Floor Statements

Mr. President, our Nation is once again in an age of great power conflict. It is a dangerous time for this country, for our military, and for our citizens.

The mission of the U.S. military is to deter and, if necessary, win real wars, not engage in culture wars. And so I rise this afternoon to say that this administration's current diversity, equity, and inclusion program is not only unnecessary but harmful to our military and to our national security.

But, first, let me do a quick history lesson. Eighty years ago, our country was pitted against fascist foes from three continents. Our ``greatest generation,'' my father among them, answered the call to arms and defended the world against an evil autocrat. Back then, the military was not what it should be. Our ranks were segregated. But a group of fearless African-American airmen challenged the conscience of the military and the Nation and paved the road to change.

In early 1943, the Tuskegee Airmen were making the final preparations to deploy to North Africa and later to Italy to take on the Axis war machine. They made history as the first African-American combat pilots, and they served with honor and distinction.

Their actions are now the stuff of popular film and literature, and they are a cornerstone of American culture. But the valor of the Tuskegee Airmen did not just appear overnight. John C. Robinson, a native son of my home State of Mississippi, spent a decade laying the groundwork for the airmen's future heroism. Born to a Pullman porter, Robinson completed 10th grade but was barred from further education. He could afford only a wagon ride on his first trip to the Tuskegee Institute, where he would learn the engineering trades hundreds of miles away from home.

He persevered, after facing several rejections from America's leading aviation school, and eventually he worked as a janitor by day and studied aviation by night, graduating at the top of his class with flying colors.

When Mussolini's brigades of Italian fascists invaded Ethiopia, Robinson jumped into the breach. He led the air campaign in one of the first salvos of World War II. His story would become well known to Americans in the newspapers and on the radio waves, and he inspired a generation as one of the first Black combat pilots.

As one historian put it, it was solely because of Robinson's contributions that the Tuskegee program became popular with the Army. Only in America, could the son of a Mississippi porter who was denied a college education because of the color of his skin become one of the finest aviators his country ever saw in a moment when we needed him most.

This is who we are. This is what our service men and women sign up to defend every day. Today, as then, we live in an age of great power conflict. Today, as then, we face hate-filled autocrats who seek to dominate. These foes present the American people with a test, and the Tuskegee Airmen's story reminds us that we can pass that test. The Tuskegee Airmen knew the principles of the United States--liberty and justice for all--though not fully achieved, were worth fighting for at home and abroad.

Because of their courage, along with the leadership of our government, their focus on the core mission of the U.S. military to defend us in war led to the defeat of fascism in Europe, but it also changed our troops. The Tuskegee Airmen's heroism challenged the conscience of the Armed Forces and the country. They paved the way for a transformation.

The U.S. military today is the largest, most diverse engine of social mobility in this country. The U.S. military is the most successful civil rights program in the history of the world.

The fact is, American soldiers from all backgrounds are now promoted on the basis of their character, commitment, ability, and courage. The treatment dreamed of by the Tuskegee Airmen has become a reality.

That is why it is so mystifying, even disturbing, to see the current diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. If you look at the policies of the Department of Defense, you would be forgiven for thinking our forces are today under a cloud of segregation and extremism.

The truth is, the military now represents the best of our society and has consistently advanced the cause of equal rights. Even before the rest of the country was ready to take that pivotal step, the military took that step.

Now, as Commander in Chief, President Biden still has the most important job that the Commander in Chief has ever had, and that is leading our military in defense of the United States. But his administration is making that job harder every day by focusing on leftwing social issues.

In the wake of a disastrous retreat from Afghanistan and increasingly hostile behavior from China and Russia, the President should be prioritizing military readiness. Instead, he has decided, inexplicably, to spend his first 2 years in office focusing on something else--on shaping the Department of Defense into an institution that is spearheading toxic social policies instead of focusing on military strength. This agenda has harmed military readiness and alienated a large portion of potential military recruits.

The ideas propagandized by the bureaucrats and so-called diversity officers within our military are painting a false picture of reality. In addition, they clearly run afoul of America's founding principles and our country's dedication to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The mission of the U.S. military is to deter real wars and win them if necessary, not to wage culture wars within the ranks. But there are numerous examples of how this administration has made it a top priority to push progressive social policies on the military, and it is undermining the effectiveness of our national defense.

Within the first 6 months of the Biden administration, Pentagon civilian leadership demanded the creation of a powerful new diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracy focused on everything but readiness.

Right before the 2022 midterms, the Secretary of Defense released a memo warning, with no evidence whatsoever, that the recent Supreme Court decision on abortion would negatively impact readiness and recruiting, with no evidence whatsoever that this was true. Every dollar we spend on defense should have a clear connection to advancing military effectiveness and lethality.

My colleague Senator Joni Ernst, herself a veteran, has been especially clear-eyed on this topic, proposing legislation blocking the use of taxpayer dollars to fund specious efforts related to abortion at the Department of Defense. I agree, and I am glad to join her in this effort.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has a duty to conduct careful oversight and analysis of the Department of Defense.

Today's woke social issue agenda does not improve military effectiveness or lethality. That is why my colleague Senator Tom Cotton and House Member Dan Bishop are introducing new legislation to stop the use of critical race theory in the Department of Defense, including in our service academies.

It will take strong support for efforts like these to root out toxic ideas, but we must begin to do it now. Misguided efforts from bureaucrats and political appointees alike to inject domestic social issues into defense policy will harm our military's ability to perform its mission.

It pains me to say this, but public confidence in our services is low and shrinking. The Reagan Institute reports that fewer than half of Americans have trust in the military, down from over 70 percent a few years ago.

Largely because of the President's decision to advance his liberal ideology on our armed services, the military now faces the biggest challenge to recruiting in the history of the modern All-Volunteer Force. By the end of this year, the Army will likely be more than 30,000 soldiers smaller today than it was the day President Biden took the oath of office. The Navy is actively recruiting thousands of people who are normally barred from military service because the Navy recruiters cannot find enough qualified recruits to man our growing fleet.

Recruiting is an essential element of military readiness. Hardware is important, to be sure, but if our best and brightest are discouraged from putting on a uniform, we cannot hope to field a ready force.

Addressing this problem starts with addressing how we shape our future leaders. Our four military service academies share a commitment to excellence and boast an impressive track record of molding the officers who will lead the branches of our Armed Forces. I am delighted to help so many young Mississippians gain admission to our academies. But, sadly, over recent years, even our academies have not been immune to the same spread of toxic race- and gender-infused agenda that has inflamed so many college campuses across the Nation.

Across the service academies, students can now find indoctrination courses on, and I quote, ``the social and physical constructs of race, gender, and ethnicity in the context of social inequality in America.'' At every service academy, one can now find diversity, equity, and inclusion programming listed for students. The examples of what this does to the military would be laughable if they weren't so dangerous. This past September, the Air Force Academy actually instructed cadets that the words ``mom'' and ``dad'' might not be inclusive enough. In a less amusing part of the same briefing, cadets were told to avoid the word ``colorblind.'' This is happening at our Nation's elite service academies, not at the faculty lounge at Berkeley, and it is ridiculous.

Many raise concerns about extremism at the military. Yet, after a military-wide standdown to focus on extremism in the ranks, we found out that fewer than 100--fewer than 100--persons out of a military of 1.2 million Active-Duty servicemembers had engaged in extremist activity.

General Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, later revealed that between the standdown and new ``diversity, equity, and inclusion'' training requirements levied by the Biden administration, the Department of Defense has spent nearly 5.9 million man-hours on the issue of extremism. That represents over 64,000 hours for each confirmed case of extremism last year.

To the extent there is extremism in the military--and it is rare--it is a problem we can work together on a bipartisan basis to solve, as Senator Dan Sullivan has repeatedly discussed, and I appreciate his leadership. But again I say it is extremely rare in the U.S. military.

In fact, many of the attempts to root out extremism have unintended consequences, including convincing potential recruits that they are not welcome in the military. These efforts have also punished Americans with earnest and deeply held beliefs--people who share the same beliefs as I do, people who want to serve in the military.

For example, as part of the ``extremism stand down day,'' the Navy issued training materials to sailors stating explicitly that conservative views of ``marriage, abortion, and LGBTQ rights'' are ``not considered mainstream''--``not considered mainstream.'' The U.S. Navy should not sideline traditional religious and moral views by declaring them out of step with the times.

Let me be clear. I hold sincere convictions about the sanctity of life. I may be in the majority in some States, and I may be in the minority in others, but I am entitled to my views, and our Department of Defense has no business characterizing them as outside the mainstream.

One thing that is not mainstream is the Pentagon's unrelenting focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion over the past 2 years. The U.S. military is the largest and most diverse public institution in the country. For decades, it has been an engine of economic and social mobility and a place for Americans of all stripes to come together in support of a common mission. From the youngest private to the most senior general, our military is composed of Americans from every possible background you can imagine. We should celebrate that fact.

Sadly, this is not the operating mentality of the leadership at today's Pentagon. The Department of Defense's new Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategic Plan aims to, and I quote, ``ensure equitable career progression'' for military personnel by eliminating promotion and retention barriers.

By adding ``equity'' rather than ``equal opportunity'' to the military promotion process, the Biden administration is judging the selection of military leaders not on the content of their character but on whether an individual happens to be a member of one demographic group for another. Simply put, this amounts to quotas over merit.

This equity approach to promotions and assignments takes a sledgehammer to the foundation of the military, and, worse, it creates divisions that put our men and women in uniform at risk. It pits them against each other based on factors they cannot control.

More than any other public institution, our military represents the broadest picture of American society. That is as it should be. It is not ``systemic racism,'' as one senior member of the Defense Department said. This rhetoric draws the ridicule of our enemies. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the agents of the Kremlin have shown no hesitation in ridiculing the language of woke bureaucrats.

Rather than fighting culture wars at the Pentagon, our focus should turn to doing everything in our power to expand the population eligible and qualified for military service. I will partner with any other Member of Congress who wants to achieve this goal.

Mr. President, seven centuries ago, a Chinese novelist wrote:

The Empire long divided must unite; long united, must

divide. Thus, it has ever been.

These are the opening words from the Chinese classic novel ``Romance of the Three Kingdoms.'' Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and Xi Jinping have drawn inspirations and quoted passages from this classic because the enduring prominence in the Chinese imagination can be traced back for centuries. They describe the long rhythm of Chinese history--a period of civil war and chaos followed by a period of stability. Now, after a century of perceived humiliation, the Chinese Communist Party believes it is destined to be whole and powerful again.

That is what makes China's current ambition to ``unify,'' as they put it,

even more troubling. Just as Vladimir Putin seeks to use violence to reconstitute what he considers the old Soviet empire, the Chinese Communist Party has made it its mission to ``reunite'' all those it considers Chinese, including those who have gained freedom and liberty, like the people of Taiwan. The Taiwanese people want no part of Beijing's communist vision, and they fully reject the idea that Beijing should impose its will on its neighbors.

Some may think Beijing has been hiding and biding its time, but, in fact, it has for decades been active and aggressive in expanding its claims of sovereignty and territory. In the last 60 years, China almost risked a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union, fought a war with Vietnam, and engaged in multiple bloody skirmishes with India as recently as last month to assert their territorial claim. Today, it continues to make egregious territorial claims in the South and East China Sea, all in the name of expanding the reach of the Chinese Communist Party.

Americans saw firsthand President Xi's disregard for our own sovereignty over the past week, as a Chinese spy balloon violated U.S. airspace uncontested for several days--just the latest in Beijing's string of provocative actions.

To see his plans for Taiwan, look no further than Xi Jinping's brutal repression of the people of Hong Kong. He continues to trample the freedoms they long enjoyed and indeed were promised by the Chinese Communist Party. We should have known that the idea of ``one country, two systems'' was always incompatible with the rule of the Chinese Communist Party.

Taiwan is the missing piece in President Xi's puzzle. Without Taiwan, Xi Jinping, who wants to be remembered as one of the great emperors of Chinese history, will have failed. And make no mistake, he cannot accept a free Taiwan because Taiwan, situated 90 miles off the Chinese coast, is living proof that freedom and democracy can thrive in a Chinese-speaking nation. Taiwan is a powerful advertisement for liberty to the 1.4 billion people who suffer under the communist police state. For this reason more than any other, Xi Jinping wants what he views as the ``Taiwan problem'' resolved on his terms.

He and his comrades have spent the last several decades pursuing the fastest military buildup in history, achieving the world's largest navy by sheer number of vessels and by far the largest fleet of advanced ballistic missiles. The Chinese Air Force now flies fifth-generation aircraft armed with air-to-air missiles that outrange our own. The entire People's Liberation Army conducts advanced and realistic training. Our own top cyber officer, GEN Paul Nakasone, says the improvement in Chinese cyber capabilities is ``unlike anything [he has] ever seen.''

All of the PLA's capabilities are aimed across the Taiwan Strait. Just last week, someone leaked a private memo from Gen. Mike Minihan, our air mobility chief, in which he urged troops to be ready for war in 2025. This is 2023; he urged that they be ready for war in 2025.

Despite all the hand-wringing, this is just the latest example of senior civilian and military officials who are increasingly worried about Chinese aggression over the next 4 years, during Xi Jinping's third term. Even Secretary of State Blinken last year said Beijing remains determined ``to pursue unification on a much faster timeline'' than previously expected.

There should be no doubt that the potential for Chinese invasion of Taiwan is higher today than it has ever been. This raises the fair question of whether protecting Taiwan is feasible. Can the small island nation of 23 million souls really stand a chance against a nation of 1.4 billion? The answer is that Taiwan not only can stand a chance, it must be able to defend itself successfully because what is at stake in Taiwan is not just its own freedom and sovereignty but the stability of the region, the stability of the world economy and our own American economy and national security.

Standing tall against a powerful aggressor is no small task. We have seen this in Ukraine. Over the past year, we have seen the sacrifices of courageous Ukrainians who have taken the fight directly to the Russians and continually won despite many dismissing that possibility, including our own intelligence community. That very same heroic kind of resistance and the very same help from friends and allies will be required for Taiwan to preserve its freedom and democracy.

The conflict in Ukraine is closely related to what will happen in Taiwan. Indeed, China openly supports the brutal Russian invasion. This reflects Xi Jinping's own ambition to launch a similar assault on Taiwan. He knows full well that if Putin can outlast the free world and get away with it, with murder and war crimes in Ukraine, his own chances of success against Taiwan will be stronger. U.S. support for a win in Ukraine enhances our ability to deter Beijing in Taiwan.

Congress has led the Biden administration to help Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Now, Congress should lead once again to help Taiwan defend itself against communist China. In fact, for decades, Congress has led the effort to preserve a free and democratic Taiwan. But to do this work on the timeline and scale required, we need first to understand the extraordinary ways in which Taiwan contributes to American interests.

I recently stood here and made the case for why Americans should care about supporting Ukraine. Today, I will pose a similar question: Why should Americans care about Taiwan?

Well, they should. We should.

First, failure to defend Taiwan would forever damage our position in the Indo-Pacific, calling into question our credibility and capability to defend other allies and partners, such as Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand.

Since the end of World War II, our allies have relied on the United States of America, underpinning more than seven decades of peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific. America has also benefited greatly from this peace and prosperity. Today, Japan is our fifth largest trading partner, and South Korea is our sixth largest trading partner. A failure to defend Taiwan would upend that stability, and our allies and partners could abandon America if that happens.

Simply put, peace in the Pacific means jobs for Americans. War in the Pacific, on the other hand, would put American economic freedom at risk.

In addition, what happens in Taiwan will have consequences for whether our allies decide to pursue new capabilities they have thus far forsaken. With open access to the Pacific Ocean, Beijing would almost certainly push Tokyo, Seoul, and others to seek to acquire nuclear weapons or perhaps even to rebalance from the United States to China. What this development would mean for the U.S. alliance network and stability in the Indo-Pacific is unthinkable.

Our allies and partners also play a pivotal role in providing key military basing in the Western Pacific. With U.S. bases in Japan, South Korea, and now the Philippines, our national defense in the Pacific is strong. Without those, our national defense would start on the shores of Guam or Hawaii, rendering America much harder to defend, rendering our homeland much harder to defend.

These allies want us in their countries. We are there because they have allowed us and asked us to be in their countries, and they have each spent billions of their own dollars to build military facilities for our forces. America's web of alliances and partnerships is critical to our success in competing with China in the long run.

With 60 percent of the world's population, the Indo-Pacific is projected to be the largest contributor to global economic growth over the next 30 years. If we lose these critical partners, we would also cede a critical advantage in our effort to compete economically with China, a nation with five times our population and an economy nearly our size.

So that is the first reason.

The second reason: Taiwan is a linchpin of the global economy. A war over Taiwan, launched by China, would immediately send the global economy into a depression the likes of which we have not seen in a century. Americans would lose access to key semiconductors that are in our laptops, phones, cars, and countless electronic products that have become the backbone of daily life.

As our colleague Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska said in a strong December speech on Taiwan, the semiconductor shortage in 2021 already cost Americans $240 billion and nearly 8 million cars--8 million cars that we don't have because of this shortage. Taiwan also exports a significant amount of advanced machine tools that underpin manufacturing jobs here in America.

Chinese aggression against Taiwan would send shock waves through the economy and upend daily life here in America. It would dwarf the economic effects of Russia's war in Ukraine, and we need to do whatever we can to prevent this aggression.

Thirdly, Chinese control of Taiwan's semiconductor industry would leave American supply chains extremely vulnerable to the influence of the Chinese Communist Party. Beijing wants to seize that lucrative industry in order to gain a clear upper hand in the world economy. This could cause massive economic pain for the United States. If Beijing gains control of Taiwan's semiconductor industry, it could rewrite the rules of the global economy. Beijing wants to dictate the terms of any negotiations with the United States, costing Americans tens of millions of jobs and stalling our economic growth.

To sum this all up, protecting Taiwan as a free and prosperous democratic nation is absolutely vital to the prosperity and security of our children and grandchildren. Taiwan should matter to every American.

Now, how do we ensure that a war over Taiwan never occurs--because that should be our goal--given what we know about Beijing's intentions and capabilities?

We should be vigilant about applying the lessons we have learned in Ukraine. That requires recognizing the differences between Ukraine and Taiwan.

The U.S. military began training Ukraine 8 years ago, following the Russian invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014, but we have done comparatively little to train the Taiwanese. With Taiwan, we are playing catchup. We arm Ukraine through multiple land routes by rail and vehicles. In wartime, quickly arming Taiwan by air and sea would prove extremely challenging. Also, the People's Liberation Army in China is not the Russian military. They are much more focused and serious.

So there is simply no time to waste, Mr. President. We need to get high-quality weapons into Taiwanese hands now, before the conflict breaks out. As Senator Phil Gramm and I wrote last year in the Wall Street Journal, we need to turn Taiwan into a porcupine so that Xi Jinping wakes up every day and concludes that an invasion is not worth the cost.

Well, why do you say a porcupine? Any wolf has the ability to kill a gentle porcupine. Yet such an attack rarely occurs in nature. The defense of the porcupine's quills, which can rip through the predator's mouth and throat, is the deterrent that protects it from attack by the wolves. That should be our approach for Taiwan's defense.

Last year, to begin work on this issue, Congress passed the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act. Congress provided the Biden administration with the ability to send $1 billion worth of U.S. weapons stocks to Taiwan. We also authorized up to $10 billion in foreign military financing with matching contribution by Taiwan. This brought to fruition years of work by our colleagues Senator Menendez and Senator Risch.

We authorized the creation of a joint stockpile, accelerated foreign military sales reform, expanded U.S. military training, and established the first-ever comprehensive oversight regime on U.S. national security work with Taiwan.

Lest we forget, our friends the Taiwanese are accelerating their own defense for the sixth straight year, with a 14-percent increase in 2022. Their weapons purchases increasingly align with how our military experts envision a correct defense of the island, including with Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, and secure communications systems. We should encourage this change in Taiwan's focus.

As Gen. James Mattis once said, we need a willing partner in the Biden administration to move at ``the speed of relevance''--``at the speed of relevance.'' Last September, the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees asked the administration some very basic questions: Which weapons are most important in the Pacific? What training does Taiwan need? What weapons is Taiwan ready to buy?

The Biden administration has yet to respond to these questions, even though we know the State Department and Defense Department have completed the analysis. In this case, silence will only make the situation worse. We need answers.

I reiterate: Congress needs this information to perform our constitutional duties effectively. So I am calling on the Biden administration today to work with us to accelerate the transfer, financing, and sale of a key set of military capabilities to Taiwan. The President needs to use the authority that Congress provided to transfer $1 billion in weapons to accelerate the expansion of our training programs in Taiwan. Make no mistake, the President's actions will have direct consequences for Taiwan's ability to defend itself and for our ability to prevent a war in the Pacific.

Without these tools, China will continue to gain the upper hand in the Taiwan Strait. We need to offset and deter the Chinese military from taking actions in the first place. An influx of American weapons will go a long way toward assuring that we stand with them against Chinese aggression and encourage other nations to join us.

As Ronald Reagan said, ``peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations''--end of quote from Ronald Reagan, one of the great advocates of peace through strength. That is how we will help Taiwan preserve its freedom and democracy and how we can avoid war in the Pacific.

At the same time, the Armed Services Committee will intensify its focus on our own work, ensuring our military has every tool it needs to deter and, if necessary, defeat the People's Liberation Army. We must fix our munitions production problem and focus on the high-end weapons that our troops need. We need to modernize and expand the Air Force and the Navy while honing the Army and Marine Corps for their missions in the Western Pacific.

We also have to explore new ideas for nuclear modernization to respond to the unprecedented Chinese nuclear buildup, given that our commanders now tell us the Chinese have more ground-based launchers for nuclear weapons than we do. And we must continue our work to improve the quality of life for all of our servicemembers and their families so they can focus on the tasks at hand.

In conclusion, Mr. President, Congress has prioritized financial and material support for Ukraine to help turn the tide in that war. The security of Taiwan is no less important than the security of Ukraine. The threat to global and economic security from communist China has the potential to jeopardize the prosperity and safety of Americans here in the United States. It is time for our actions to reflect the significance of that threat.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to recognize the dedication of an exemplary civil servant, Mr. Lon Pribble, on the occasion of his upcoming retirement. Lon Pribble began his service to the Nation as a cadet in the U.S. Military Academy in 1979, serving as a military officer until his first retirement at the rank of lieutenant colonel in 2005. However, as a dedicated, energetic individual, he could not stay away from Army service for long. He soon began supporting the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, also known as ERDC, as a contractor analyst. In 2010, Lon became the director of government and legislative affairs for ERDC as a civil servant. My staff and I have had the pleasure of working with him ever since. In his role, Mr. Pribble has communicated the Army's emerging research priorities as well as how my constituents at ERDC help meet the needs of American warfighters. His deep knowledge of key legislative issues and advice to Army leaders and Members of Congress alike positively impacted the Army's interests with Congress. He has kept us informed about facility improvements, changes in the workforce, and partnerships that ERDC is developing throughout Mississippi and the rest of the Nation.

Part of the legacy Lon Pribble leaves at ERDC is an enhanced capability to meet critical Army research needs. He did this through his work supporting facility upgrades, such as construction of the Fragmentation Research Laboratory, the Target Preparation Facility, and the Supercomputing Research Center. Through these efforts and many others, the four ERDC laboratories in Vicksburg have become world-class facilities, and I am proud to represent them. While I am particularly grateful for his work in Mississippi, I know that he similarly supported improvements to the Army's research and development capabilities in other locations across the Nation. These efforts include a new annex housing researchers who study military beach operations in the Outer Banks of North Carolina, and an expansion of the Permafrost Research Tunnel near Fairbanks, AK, which is improving our understanding of the Arctic terrain. During his tenure at ERDC, Lon Pribble's experience in facilities led him to become a resource to the broader defense research enterprise by chairing a government panel charged with assessing defense laboratory infrastructure issues.

Lon Pribble is an outgoing personality and was instrumental in making connections for industry and academic partners across the State and the Nation to help carry out ERDC's mission. I have appreciated his efforts to ensure that partnerships between ERDC and Mississippi universities continue to grow, advance the science and technology to meet Army needs, and develop a diverse student talent pool experienced in Army priorities.

For these efforts, Lon Pribble has received numerous civilian recognitions in addition to his former military awards, including twice receiving the Commander's Award for Civilian Service in 2016 and in 2020. These honors recognize that Lon Pribble has embodied the Army's ideal of selfless service as both a military officer and a civilian. I join my constituents in thanking Lon Pribble for his commitment to our State and the Nation and wish him a happy retirement.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Daniel Davis, my speechwriter--and invaluable member of our team--be granted floor privileges until January 27, 2023.

Mr. President, if I might be recognized, nearly 1 year ago, Russia launched an unprovoked, illegal, and brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. In doing so, Vladimir Putin quite literally sought to wipe a sovereign nation off the map. But as the world witnessed in the months that followed, Mr. Putin had vastly underestimated the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian leadership. Rather than capitulate, Ukrainians have resisted and saved their homeland from full-scale occupation. The courage and ingenuity shown by Ukrainian troops, many of whom were civilians before the war, continues to be nothing short of heroic.

This morning, we learned of yet another act of Russian terror in the form of a barrage of drones and missiles raining down on Kyiv. This left severe casualties. This act of brute intimidation, which has become all too common over the past year, was clearly meant to break the will of the Ukrainian people as they prepare to receive more military aid from the United States and from other allies.

Thankfully, Ukrainian forces successfully shot down the vast majority of those incoming projectiles using advanced air defense technology. This is just one more example of what many of us in this Chamber have asserted for months: If Ukrainians get the tools they need, they can finish the job and defeat Vladimir Putin.

The harsh reality is that these kinds of attacks on Ukraine, leaving a trail of casualties in their wake, have become far too common, and if leaders across the free world had acted sooner, we would be better positioned to save the lives and critical infrastructure now.

The U.S. Congress has led the world in supporting the Ukraine war effort. In fact, we have led the Biden administration--this Senate, on both sides of the aisle. On a bipartisan basis, we have provided security assistance, humanitarian aid, and direct support to Ukraine's government. Although this has amounted to tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, this is actually a bargain investment.

Let's put it in context. According to the Kiel Institute's Ukraine Support Tracker, the total U.S. contribution to Ukraine, through November of last year, amounted to only 0.2 percent of our gross domestic product. The new Congress must continue this bipartisan support for Ukraine, and I look forward to leading the charge as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

As the first anniversary of this war approaches, we should reflect on the progress made by Ukraine, and we should carefully consider how to help them decisively win this conflict so that a lasting peace can take root. To do so, we first need to state clearly what our American interests are in Ukraine. That is something the President and his advisers have repeatedly failed to do, choosing instead to make vague references to the rules-based international order, or words to that effect.

The American people are right to demand straight answers. With inflation rampant, crime on the rise, and an open southern border, it is fair to ask why we should care about what happens in Ukraine.

I offer four reasons.

First, Ukraine matters because the security of Europe is closely tied to our own American security and our own American prosperity. For decades, all of our fellow citizens have benefited from peace and stability in Europe, purchased by the sacrifices of Americans in World War I and World War II. What is at stake today in Ukraine is whether the fruits of those sacrifices will continue to endure.

Allowing Putin to prevail in Ukraine would usher in a new age of chaos and instability and would invite Putin to test our resolve to defend our NATO allies. Make no mistake, Putin will push the envelope as far as we let him. His goal is to remake the old Soviet empire, and, regrettably, the West has misread and underestimated Putin's intentions for years--in 2008, when he invaded Georgia; and then in 2014, with the seizure of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine; and, yet again, last year in Ukraine with this full-scale invasion.

His imperial ambitions are now undeniable. If Vladimir Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, the security of the entire European continent will be put at risk.

Second, our support and the support of our allies for Ukraine has made a huge difference and has significantly weakened Russia. Thanks to the U.S. military assistance and the courage of Ukrainian troops, Russia has lost its ability to carry out near-term conventional invasions of NATO members, and we achieved that without having to send a single American soldier into combat.

The Russian losses have been massive. Last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Mark Milley, estimated that significantly more than 100,000 Russian troops have been killed or wounded in Ukraine during the war, not to mention thousands of combat vehicles, tanks, artillery pieces, and aircraft destroyed.

For those questioning the cost of our assistance, I would simply pose the alternative: How much would it cost in American lives and treasure to confront the Russians directly? Because that is the reality we face if Putin tests our resolve to defend NATO. From that perspective, we are getting one heck of a deal by helping Ukraine do its own fighting.

Third, our support for Ukraine is prompting European countries to take more responsibility for their own security, something we have long urged them to do. Republican and Democrat Presidents alike have long believed that Europeans should take the lead on European security. I agree. Almost every American agrees.

Thanks to our example, our NATO allies are now spending tens of billions more on defense, much of which will be

spent here in the United States. In particular, our friends in the United Kingdom, Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states are making all the right choices to help Ukraine win and prepare their own militaries to deter Russia for decades to come. Backing away from Ukraine at this crucial moment would undermine our credibility as we ask the Europeans to shoulder more of the collective defense burden.

Fourth, although this war is happening in Europe, we should not forget who else is watching. Some skeptics of our mission in Ukraine believe it distracts from our principal security threat: the Chinese Communist Party. But the reality is the exact opposite. Xi Jingping is watching us closely. He wants to see if we will stick by our commitments as he weighs his opportunities of invading his own neighbor--and our friend--Taiwan.

Our Indo-Pacific allies are also watching closely and even helping in Ukraine. As Japanese Prime Minister Kishida recently noted, ``Ukraine today could be Asia tomorrow.''

Far from distracting us from China, stopping Putin in Ukraine is indispensable in deterring China. We dare not show weakness at this moment in Ukraine. Doing so would simply invite other dictators to act just like Vladimir Putin.

The bottom line is that America's interest in this war is clear: We need Ukraine to win, and that means giving them the tools to prevail. Cutting our support would cost us far more in the long run.

Unfortunately, as we know, Vladimir Putin understands only brute force. He will not capitulate or negotiate until he is forced to do so.

This is something President Biden failed to appreciate when he downplayed Putin's threats a year ago by talking about ``minor incursions.'' Remember that--``minor incursions''? At every step of this crisis, it has been Congress, not the administration, that has taken the lead, and it is something that the President still fails to grasp as he and his administration continue to slow-roll military aid for fear of ``escalation.''

The Biden administration has come along grudgingly as Congress has pushed and pulled and taken the lead. For example, in May of last year, Congress provided the administration with roughly $8.5 billion of drawdown authority to transfer weapons and munitions from U.S. inventories to Ukraine through the end of September. But the administration let almost $3 billion of that authority expire.

Ukraine can win this war. Ukraine must win this war. But we and our allies have to do our part to help them. When Russia first launched its invasion, the prospect of Ukrainian victory indeed seemed unlikely. The Russian blitzkrieg forced Ukraine to fight for its very survival. It took repeated acts of heroism to push the Russians back, from President Zelenskyy's fearless example of leadership down to the foot soldiers, like Vitaly Volodymyrovych, who blew up the bridge beneath his feet, sacrificing his own life, to stop the Russian advance.

After Russian troops faltered in those initial days, they pivoted to a barbaric tactic of heavy bombardment of civilians--shelling homes, schools, and hospitals. These were war crimes. And as the Russians were finally expelled from Kyiv, we learned of the horrific atrocities committed against civilians, particularly in the city's outer lying areas, such as Bucha.

And then began the counteroffensive. The Ukrainians retook Snake Island, liberated Kharkiv, and eventually expelled the Russians from Kherson in November. Their battlefield success demonstrated the impact of high-end U.S. military aid--such as HIMARS, long-range rockets--as well as the Ukrainians' own capabilities to plan and execute complex operations in defense of their own homeland.

Today, the situation has stabilized, with Russia occupying only about 15 percent of Ukraine.

The courage of Ukrainians presents us with an opportunity. As the war approaches its second year, Congress must once again lead the administration to ramp up military aid to Ukraine to drive toward victory. We should all want Ukraine to win the war. A continuation of the status quo, which would drag out the war, favors Russia. The United States has made a huge difference in this war, and we can now tip the balance in favor of Ukraine if we take the right steps. I would sum up this policy of the right steps in three words: more, better, and faster--more ground vehicles and munitions, better equipment, faster deliveries. We need faster deliveries right now.

While I appreciate the White House's recent announcement that we will send a batch of Abrams tanks to Ukraine, it is now our duty to follow through on this commitment and make certain the Ukrainians promptly receive the battlefield capabilities we plan to provide them, including the necessary training.

In addition, we need to give Ukraine ATACMS, long-range missiles, and advanced drones, like the Gray Eagle and Reaper. We should deliver these assets quickly to make an immediate difference on the battlefield. In concert with our allies, this approach of ``more, better, and faster'' would give the Ukrainians a real shot at victory.

At the same time, we must continue our work to expand our own defense industrial capacity here at home. The American people have already invested billions of dollars to replenish the weapons we transferred to Ukraine, particularly munitions. We are using that money here in America to expand production, doubling and even tripling production capacities for weapons like 155-millimeter shells, Javelins, and HIMARS, and our work on that has just begun.

Lastly, we will continue to maintain and expand the rigorous oversight structure we have placed over military aid. As of today, Congress has imposed more than two dozen detailed oversight requirements on the Biden administration, and we continue to monitor their responses closely. Of course, some of the oversight work we do is classified to protect the people and sources conducting it. But Americans should know the scope of our oversight work, and so we will hold oversight hearings in this Congress, and we will do so on a bipartisan basis.

We should also press the Pentagon to make more oversight information public. We should continue tracking the work of the inspectors general in the State Department and the Department of Defense and in the U.S. Agency for International Development and 14 other government organizations that are already tasked with ensuring accountability for all spending related to Ukraine. These organizations are hard at work. Thus far, 20 reviews of Ukraine assistance have been completed, with another 64 reviews ongoing or planned. That is oversight.

We have work ahead of us this year, and it is critical work. If we make the right choices, we can ensure a Ukrainian victory over Russia, send a message of strength to China and others who wish us ill, and restore the United States as the world's arsenal of democracy.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mrs. Victoria Long Rubin, a Knauss Sea Grant fellow on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Mrs. Ruben's scientific expertise has informed the committee's efforts in a meaningful and professional way. She has worked on several pieces of legislation that are important to improve the safety and economic security of the Nation, including the TORNADO Act, the Maritime Technical Advancement Act, and the first authorization of the Minority Business Development Agency. Her contributions will help improve tornado forecasting to keep Americans safer from deadly storms, promote maritime education at our Nation's community colleges, and increase support for rural minority businesses.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mrs. Rubin for all of the fine work she has done and wish her luck in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Ms. Ashlyn Spector, a Knauss Sea Grant fellow on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Ms. Spector's scientific expertise has informed the committee's efforts in a meaningful and professional way. She has worked on several pieces of legislation that are important to improve the safety and economic security of the Nation, including the TORNADO Act. Her contributions will help improve data management at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, promote Federal partnerships with our Nation's historically black colleges and universities and increase Federal coordination on floods and wildfires.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Ms. Spector for all of the fine work she has done and wish her luck in the years to come.

Madam President, just very briefly, I have served in three legislative bodies during my lifetime: the Mississippi State Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and then, since New Year's Eve of 2007, here in the United States Senate. I have never had a better friend in any legislative capacity than Roy Blunt. So this is a very profound moment for me and a very emotional moment for me.

If there were ever anyone who was a born legislator, that person is Roy Blunt. He sprang to this Earth with the ability to understand a diverse group of individuals representing diverse parts of the country, both in the House and in the Senate, and to bring them together for a result. This country is so much better off because of the legislative skills and the legislative accomplishments of Roy Blunt. There are people who are well today who had been sick, and they are well because of the efforts of Roy Blunt. There are people alive today who would not have been had it not been for the legislative skill of Roy Blunt.

This Republic will go on and this body will go on, of course, but there will be a void in this room, in this Chamber, in this Senate, because of the absence of Roy Blunt. I don't remember a finer mentor whom I have ever served with, and it is my great honor to count him as a close friend forever and to salute his service today.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins, Senator Inhofe, and I be allowed to give our remarks before the next vote.

Madam President, as we see, this is that difficult time of the year when we pause and say goodbye, farewell, and Godspeed to departing Members of this body.

Senator Collins and I are prepared to act as a team at this moment to wish the very best and pay tribute to two individuals, Richard Shelby of Alabama and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Senator Shelby is a gifted legislator and a southern gentleman whose impact on this Nation will not soon be forgotten. His colleagues and constituents know him for his long record of championing economic development and as a champion in the House of Representatives and in the Senate for our military, as leader of the Appropriations Committee here in the Senate.

Richard Shelby is the quintessential problem-solver. He has always known how to sit down, negotiate, and get a result, and I wish him the best in this final month of his career in once again getting a result.

Indeed, the jobs created through Richard Shelby's legislation and committee work number in the hundreds of thousands--the hundreds of thousands of jobs.

So it is no surprise that there are now monuments to Richard Shelby's leadership all over Alabama and the entire Nation. As his next door neighbors across the State line, we Mississippians have directly benefited from his leadership.

So I wish him and his wife Annette well as they begin the next chapter.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to call attention to the Mississippi National Guard on the eve of the 60th anniversary of their largest ever deployment.

We have been fortunate since before Mississippi actually became a State to have a strong National Guard dating back actually to 1798. The Mississippi National Guardsmen have served honorably in armed conflicts, including the War of 1812, both World Wars, the Korean war, and the Global War on Terror. They have also been the backbone of disaster relief, responding to hurricane, floods, and tornadoes.

But what I want to talk about today is what they did to keep the peace at a time of civil unrest 60 years ago tomorrow, September 30, 1962. Many of us remember this. No doubt, the Presiding Officer remembers this. On September 30, 1962, a riot erupted at the University of Mississippi, my alma mater, as James Meredith arrived on campus. James Meredith would become the first African-American student to gain admission at Ole Miss.

James Meredith is being recognized in Mississippi this week, as he rightly should be. My wife Gayle attended a very impressive event last night on the campus of the University of Mississippi at our beautiful Gertrude Ford Center with Mr. Meredith present. We are glad he is still with us, and he was rightly recognized.

Today, for the first time, we have an opportunity to finally recognize those

young Mississippians and young Americans who were called up by President Kennedy and maintained the peace and did their duty. The soldiers arrived in Oxford on September 30. They came from small towns and rural communities across Mississippi, and like Mr. Meredith, some of them are still with us.

As we mark the 60th anniversary of that Ole Miss riot, it is right that today we honor the citizen soldiers who stood in harm's way to answer the call of the President to protect life and property. It was clear even before the violence erupted that many agitators--a vast number of them from out of State--were going to cause trouble.

There was a retired general in Texas named Edwin Walker. He issued a radio call from Texas suggesting that 10,000 people from across the region descend on the Ole Miss campus. In response, our Mississippi National Guard prepared for the worst. They responded to President Kennedy's call in the great tradition of our military dating back to the time of George Washington. The civilian leadership gave an order, and our military saluted and did their duty.

As night fell, the crowds grew increasingly violent, and the need for reinforcements became dire. At the command of Mississippi Brigadier General Charles Billingslea, the National Guard dispatched two battle groups from the 155th Infantry Regiment and one group from the 108th Armored Cavalry Regiment, a total of 3,086 men out of Laurel, Amory, and Tupelo, MS.

These young soldiers immediately met resistance as they arrived on campus. Rioters actually assaulted General Billingslea, along with his deputy, General John Corley, and his aide, Captain Harold Lyon, and set their vehicle on fire. These three soldiers managed to escape by crawling 200 yards to the Lyceum building, our administration building, while under gunfire. Hours later, additional troops were called in from Pontotoc, Water Valley, to quell rioters who surrounded the Lyceum. By morning, some 25,000 servicemembers had arrived to restore order.

Tragically, there were two fatalities during this 15-hour riot, but there could have been a lot more. Dozens more were wounded, including 40 of the soldiers. As a precaution, the National Guard troops were kept in place for several weeks. And by the end of their deployment, more than 30,000 soldiers had been mobilized. These citizen soldiers did their duty, and following the orders of their Commander in Chief, they prevented a crisis from becoming much worse.

This riot was an ugly chapter in our history, but it was one of the Mississippi National Guard's finest hours.

As the decades have proceeded, and we recognized the other people who were involved, this is the first time that the Senate will have had an opportunity to recognize the young Americans who came and restored order.

My colleague Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith and I have joined to introduce a resolution honoring the Mississippi National Guard for their heroic actions and designating tomorrow, September 30, 2022, as Mississippi National Guard Recognition Day.

The following day in Mississippi, the University of Mississippi has designated it as ``James Meredith Recognition Day.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 809, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak on the same matter that Senator Burr has raised and will raise on the unanimous consent request.

Think of the economy right now, Mr. President. Inflation is at 8.3 percent or higher, our GDP is shrinking, and supply chains have not recovered from the pandemic. The last thing we need is a shutdown of this Nation's rail service, both passenger and freight. Yet that is what we are facing in less than a day and a half from this moment: a massive rail strike that will virtually shut down our economy.

Now, this didn't have to happen, but I will tell you, it has been going on since 2019. So we are in our third year of this matter. There has been negotiation among the rails, some 37 companies--including 7 major freight carriers--and 12 unions. They reached an impasse. So, pursuant to statute, the President of the United States, President Joe Biden, appointed a PEB, a Presidential Emergency Board, to help resolve this issue. They brought the parties together and have worked with the suggestions from both sides--both labor and management--and come up with their recommendation, which the President of the United States has endorsed in full.

We are now at the point where we are asking both labor and management to agree to this recommendation of the PEB. One hundred percent of management has agreed to this recommendation of the Biden-appointed Presidential Emergency Board. Of the 12 unions, 8 of the unions have agreed. So we have an overwhelming majority of the unions agreeing to this and 100 percent of management agreeing to it, but under the law that Congress, in its wisdom, passed years and years ago, we have to have 100 percent of the 12 unions, and there are 4 holdouts at this point.

Pursuant to the statute, when we get to a situation like this, Congress can step in, and that is what my friend is going to ask us to do in just a few minutes. Congress can pass the recommendation of the PEB in full. The Senate can pass it, send it over to the House, send it to the President, who has endorsed the recommendation in full, and we can avoid this strike. And that is what we ought to be doing.

So I want to commend my friend from North Carolina for his leadership in this case. If the trains stop running, our economy grinds to a halt. And that is the very reason this law is in place, and it is the very reason why it is incumbent on us as Senators and Representatives to pass a resolution implementing the PEB.

I yield to my friend.

Madam President, the objection has been heard and the Senator from Vermont has that right.

I wonder if the Senator would yield for a question concerning some assertions that he has made. It is my understanding--and the Senator is correct in this regard--only two of the unions have actually voted in favor of this plan. Six others have--their leadership has agreed, and we have tentative agreements with six of those. So six plus the two is the eight I mentioned.

Also, the Senator, I think, is mistaken in saying that there is no sick leave policy. That would be unbelievable for the rail industry in this day and age. It works a little differently for the rail. Railroad employees operate trains and have a leave policy under which they first indicate unavailability for work, and when that unavailability is the result of illness, then they receive sick pay through a sickness benefit under a statutory scheme.

The Presidential Emergency Board heard arguments on both sides, recommended an additional paid leave day. And, again, I would stress that this comes on top of a 24-percent wage increase.

But the thing that really strikes me about what my friend from Vermont said is he seems to cast doubt on whether President Biden is actually for this PEB recommendation, and that needs to be cleared up. If the Senator from Vermont is suggesting that President Biden is not behind this, then the White House needs to let us know immediately because when the PEB report was issued, the clear message from the White House is that President Biden was in favor of this and endorses this.

So if there are people in the White House listening to this, if the President of the United States is following this debate, then he needs to clarify this. If he is backing out on his support for the PEB, we need to know that.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I appreciate the debate on this. Here is where we are on this issue. We are going to have a nationwide strike within a day and a half from now, midnight, 12:01 a.m., Friday.

There are two things that could stop this. The distinguished majority leader can bring this PEB recommendation to the floor, and we will produce the Republican votes to get President Biden's administration's recommendation enacted. Send it to the House. The other thing that can happen is for President Biden to do as I have called on him to do just a few moments ago--to make it clear that this is, in fact, his recommendation, his endorsement of the plan that has been put forward by the Board he appointed; make that clear and exercise the Presidential leadership that is needed at this point to persuade his friends and the four holdout unions that this is what needs to be done.

But that is where we are. If we don't have one of those two actions, then we will have done nothing, and we will see a strike and the economic devastation that the distinguished Senator from North Carolina has described. It is really up to the Democratic leader and the President of the United States.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to make sure that the plight of Russian leader Vladimir Kara-Murza is not forgotten, that the outrageous imprisonment of Vladimir Kara-Murza by the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is not forgotten.

We remember three decades ago what hope we had for a new Russia. Russia had entered a new age of possibility some three decades ago. After more than 70 years of communist repression, the Soviet order had collapsed, and with it, the Iron Curtain that kept freedom away from millions was torn down.

As the red flags came down in Moscow, the free world watched with anticipation, hoping that democracy and the rule of law might finally take root in a free Russia. Regrettably, that has not happened. Instead of democracy and freedom, the Russian people got Vladimir Putin, a man who has used his office to murder, imprison, and force into exile anyone who threatens his grip on power, all the while enriching himself beyond anyone's wildest imagination while ordinary Russians, especially out in the countryside of Russia, live in squalid conditions.

One of his latest victims is Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Russian patriot and a friend I had the privilege of hosting in my office just 4 months ago. As a matter of fact, I have hosted him several times.

Today, Vladimir Kara-Murza spends his days in a prison cell, where the only thing he can see through the window is a barbed wire fence. What was his crime? He simply spoke the truth about Putin's war on Ukraine. His trial--if it can even be called a trial--was held in secret. No journalists, no diplomats, or spectators of any kind were allowed to be there. And for his offense of talking about the Russian war against Ukraine, he now faces up to 15 years in prison.

This is not the first time the Russian dictator has tried to silence him. Mr. Kara-Murza has been poisoned twice--in 2015 and 2017--and almost died in both cases. Since then, his wife and three children have had to live abroad, although he himself has chosen to spend most of his time in Russia.

In a recent interview with National Review, his wife Evgenia explained why he insists on working in Russia:

He believes that he would not have the moral right to call

on people to fight if he were not sharing the same risks.

As Mr. Kara-Murza put it in a recent CNN interview the day of his arrest, he said:

The biggest gift we could give the Kremlin . . . would be

to just give up and run, and that's all they want from us.

What a contrast in character to the man currently running the Kremlin.

The National Review story goes on to describe Mr. Kara-Murza's courageous work for democracy through the eyes of his wife Evgenia, as well as the costs that he and his family have endured, along with so many other Russian dissidents.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this point to have printed in the Record the National Review story that I referred to.

Mr. Kara-Murza's imprisonment is part of Mr. Putin's larger assault on what remains of political freedom in Russia. In Mr. Kara-Murza's words, Putin's regime has gone ``from highly authoritarian to near-totalitarian almost overnight.''

In March, Russian officials passed a new censorship law forbidding all criticism of Mr. Putin's war in Ukraine. That law has been the basis for more 16,000 arrests since the war began in February, including that of Mr. Kara-Murza. Another 2,400 Russians have been charged with administrative offenses for speaking out against the war. Meanwhile, Putin's propaganda machine is ramping up. Independent Russian media outlets have all but vanished, having been blocked, shut down, or forced out of the country by the Kremlin.

The last embers of freedom in Russia are going cold. Putin's crackdown on domestic freedom began in 2003, when Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested on trumped-up charges of tax fraud after he simply criticized the government. A former member of the elite, Mr. Khodorkovsky had successfully led the Yukos Oil Company through privatization after the Iron Curtain fell. And contrary to the Kremlin's claims, the company consistently paid its taxes. But that didn't stop Vladimir Putin from plundering its assets and throwing Mr. Khodorkovsky in jail, where he stayed for 10 years.

I would note that just before his arrest, Mr. Khodorkovsky displayed the

same courage and patriotism that we now see in Vladimir Kara-Murza. Like Mr. Kara-Murza, he knew very well he could go to jail for speaking out against the government, but Mr. Khodorkovsky did so anyway and refused to flee the country, saying:

I would prefer to be a political prisoner rather than a

political immigrant.

Of course, by then, Mr. Putin had already shown himself willing to violate the international laws of war, having leveled the Chechen capital of Grozny in his own Republic of Russia in 1999. In 2008, he launched a new assault on international law with the invasion of Georgia. In 2014, he started a bloody war in eastern Ukraine. In 2016, Russian dictator Putin and his forces attacked the Syrian city of Aleppo, killing hundreds of civilians and prolonging the rule of Bashar al-Assad.

Meanwhile, Putin ramped up his attacks on domestic freedom as well. In 2015, Boris Nemtsov, leader of the democratic opposition, former Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, was shot to death in broad daylight just yards away from the Kremlin. Three months later, Mr. Kara-Murza was poisoned for the first time. More recently, in 2020, Alexei Navalny, the current leader of the opposition, was himself poisoned and had to seek treatment in Berlin. This is Vladimir Putin's Russia today. When Navalny recovered, he chose to return to Moscow, knowing the risks, and immediately upon landing, he was arrested.

This is the deplorable state of Russia and freedom under Vladimir Putin. Time and again, he has shown that he is bent on stamping out the aspirations of his people for freedom and the rule of law.

As leader of the free world, America must continue to condemn Putin's lawless acts and stand in solidarity with our Russian friends who are courageously fighting against all odds for a better future in Russia and are suffering as a result.

These are modern-day heroes--Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Kara-Murza--and we should not forget them.

My friend the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, and I, along with Congressmen Steve Cohen and Joe Wilson, are the four House and Senate leaders of the Helsinki Commission, which monitors human rights in former Soviet countries. We recently sent a joint letter to President Biden calling on the administration to name and sanction all of those who have been involved in the arrest, detention, and persecution of Vladimir Kara-Murza. I issue that call again today, and I invite my colleagues from both parties to stand with Vladimir Kara-Murza and work for his release.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to be recognized to speak on the bill.

We will soon be moving to a vote on the so-called CHIPS legislation. It has had several names during its consideration in the Senate and in the House. I prefer to call it the CHIPS and Science Act. But it is an important bipartisan piece of legislation, and I urge its adoption.

Is my friend from Vermont seeking recognition?

So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this legislation. It will expand American semiconductor production, create new opportunities for research into cutting-edge technologies, and enhance our ability to compete with China.

There is no more important competition than the one for technological supremacy between the United States and China. The outcome will shape the global balance of power for decades and will impact the security and prosperity of all Americans.

Regrettably, at this moment, we are not in the driver's seat on a range of important technologies; China is. China and other nations are increasingly dominant in tech innovation, posing a massive threat to not only our economy but to our national security.

But with today's vote, Congress has a chance to move us back in the right direction and put America back into a place to win the game.

This legislation--the CHIPS and Science Act, I will call it--will provide a historic boost to our semiconductor industry, which for too long has played on an uneven global playing field.

Increasing American chip production is absolutely vital, given the importance of chips to our economy, as well as our national defense. The pandemic taught us the hard way that we cannot be dependent on semiconductor production halfway around the globe.

But, of course, chip semiconductors are not the whole ball game. This legislation goes much further, advancing American innovation in quantum computing, advanced robotics, biotechnology, advanced materials, and artificial intelligence--the full suite of technologies that we need to outcompete China.

And instead of limiting those investments to a small handful of institutions in five wealthy States, this bill casts a wide net, enlisting the talent and expertise of STEM researchers nationwide. This legislation will guarantee that EPSCoR, a program designed to stimulate competitive research in 25 predominantly rural States, receives 20 percent of all R&D funding from the National Science Foundation, up from the current 13 percent--13 percent now, 20 percent when it is finally ramped up.

The bill will also reauthorize the National Science Foundation, the gold standard for funding basic research, and it will establish a new Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships, called TIP, at NSF to supercharge the process of translating basic research into technology development, and then to the commercial market, enabling us to compete better with China across a vast range of technologies.

This legislation would not be complete without new safeguards against espionage--which we know is taking place right now--against intellectual property theft, for which the Chinese have become notorious. I am pleased we were able to include a number of long- overdue reforms to protect the fruits of our Nation's R&D investments. Even so, there is more work to be done to protect American research across the whole of government, and I commend my friend Senator Portman from Ohio for moving forward with his initiative, which I hope can be incorporated into the statute at some point.

This moment has been a long time in the making, and I want to issue some bipartisan congratulations and words of thanks.

My dear friend and colleague from the State of Washington, the chair of the Commerce Committee, Senator Cantwell, is on the floor, and I congratulate her and commend her and thank her for her cooperation with me on this issue.

I want to thank Leader Schumer and Senator Young, the original cosponsors of the Endless Frontier Act, as well as Senator Cornyn, Senator Sinema, and many other colleagues who helped make this a better bill.

And I also want to congratulate and commend officials from the previous administration--from the Trump administration--who are also telling

Americans about the importance of this legislation.

This is a bill that will be signed by President Joe Biden, but it is also endorsed by Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, President Trump's International Trade Adviser; by Mike Pompeo, President Trump's CIA Director and Secretary of State; and by Robert O'Brien, former National Security Advisor to President Trump. So three distinguished and knowledgeable national defense officials and foreign policy officials are saying this about the bill we will soon vote on.

Ambassador Lighthizer, of the Trump administration, said on Kudlow 2 days ago:

We are in this existential competition with China. The

battleground of that competition is technology and chips.

That is where we are going to win it or lose it.

And he goes on to point out that the bill, while not perfect, is exactly the bill that we can get done right now, and I don't know of any bill that is ever perfect.

Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, a stalwart in the last administration on national defense, says this:

Congress must pass the CHIPS Act for both our national and

economic security. We have to become less dependent on China

for critical technologies--and this is how we do it. . . . A

bipartisan bill, supporting R&D for semiconductor chip

manufacturing, is essential to securing vital technologies

for our economy and our military.

That is Mike Pompeo, President Trump's Secretary of State.

And then Robert O'Brien, former National Security Advisor to President Trump, said:

America needs this legislation without delay.

So I want to also say a note of thanks to my own staff--my personal staff and my committee staff--for their tireless efforts over the last year and a half on this issue. This is the culmination of a great deal of work by some very, very talented personnel--countless meetings, a legislative hearing in April, a markup in May, a final vote by the Senate in June after days and days of debate on the floor. All of these staff members worked nights and weekends, considering and helping to manage almost 1,000 amendments through the committee and the floor, and all of them contributed in many ways.

I will single out for recognition my policy director, James Mazol, who was absolutely vital to us in putting it all together, and his entire team.

So thank you very much, Mr. President. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I think the strong 64 votes we had yesterday on cloture was indicative of the support, and I anticipate its passage and look forward to its successful passage in the House of Representatives.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, a number of our congressional interns this summer have greatly profited from a program conducted by the Stennis Center for Public Service. The Stennis Program for Congressional Interns is designed to enhance the internship experience for exceptional future leaders, giving them an inside look at how Congress works and enabling them to learn from senior staffers across both parties. These bipartisan relationships will serve them well throughout their future careers supporting Congress.

Interns are selected based on their employment experience, college course load, and prospective service to Congress. This summer, 18 interns were chosen for this prestigious opportunity. These interns serve us on both sides of the aisle, working for Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate.

I congratulate the interns on completing this distinguished program. I also thank the Stennis Center and their Senior Stennis Congressional Staff Fellows for providing a meaningful experience and promoting bipartisan work.

I ask that the names of the 2022 Summer Stennis Congressional Interns and the offices in which they serve be printed in the Record.

The material follows:

Jack Behan, Office of U.S. Senator Sam Peters; Courtney

Cochran, House Committee on Natural Resources; Carmen Evans,

Office

of U.S. Representative Lizzie Fletcher; Jacob Feit, House

Committee on Homeland Security; Dory Finney, Senate Special

Committee on Aging; Chanidu Gamage, Office of U.S.

Representative Matt Rosendale; Christian Gentile, Office of

U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville; Jagaar Halverson, Office of

U.S. Representative Randy Feenstra; Zach Jewkes, Office of

U.S. Senator James Risch; Kenny Johnson, Office of U.S.

Representative Fred Upton; Erin Kavanagh, Office of U.S.

Representative Kevin Brady; Eslie King, Office of U.S.

Senator James Risch; Sophie Laurence, Office of U.S. Senator

Angus King; Clara Smith, Senate Committee on Agriculture,

Nutrition and Forestry; Peyton Witt, Office of U.S.

Representative Fred Upton; Ana Worthington, Office of U.S.

Senator Tommy Tuberville; Hasan Zai, Office of U.S. Senator

Gary Peters; Grace Zehner, Office of U.S. Representative

Michael Turner.