: military assistance, diplomacy, sanctions, humanitarian support, but also your words as leaders. And we should be condemning any American leader who supports or says positive things about Mr. Putin.

I hope the Republican Members of Congress who have stood up and been very supportive of the Ukrainian people in this fight would also call out Members of their party and condemn such statements because that didn't happen in July of 2018, when the former President--in my judgment, this is my view of it--was genuflecting before Vladimir Putin on the world stage in Helsinki, Finland, in probably what I believe is maybe the worst day for an American President on the world stage ever when he took the side of Mr. Putin, a murderous dictator, over the determinations made by our intelligence community about the previous election. That was a low moment for America, for our democracy, and for our country.

We now have, I think, very clearly a choice. It is not a choice of three or four options or five options. There are only two options here: You can choose Mr. Putin or choose Mr. Zelenskyy. You can choose a dictator who has no regard for human life and all of the enablers around him, or you can choose the President who is standing up for freedom, Mr. Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine.

It is really a simple choice. It is a choice between the incarnation of evil and the personification of freedom. That is the choice. There is not a third option here. Every American has to make this choice, but especially Members of Congress, elected officials. That is part of our job. You have to make a choice, and it is very simple.

The good news is Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--House and Senate, the two branches of government--have made a choice, and the American people have made a choice. They made a choice for freedom to support that personification of freedom by supporting Mr. Zelenskyy and his government in this war, by supporting the Ukrainian people, who are literally putting their lives on the line for freedom itself.

I will conclude with these thoughts. Like our Constitution that we turn to for both--not just guidance and inspiration, but we turn to, to remind ourselves of our duty, so, too, are the people of Ukraine turning to their Constitution for that guidance and that inspiration and that call to action.

Here is what that Constitution says in pertinent part, and it sounds very familiar:

The people are the bearers of sovereignty and the only

sources of power in Ukraine . . . To affirm and ensure human

rights and freedoms is the main duty of the State.

That is what the Ukrainian Constitution says, a mandate that freedom must be the goal and the work of the State. Wow, are they doing that now. President Zelenskyy and his government and the people of Ukraine are standing up for freedom.

When we are at our best here at home, we do the same. We have a great anthem for our Nation: ``O beautiful''--and you know the rest of that great anthem. One of the verses of that great anthem says:

O beautiful for patriot dream that sees beyond the years.

The dream of a patriot isn't just to stand up in the moment and fight, but that patriot is standing up for freedom, fighting and willing to put their lives on the line--or his or her life on the line--for freedom because they are seeing beyond the years. They are standing up for freedom, not just for themselves and their families and their nation, but for the future--for the future of that nation. That is what the people of Ukraine are doing right now, and that is why we have to continue to support them in that great fight.

I think most Americans have already made the choice. We just have to back them up and stand for freedom--not to stand for the incarnation of evil, Mr. Putin and his government right now, but to stand for the personification of freedom. We saw that this morning with President Zelenskyy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am here today for two purposes. I will start with the first.

The first is to rise in support of advancing the nomination of Elizabeth Watson to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Labor.

Ms. Watson is a highly qualified nominee who was nominated in April of last year, almost a year ago now. She has spent most of her career advocating for workers through labor and economic policy.

Ms. Watson previously served as labor policy director and chief labor counsel on the House Committee on Education and Labor. Given her labor expertise and commitment to public service, she would be an enormous asset to the Department of Labor.

It is past due that the Senate confirm her nomination.

Ms. Watson is one of many excellent pro-worker nominees that have been put forward by the Biden-Harris administration.

Working families and unions built the American middle class, and working families and unions helped to make the Nation what it is today--the strongest, most powerful nation in the world.

Every worker in America deserves to be paid a living wage and treated with

dignity and respect. Over the past few decades, corporations have worked to undermine and weaken workers' fundamental rights to organize and collectively bargain. We should, for example, pass the PRO Act, which would safeguard and strengthen workers' fundamental right to organize and ensure that workers are able to decide whether or not to join a union through a fair process.

It would help restore fairness to an economy that has been rigged against workers for too long. We owe it to workers and families to create an economy that works for them, not for corporate interests. Pro-worker nominees, like Elizabeth Watson, will help us realize this goal. The Senate should advance her nomination.

So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 687, Elizabeth Schoff Watson, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor; that the nomination be confirmed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, I rise this evening to share the urgent need to pass a bipartisan bill, a piece of legislation we have been working on for years now that will save the lives of children.

Every year, emergency rooms across the country treat over 22,000 preventable injuries--22,000 preventable injuries--caused by falling furniture, like dressers or television sets. On average, roughly half-- half--of those injured are children, and of the vast majority of those killed by furniture tip-overs, some 81 percent are children. Eighty-one percent of all those killed by furniture tip-overs are children.

The death of a child is an unspeakable loss. There is no way to calculate it, and if you haven't lived through it, I don't think any of us can understand what some families have lived through. Yet in America, the most powerful Nation on the Earth, in less than 20 years, more than 460 children have been killed by these furniture tip-overs, and that number is the reported fatality number.

Compounding the grief and loss that these families experience is the fact that these deaths might have been prevented.

The answer here is pretty simple: mandatory stability standards that would make our homes safer for our children. For years now, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Cotton, and I have led a bipartisan effort to pass the STURDY Act.

Here is what all of the letters in that acronym stand for: The Stop Tip-overs of Unstable, Risky Dressers on Youth. We call it the STURDY Act.

The STURDY Act would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to create a mandatory stability standard for furniture. That is all it does. It would create a mandatory stability standard. It would require companies to ensure their products are tested for safety and stability before being sold. It is a simple, commonsense requirement that will save the lives of children and prevent injuries.

Families in Pennsylvania and across the Nation have been waiting too long for the Senate to act. There are families like the Lamberts and the Collases who have experienced every parent's worst nightmare--the loss of a child. These families have given my staff permission for me to share their stories tonight on the Senate floor. These are two stories I will start with.

You can see on my left, Katie Lambert.

Katie Lambert, in 2005, was 3 years old, just 3 years old. Her mom Judy describes her as ``everything a three-year-old child should be-- full of love and spontaneity.''

Katie loved Thomas the Tank Engine; she loved Buzz Lightyear; and, of course, she loved her older brothers.

Katie's family had just moved into their new home in Huntingdon Valley, PA, in Southeastern Pennsylvania. One day, Katie was playing in her room while her mom painted the room next-door. Suddenly, Judy heard an ``awful crash'' as she described it. Judy ran into the room to find 3-year-old Katie crushed beneath a tall, mirrored wardrobe. The wardrobe had been on carpet and was unstable.

Judy said:

While we don't know what Katie was doing, she was probably

dancing and watching herself in the mirrors. She may have

bumped up against it or tried to open one of the doors or

maybe the vibration of her dancing in the room was just

enough to cause it to become unstable and fall forward on

her.

That is what her mom Judy said.

You can see in this photograph a beautiful little child, Katie Lambert, who died on that day. As her mom Judy held her, waiting for an ambulance to arrive, Katie took her last breath. She would have been 21 years old this year, and Judy wonders what she would be like today. What would she look like as a young woman? What college would she have chosen and what career path? Would she like spicy food like her brothers do?

Judy Lambert wanted me to share a message today, and it is quoted right here on this poster:

Please, do everything you can to ensure that no other

family suffers the pain we do.

So said a mom about what we should do when we think of this child.

Then, Judy went on to say:

I am begging you to pass the STURDY Act now.

We should listen to her words and act.

The second child I will talk about tonight is Curren Collas. Another family, the Collas family, experienced a similar tragedy in their home in West Chester, PA.

Curren was just 2 years old--2 years old--with blond hair and deep blue eyes that his mom Jackie described as ``soulful.'' Curren loved his cars. He would carefully display his collection of them in a perfect line.

In February of 2014, Jackie walked into Curren's bedroom to wake him for the day. She discovered Curren's five-drawer dresser had fallen on him. Curren was trapped between it and his bed. As she waited for an ambulance to arrive, Jackie tried to resuscitate Curren but was later told by the paramedics that he had no vital signs when they took over.

In the months after Curren's death, Jackie would sometimes stumble on his toy cars, hidden around the house--reminders of her spirited son, Curren.

Obviously, Jackie and her family's lives will never ever be the same.

Here is what she told us in memory of her son. She said:

Even if I live until 100, it's going to be before Curren

and after Curren.

Just two stories tell us all we need to know about why we have to pass this bill. We could tell a lot more from Pennsylvania and so many other States that are represented by those Senators I mentioned and represented by Senators from other States. There is no reason--no reason at all--for families to endure this unimaginable grief, but, tragically, families across the Nation share similar stories of losing children to these horrific furniture tipover accidents. You will hear more of their

stories from my colleagues in the days ahead.

In the memory of Katie and Curren and so many others who were lost to their families--killed in these tragedies--we must pass the STURDY Act. It is not complicated. It is not complicated at all. We must ensure that the furniture sold to consumers is tested--tested for safety and tested for stability. Congress must do all it can. We in the Senate must do all we can to ensure that no more children--no more children-- are harmed or killed by furniture tipovers.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time on the Pagan nomination be considered expired, with all previous provisions remaining in effect.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I have nine 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, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 539, which was submitted earlier today.

I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.