Floor Statements

Mr. President, I also rise to commend my new colleague of

less than a year on his maiden speech, and I rise as the senior-most Republican on the floor at this time to congratulate him on behalf of my colleagues on the Republican side.

Andy Kim is going to cast votes that will be considered way further to the left than those that I will cast. There will be ratings that will rate him 100 percent and probably give me a zero, and on the conservative ratings, it will be close to the same in the other direction.

But having watched him, having listened to him, having attended Senate Prayer Breakfasts with Andy Kim over the past few months, I know that he is someone whose heart is good and who will work with every Senator and every Member of the House to advance this Nation.

I am glad that Senator Andy Kim mentioned ``E pluribus unum,'' and I have learned a history lesson. I had never gone back to Cicero, but I found it interesting that Senator Kim went back and found that the verb there that allowed many to become one was ``love'' in the view of Cicero. And it reminded me of perhaps a passage that he might have heard or read from the New Testament in some of our Prayer Breakfasts, and that is when Jesus of Nazareth was asked by the experts, what was the greatest commandment? And Jesus answered: You should love your God with all your heart and soul and might; this is the first and great commandment.

But the second is alike unto it. The second greatest commandment is just like it, and that is ``love your neighbor.'' And what that means to me, as someone who has been a Christian since my early days in grade school, is that in order to show that you actually love God, you must love your neighbor, and so I appreciate what we have learned from the New Testament and Cicero, which brings us to the great importance of working toward a more perfect Union. We will never have a perfect Union in this world, but out of many we can become one. And it is the kind of rhetoric and the kind of leadership that we have heard from our young colleague today that makes me more and more optimistic about that.

And so I commend my friend and my colleague, and I look forward to working with him in the coming years.

I yield the floor.

After consulting with both sides of the aisle, I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled rollcall vote commence immediately.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. President, we are in an unfortunate period of hyperpartisanship that doesn't look good from this angle, and I know it doesn't look good to the general public. But I have some good, bipartisan news that might make us feel better about our national security. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I come to the floor this morning and say that we are finally in a position to take up on the floor and vote on and pass the National Defense Authorization Act.

This is a very important act that we have managed, in times of majority and minority in Democratic and Republican administrations, to pass each year for over six decades.

My partner and colleague, the former chairman of the committee, Jack Reed, and now ranking Democrat member, has worked with me, along with our Armed Services Committee members and our capable staffs, and we have built a strong, bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act.

It started this summer, when, earlier than usual, the committee approved our bill by an overwhelming majority of 26 to 1. Let me say that again. In this time when we can't seem to muster a 60-vote majority to keep us in business as a Federal Government, we were able to pass the National Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 26 to 1. It is member-driven, and it is full of national security priorities from Senators across this body on both sides of the aisle. It is designed to make important changes to make our country stronger, to make our defenses better and more able to defend ourselves and, therefore, to prevent armed conflict.

Senator Reed and I have worked with majority and minority Members to build a bipartisan package of 49 amendments to be offered on the floor, and we are within moments of a decision point. We can decide to bring this matter to the floor and get unanimous consent to lock in consideration or we can begin voting, which will take us into the afternoon. I have to say that based on experience, if we don't get this locked in at this moment, then we will miss an opportunity to consider these amendments on the floor because we simply are going to run out of time if

we don't proceed before the weekend break.

The package was included in the substitute amendment, which we filed back before the August break.

Since that time, we worked closely to take the next step. We have 47 amendments for a second managers' package, and this has been agreed upon by the ranking member and by me and by our membership, split evenly between Republicans and Democrats. It contains numerous bipartisan items. We might not take all 17 votes, but we have teed up 17 votes--again, split evenly or split as evenly as possible between Republican bills and Democrat bills.

I say to you, Mr. President, and I say to the leadership of the Democratic minority in this Senate, we are ready to vote on the NDAA. We are ready to show on both sides of the aisle that the Senate can act in the interest of national security and get something done on a bipartisan basis.

For heaven's sake, we need to do that at this moment, even more importantly than at other times. We have a great product before us. It makes huge changes--significant changes--and we need to send the signal that we can do this, get it then coordinated with the House version, which has already been passed, and move it to the President of the United States for his early signature.

I, genuinely, thank my partner, Senator Jack Reed, for his tireless work with me to get to this point. I was looking forward to locking in a unanimous consent request at this moment, but I have been told to hold off. It could be coming in just a few minutes. But we have to get that unanimous consent to avoid vote after vote after vote on cloture on these various proposals and amendments. We have to lock that in. We must do it this morning--in the next hour perhaps--between now and the first vote, which I believe begins in about 30 minutes.

We simply cannot delay this process any longer. Let me make it clear: If we do not bring this to the floor today, this matter will not have time for deliberation on the Senate floor, and we will have to basically pretend that we are having a conference between House and Senate Members, and a very small group of Senators will have to write this bill and bring it to the floor for final passage. That is not the way this ought to be done, and it can be avoided with a unanimous consent request in just a very few minutes.

The good news is, we are ready to proceed. The good news is, the committee is united, 26 to 1, and my ranking member and I are ready to proceed. We simply need a Democratic leader to come down here and agree to unanimous consent.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, and notwithstanding rule XXII, it be in order to call up the following amendments to Calendar No. 115, S. 2296: Paul, No. 3761; Cruz, No. 3274; Scott of Florida, No. 3535; Marshall, No. 3213; Moran, No. 3814; Curtis, No. 3697; Lee-Duckworth, No. 3288; Cotton-Gillibrand, No. 3759; Cornyn-Cortez Masto, No. 3926; Hagerty- Peters, No. 3841; Schumer, No. 3109; Van Hollen, No. 3872; Duckworth, No. 3210; Warnock, No. 3010; Kaine, No. 3337; Sanders, No. 3853; and Merkley, No. 3927; further, that with respect to the amendments listed above, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate vote on the amendments in the order listed, with no further amendments or motions in order and with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption and that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; further, that upon disposition of the Merkley amendment, No. 3927, the following amendments be called up and made pending en bloc and that they be the only remaining amendments in order to S. 2296: Scott of South Carolina, No. 3340; Hassan, No. 2928; Grassley, No. 3355; Warnock, No. 2952; McCormick, No. 3376; Ossoff, No. 2971; Cornyn, No. 3405; Kaine, No. 3039; Capito, No. 3435; Gallego, No. 3136; Lankford, No. 3439; Duckworth, No. 3156; Blackburn, No. 3489; Shaheen, No. 3351; Kennedy, No. 3703; Booker, No. 3530; Daines, No. 3732; Slotkin, No. 3557; Ricketts, No. 3788; Peters, No. 3570; Hawley, No. 3799; Hickenlooper, No. 3601; Rounds, No. 3810; Coons, 3712; Tillis, No. 3811; Cortez Masto, No. 3724; Moran, No. 3813; Klobuchar, No. 3751; Grassley, No. 3823; Klobuchar, No. 3818; Kennedy, No. 3702; Durbin, No. 3825; Fischer, No. 3842; Padilla, No. 3834, Cruz, No. 3890; Hirono, No. 2979; Grassley-Durbin, No. 3272; Cruz-Cantwell, No. 3742; Scott of South Carolina-Warren, No. 3901, Risch-Shaheen, No. 3819; Graham, No. 3899; Sullivan-Whitehouse, No. 3888; Collins, No. 3880, Hirono, No. 3015; Peters, No. 3753; Shaheen-Risch, No. 3826; Coons, No. 3728; Gallego, No. 3928; that the Senate vote on the amendments en bloc; that upon disposition of the amendments, the pending Thune amendments and motions be withdrawn, the Ernst amendment No. 3427 be agreed to, and the Wicker-Reed substitute amendment No. 3748, as modified, and as amended, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and that the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage; and that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the two leaders to enter motions to reconsider without being on the prevailing side with respect to the cloture votes on the motion to proceed to S. 2882 and H.R. 5371.

Mr. President, briefly, a number of Members are at their desks and will vote from their desks. I am told that the majority leader means it when he says we are going to have 10-minute votes. I would urge my colleagues, we can have a speedy disposition of all of these important amendments or we can go into the wee hours. I urge my Members to consider their votes.

Vote on Amendment No. 3761

Mr. President, this is an excellent amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to the Cruz amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment in order be the Curtis amendment No. 3697.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment in order be the Cotton-Gillibrand amendment, No. 3759, and I further ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to that amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment in order be the Marshall amendment No. 3213, and I further ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to that amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to the Moran amendment No. 3814.

Madam President, this amendment has widespread support. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to the Lee-Duckworth amendment No. 3288.

Madam President, this is an extremely important amendment which will protect America's interests, and I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to the amendment, Cornyn- Cortez Masto No. 3926.

Madam President, I commend Senator Hagerty and Senator Peters, who is not on the floor right now, but I also commend him for his leadership on this amendment, which should pass overwhelmingly.

I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to the Hagerty-Peters amendment No. 3841.

Madam President, I intend to vote against this. I think keeping this AUMF actually would help us assure continued success.

I think I see how the wind is blowing, and I will consent to a voice vote. Understanding that that is the sentiment of the body, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to amendment No. 3337.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I call up the amendments en bloc as provided by the previous order.

Madam President, on the en bloc, I suggest a voice vote.

Mr. President, I am delighted that this body has passed the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act with such an overwhelming vote.

At the outset, let me thank the dozens of staff members who have made this possible--and I know that my friend and colleague the ranking member will also express his appreciation to a very hard-working and capable and intelligent list.

But let me name my staff, specifically, and it is going to take a while to thank them all: Adam Barker, Kristina Belcourt, Levi Brunt, Cody Emerson, ``Marty'' Fromuth, Megan Galindo, Isaac Jalkanen, Lauren Johnson, Katie Karam, Greg Lilly, Eric Lofgren, Katie Magnus, Jonathan Moore, Katie Romaine, Mike Tokar, Eric Trager, Adam Trull, Mike Urena, Dave Vasquez, Terry Miller, Emily Yetter, Dan Hillenbrand, Beth Spivey, Ryan Bates, Jonathan Bowen, Leah Brewer, Luke Chaney, Mike Gerhart, Anna Given, Meredith Gravatte, Madeline Guenther, Brad Patout, Rick Berger, Brendan Gavin, and John Keast.

And it is possible that I have left some out, but I really do owe a debt of gratitude--and so does my friend Senator Reed--to both staffs on both sides of the aisle for all of the technical work and advice in making this work.

I would remind those listening that this bill passed a committee 26 to 1. That was an overwhelming positive and speedy passage. It is designed to send a clear message.

We agree that we are not where we need to be, and this bill helps us close the gap, and it does so by focusing on two themes: rebuilding but also reforming. And we really need the ``reform'' part. This bill includes $924.7 billion as a top line. This is an increase, and it is needed. It recognizes the urgent need to rebuild our military systems, technologies, and hardware.

We also adopted the most significant acquisition reform proposal in decades. And let me give Members one example

of this. In just a single provision of the bill that we have now passed, we repeal 86 outdated or unnecessary acquisition policies.

American innovators are developing the technologies that can dominate the battlefields of the 21st century. The FoRGED proposal in this National Defense Authorization Act taps into that talent.

This bill was Member-driven, both in the committee and on the floor. Our committee approved 985 items that were led by individual Senators in this body.

Our September substitute amendment contained 49 amendments--20 from Republicans, 20 from Democrats, and 9 that were bipartisan. The second managers' package was included today, including another 47 amendments-- again, bipartisan.

And today we took 14 rollcall votes, and because we are so united and joined together to make a strong voice for national defense, we took 9 voice votes. I don't know when we have done that, but I think it sends a strong message, and I hope it does. Altogether, 1,098 Member items.

This is what collaborative, bipartisan legislation looks like. And in highly charged partisan times, this ought to be refreshing news to the American people.

My friend Jack Reed is a veteran of military service, and he is a veteran of this Congress and is a capable partner who works shoulder to shoulder with me on the Armed Services Committee. I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart for his cooperation and diligence in actually getting this bill brought to the floor.

The fact that we were able to finish about 9 o'clock tonight is a testament to that because earlier today, we really did not know around noon if we would be able to come to a consensus. So much negotiation and so much give-and-take has taken place so that we could get on the floor and make a strong statement and send a strong message.

It amplifies the voices of Senators in this body as we begin to conference with our House colleagues.

We are not where we need to be. This doesn't get us everywhere we need to be, but it moves us along the way toward reform and an increase in a realization that we live in the most dangerous world that we have seen in decades.

So I yield the floor with gratitude and thanks to my friend.

Reserving the right to object, let me say that I have deep respect for my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Connecticut. He is a veteran; I am a veteran. I have no doubt in my mind that Senator Blumenthal has a heart for the veterans and for disabled veterans, and I appreciate that. He is moved with concern for those who have served and who have been injured.

However, my colleague is asking for an entitlement that does amount to a double benefit and that we cannot afford. We are talking about between $9 billion and $10 billion on the Department of Defense authorization act. And we are talking about adding a bill, a piece of legislation, that really belongs in another jurisdiction, as my friend acknowledged.

We cannot possibly add another $10 billion--$9 or $10 billion of entitlement money--to this DOD authorization act and hope to pass it.

And that is the reason that in Democrat majorities and Republican majorities--House Democrat majorities and Senate Democrat majorities-- and in Democratic administrations, this legislation has never been accepted--because we simply cannot afford it.

Historically, Congress has provided permanent new benefits only after we have identified an offset, savings of a similar amount. There is no such offset identified in this unanimous consent request.

And when we do not identify offsets, then that $10 billion--almost $10 billion--has to come out of readiness, out of the strength of our military to defend ourselves in the most dangerous time we have had since World War II.

So I have the deepest respect for my friend from Connecticut, and I admire his intentions. But until Congress and until the authors of this proposal identify a way to offset the expense or to make it less expensive, we should not move forward with this legislation.

Therefore, I do object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, every time my Democratic friends want to advocate for another expensive program, they mention the tax cuts.

Let me just stray from the issue at hand to say, as I have always said, when Republicans cut taxes on job creators, on small business people, on 95 percent of the people who file a tax return back in 2017, jobs were created. And until the pandemic was visited upon the whole world, jobs were created and revenue rose for the United States of America. I have to say that.

Let me also say this: There have been times, very recently, when the Democratic party controlled the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. And even in those situations-- those recent situations--this legislation costing in excess of $9 billion in mandatory spending was not brought forward.

Now, why would our friends across the aisle and the President of the United States, who was a Democrat, not advocate for that and make sure it comes to a vote is that you have got to make choices when it comes to national defense. Where would we take the money, the $9 billion? Are we going to take it out of salary increases for our junior enlisted people, which is in this bill? Are we going to take it out of munitions? Are we going to take it out of modernization of our nuclear strategic system, which is behind and needs it so desperately?

We can't just print up another $9 billion or $10 billion for this purpose, particularly when there is the question that has not been answered about double compensation here.

And so I would just say it is easy to point fingers at this side of the aisle on this occasion and on this unanimous consent request, but there is a reason that there has been a bipartisan reluctance to spend this extra money, which we would love to have if we had it, if we could just wave a magic wand and create the money out of thin air, but we cannot do it.

The responsible thing, regardless of who has been in charge of this Chamber, has been to do the best we can for our veterans with one or the other of these compensation programs. And so for that reason, I do object.

Madam President, I expect the distinguished minority leader, my friend from New York, will speak possibly after the first vote and report that we are still at an impasse on funding the government, which, of course, expires at midnight tomorrow night.

At that point, I want to implore my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and particularly the Democratic leader, to agree that while we are at an impasse, there is still very, very important business to attend to, and that is the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, which, as the President knows, has been reported from the Senate Armed Services Committee, some months ago, by an overwhelming majority vote, with only one dissenting vote. I think it was a vote of 24 to 1. That bill was reported to the floor.

Our side of the cloakroom has run several hotlines, and we have been ready to go now for several days. Our disappointment has been that while the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee has been willing to proceed and a number of our friends on both sides of the dais, Republicans and Democrats, on the Armed Services Committee have been willing to proceed, we don't have engagement yet from the minority leadership.

So I simply want to express aloud what I hope I can engage the Senator from New York about when he does speak. While we are at an impasse and the Senate is still in session, it seems to me a reasonable thing to do to bring this bipartisan, noncontroversial, but highly significant bill to the floor.

We have agreed to a managers' package on our side. We actually have 985 Member-driven items already in the National Defense Authorization Act. We have agreed to a number of amendments and a second managers' package.

There is very little difference on what will be brought to the Senate for votes, and it just seems to me that we don't need to sit around idly while negotiations perhaps are going on with the White House, with the House, and the Senate. We need to proceed to this very essential legislation--the national defense bill.

If we could get that done this week, I think it would show to our constituents back home in both parties--Independent, Republican, and Democrat--that we are serious about the business of protecting the United States, enacting this very important legislation and the changes we need so that we are not doing last decade's type of national defense but doing our job under the Constitution to make sure the United States is strong.

So I would make that request to my Democratic friends and to my Republican friends, most of whom, on our side, are ready to proceed and have been ready to proceed on the National Defense Authorization Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of leadership, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

Mr. President, this August, Mississippi marked the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, one of the most devastating natural disasters in our Nation's history. The Mississippi coast faced the brunt of the storm, but every county in the State felt the wrath of Katrina. Thousands of homes were leveled. Bridges and roads were demolished, severing the routes that connected our cities and towns. Most tragically, 238 Mississippians lost their lives. The State needed strong and steady leadership, and I am grateful that Governor Haley Barbour rose to the occasion.

Governor Barbour, along with his wife First Lady Marsha Barbour spearheaded recovery efforts, insisting that Mississippi would not only rebuild but would come back stronger than before. He formed the Governor's Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal, which ensured that response efforts were not reactive but instead followed a proactive strategy. He secured significant Federal relief funds and maintained relationships with officials at all levels of government. That local, State, and Federal coordination continues to benefit Mississippi.

Governor Barbour helped transform the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina into an opportunity. The storm will always remain in our memory, but we have worked hard to turn its impact into a relic of the past. Governor Barbour has been integral to that progress.

Today, the Mississippi Coast is even more of a bustling hub of commerce, innovation, and tourism. In the 20 years since Hurricane Katrina, families and companies have made it their home, private investment has flourished, and Amtrak passenger rail has returned, bringing visitors and business to our shoreline. Today, Mississippians are looking to the future of the gulf coast and our entire State. As we do, we commend Governor Barbour's remarkable service in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall vote: Wicker for up to 10 minutes, Reed for up to 15 minutes, Cotton for up to 5 minutes, and Tuberville for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, now let me say that I come to the floor today to join with President Trump and with a bipartisan majority of my colleagues in the Senate in calling for another tougher round of sanctions against Russia and its war machine.

For the past 8 months, President Trump and President Zelenskyy have extended the hand of peace. Ukraine is committed to a cease-fire. President Trump has sat down personally with Vladimir Putin on U.S. soil. In response, President Putin has mocked the peace process by repeatedly escalating his attacks on the free people of Ukraine, and he is doing so even as we speak.

Over the weekend, Russia launched its largest aerial attack of the war. Putin rained over 800 Iranian-designed drones and missiles down on cities across Ukraine, including the capital Kyiv.

For the first time, Russia damaged Ukraine's main government building, where the Cabinet of Ministers meets. The burning building symbolizes Putin's ultimate prize: His dictatorship seeks to take down Ukraine's democratically elected government.

On Sunday, President Trump said he is ready to increase the economic pressure against Russia. I agree. So does commentator Mark Levin, an experienced political writer and analyst and a prominent advocate for President Trump and his agenda.

After the attack, Mr. Levin put it well when he said:

It's time to unleash an economic barrage against Putin and

sell NATO what Ukraine needs to slam back.

I say: Amen. Do not tolerate Putin's lies and games any longer.

President Trump has given Vladimir Putin every chance to show who he is, and time and again, Putin has shown himself to be a war criminal. Economic and military punishment is all Putin understands, and it is all he deserves.

Here is a brief refresher. In February, Vladimir Putin marked the third anniversary of his invasion by launching what was then the largest drone strike of the war. The next month, Ukraine agreed to a cease-fire even though Ukraine is the one being invaded.

The episode previewed a pattern that has continued ever since: Ukraine

shows its intention for peace and security, and Putin always escalates his unprovoked attacks.

In March, Russia launched drones and ballistic missiles into a residential neighborhood in President Zelenskyy's hometown. Putin fired cluster munitions into the city, sending shrapnel--where did he send it? Into restaurants, homes, a children's playground. He killed 9 children in that strike. Once again, the world saw Vladimir Putin escalate, targeting a nonmilitary town because that is where President Zelenskyy is from--the actions of a war criminal who should be in prison.

In the following months of this year, Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy remained committed to peace. But then, in May, Putin launched 273 drones against Ukraine. It was a new record, but he broke that evil benchmark a few days later in the largest combined drone and missile attack of the war so far. He launched 367 aerial weapons against Ukraine. Once again, the world saw Putin escalate, proving to be a war criminal.

Amid the brutality, Vladimir Putin has played games with peace talks. We have all seen it. With one hand, he signals interest in negotiations; with another, he lobs bombs and kills civilians.

In early July of this year, he once again upped the ante. He sent 728 drones and 13 missiles to Ukraine, making clear his evil intention. Once again, the world saw Putin escalate, proving to be, again, a war criminal.

At this point, I need to mention that those attacks are making little progress for the invading Russians. That is a strong testament to the will and resolve of the Ukrainian people and military, who are simply defending their own country, their own soil, and doing so admirably.

In the aftermath of this attack in July, President Trump made the correct assessment that Vladimir Putin ``talks nice [and] then he bombs everybody.'' Those are President Trump's words, and I congratulate him on that observation. The barrage prompted President Trump to work with NATO to supply Ukraine with more arms. He also gave Russia a deadline to pursue peace.

Just this weekend, the world saw the war criminal escalate again. He dropped more than 800 Russian drones onto civilians, neighborhoods, and government buildings. Vladimir Putin sent an unambiguous message: He is not interested in peace; he is interested in conquering Ukraine. And he won't stop there.

As if this weekend's attacks were not a clear enough sign of his intentions, Putin continued his brutality just this morning--just this morning, Mr. President. He launched a glide missile into a village, killing at least 24 Ukrainians who had lined up to receive their pension payments. Nearly two dozen more were wounded, and the statistics are still coming in.

Just last week, Russia struck another hospital--this time in Donetsk--killing two people and damaging medical facilities.

I could go on with more examples, but it is worth stopping here to again make two points that former Secretary Mike Pompeo made in an interview just this morning with Brian Kilmeade on FOX News.

The first is that there is very little military objective to strikes like these. Twenty-four innocents killed is a tragedy, but it is not a resounding military success. That is because Putin is not and cannot make very many resounding military successes.

The second is that Putin clearly has no intention to stop. This morning, former Secretary Pompeo, a distinguished former member of President Trump's Cabinet, said:

Vladimir Putin has zero interest in any negotiated

solution.

Zero interest.

He is going to stay at this until there is an enormous cost

imposed on him.

I think that is what the President of the United States was saying just a day or so ago. In other words, there is no reason to believe that Putin wants anything less than to take the country of Ukraine successfully, and he will not stop until he is forced to stop.

The Kremlin is projecting confidence at home, but that confidence is a sham.

This morning, a Moscow newspaper was honest enough to say:

The Kremlin believes Russia is slowly but surely achieving

its goals in Ukraine.

I disagree with that, by the way.

To continue the quote:

So Moscow doesn't intend--

Doesn't intend--

to stop or feel any desire for half-hearted solutions & half-

baked compromises.

Could there be any doubt that this is a true statement? They have a fake confidence, but they have no intention of stopping.

Mr. Putin is regularly shutting down internet access for Russian citizens so they won't know what is going on in the war, so they won't know how slowly they are moving, allowing only approved sites that do not allow the truth to come through. This is Russian totalitarianism at its best--or worst.

Putin hopes to project enough confidence at home to sustain the war effort and wear Ukraine down. Abroad, he hopes to wait out the West with fake peace talks while he continues pummeling Ukraine with missiles and drones of death.

Where does Putin's rain of fire come from? It comes from Russia's war machine, which produces what seems to be an endless supply of deadly drones. But it does not have to be endless. Today, Russia barely has the economic capacity to continue bombarding Ukraine--barely.

But now at last, President Trump has indicated he is willing to cut off that capacity. Again, I say: Amen. We must be willing to cut it off. Again, a majority--a huge bipartisan majority--of Senators have said this.

Russia's friends are only encouraging his villainy. China is buying and selling with Russia, enabling its war machine. North Korea sent its own troops to assist Russia's soldiers on the battlefield. Iran designs and supplies weapons. That is a troubling axis of aggressors.

In the face of such malicious collaboration, we must use every available tool to increase pressure on Putin's war machine. Extending the hand of peace has not worked with this dictator because this dictator is not interested in peace. He will respond only to strength. He will act only if his war machine begins running out of funds, and we can help accomplish that.

The U.S. Senate has shown broad support for increasing Russian sanctions. Eighty-four Senators have signed on to a tough sanctions bill that can help us bankrupt Putin's war machine.

I am ready to work with my colleagues and the President to put real cost on Putin for these war crimes. I congratulate the President of the United States for his strong statement this weekend. As Mark Levin said, let us ``unleash an economic barrage against Putin.'' Well said. Let's do it today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.