Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Perdue nomination be waived.

Mr. President, I seek recognition to make a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, actually, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we go ahead and confirm General Caine as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but I must say that I do so with mixed feelings.

On the one hand, we need a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff immediately, and there is overwhelming support on the Democratic side and Republican side for this nomination.

On the other hand, passage of this confirmation would pretty much end our week, and that would prevent us from getting a lot of work done later on this afternoon and into tonight and tomorrow if we have to stay until tomorrow to confirm this very important officer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

So, in a way, we can have it either way, but, frankly, to stay here and get some Congressional Review Act resolutions done so that we can end a number of the pernicious regulations foisted off on the American people and on our economy by the Biden administration--that has a lot of appeal also.

So with that in mind and in an effort to accommodate Members on both sides of the aisle who really believe we can finish our business today, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motions filed yesterday on Executive Calendar Nos. 75 and 74, making Gen. John Caine Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, ripen at 3 p.m. today.

Mr. President, I may have other unanimous consent requests, but if I could be heard on this matter for another moment, I would seek recognition for that purpose.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend from Alaska, who has now vacated the floor. I thought we had this more synchronized.

But let me say this: There was a vote earlier this week in the Armed Services Committee. It passed the Armed Services Committee with overwhelming Democrat and Republican support--23 yeses and only 4 noes. So there is really no reason to delay this any longer.

Frankly, there is so much going on around the world with the four powers that constitute an axis of aggression to the United States that we really should give the President the choice that has been endorsed overwhelmingly by a bipartisan majority of the Armed Services Committee.

With that, having communicated better now with my dear colleague from Alaska, I would yield to the junior Senator from the State of Alaska.

Mr. President, I wonder if I could reclaim my time to ask my distinguished friend from Alaska a question.

Mr. President, yes, that is correct.

I would then ask my distinguished friend from Alaska: Isn't it a fact that General Caine time and again has demonstrated his aptitude and leadership abilities while actually deployed in combat zones, leading servicemembers in Iraq and Syria, and while serving in various Special Operations forces units and also in the intelligence community and that he ran some of our most secretive programs for the security of Americans?

If the gentleman would further yield?

I just wondered if the gentleman would yield to the distinguished minority leader to ascertain how this matter is going to be resolved differently if we wait until tomorrow. The gentleman has the floor. Perhaps he would do so.

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

Mr. President, just for the information of Senators, as the unanimous consent request has been objected to, and we are not allowed to vote at this point to give the President of the United States a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I just wanted to inform the Senate, based on conversations with the majority leader and his staff, that there are two matters that we can and will proceed to later on this afternoon and perhaps into the night.

The first would be the House version of Senator Scott of South Carolina's Congressional Review Act resolution, H.J. Res. 61, providing for congressional disapproval under section 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rules submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing.''

That is one matter that the objection has given us an opportunity to proceed to.

The other would be Senator Curtis's Congressional Review Act, S.J. Res. 31, a joint resolution providing for the Congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Review of the Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources As Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.''

As I said, during my unanimous consent request, proceeding to the vote on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would give the President the advice and counsel that our Commander in Chief needs during a very dangerous time.

That said, I made the unanimous consent request with mixed feelings because, frankly, there are two regulations--pernicious, onerous, needless regulations--by the Environmental Protection Agency that need to be wiped off the books.

So this will give us an opportunity to do that. It is 10 after 3 at this point, and I am not sure when the distinguished majority leader will schedule that, but Members should be advised that unless we are able to get a unanimous consent request and give the President his choice for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, those are items that can still be the order of the day, and perhaps there are other votes tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I come to the floor today once again to make a simple point, and that is that the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has once again shown the world that he has no interest in peace.

In Saudi Arabia, representatives of the United States and representatives of Ukraine are continuing to work in good faith toward a just end to the war in Ukraine.

In the coming weeks, a Ukrainian delegation will travel to Washington, DC, for the same purpose. They will discuss with our leaders the future economic partnership between our nations, Ukraine and the United States. Both of our nations want to see an end to the war.

Meanwhile, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin continues to show no real commitment to that goal.

Today, the residents of President Zelenskyy's own hometown, a little village by the name of Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine, began a 3-day period of mourning. They are grieving yet another deadly, barbaric attack by Vladimir Putin.

On Friday, President Putin launched drones and Iranian-made ballistic missiles into a residential section of that small city. These drones and missiles injured at least 68 people and killed at least 20 people. Among the dead were nine children. They were all noncombatants, ordinary civilians, living an ordinary day, visiting friends, stopping in shops, dining at restaurants, and playing at a children's playground.

The attack on a civilian neighborhood is just the latest sign that Putin has no regard for life, but he underscored that fact by raining cluster munitions onto a children's playground. The brightly colored swing sets and jungle gyms, sites of play and joy, are scenes of devastation. The sandbox and merry-go-round are a testament to the Russian brutality.

One of the slain children was a 3-year-old boy named Tymofii. He and his grandmother were walking home from the playground when the bombs fell. One moment he had been playing, as children should; the next, he was gone, killed by a Russian attack on a civilian residential neighborhood.

The killing, like the entire unprovoked war, is an outrage, and it demands a response. And I want to quote someone who has not been quoted on the Senate floor recently about this topic, and that is former

Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. He put it well this weekend. The former Speaker said:

Putin attacking Zelenskii's hometown and killing women and

children is a deliberate insult to the United States and test

of how much dishonesty[,] Brutality, and aggressiveness we

will tolerate. He must be made [to] Pay for it.

And, yes, it is a test of how much we are willing to tolerate, particularly in light of the discussions that were going on. The former Speaker is correct. Mr. Putin launched this attack on women and children in the middle of cease-fire negotiations. These aren't the acts of a leader who is interested in peace. The attack is an insult and a test, but it is also a test the United States must pass. We must not tolerate Vladimir Putin's dishonesty, brutality, and aggression.

I believe the President of the United States, President Trump, shares the former Speaker's views. Early last week, President Trump signaled that he was displeased with Putin's refusal to make a deal, as well he should have been.

At last week's NATO summit, Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the point. He said: President Trump will not allow the Russian dictator to drag us on in endless negotiation. He said:

We will know soon enough, in a matter of weeks, not months,

whether Russia is serious about peace or not.

I agree with President Trump on his assessment. I agree with Secretary of State Rubio on his statement.

But as it turns out, it wasn't in a matter of weeks or months. Putin showed us in a matter of days. Putin launched his attack the day after Secretary Rubio's words.

The message was clear. He is not interested in peace. He would like a phony deal that buys Russia time to rearm.

We must not allow Russia to waffle forever in negotiations. Vladimir Putin would prefer to. Maybe he thinks he can wait out the war forever. But let me tell you, Russia's economy and its industry show signs of cracking. A lot of the American people do not realize this, but the economy of Russia is crumbling. We must show resolve in the face of President Putin's growing weakness. We must not let him up off the mat, allowing him to shore up strength for another assault.

President Trump and President Zelenskyy will work toward a deal that will be good for the entire free world--good for Ukraine and good for the United States, but for the entire free world. As they negotiate, we must all keep in mind exactly who their third negotiating partner is. And I say, as I said on the floor a few days ago: If Vladimir Putin keeps a promise that he makes to the United States in this regard, it will be the first time he has ever kept his word on any treaty, on any cease-fire. That is who we are dealing with. We have to deal with him, but that is who he is.

Vladimir Putin has shown us again who we are dealing with: a man willing to murder children in an attempt to pressure President Zelenskyy and President Trump.

I stand with President Trump and President Zelenskyy in facing down this murderous dictator.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. We certainly need a cease-fire in the Ukraine war. We are closer and closer to having an agreement between President Trump and President Zelenskyy about a cease-fire, and it is quite obvious that President Putin is not at all interested in peace.

But this budget resolution is about $150 billion of investment in our military for shipbuilding, missile defense, munitions, innovation, taking care of our troops, and more.

Passage of this amendment will make it harder to pass the budget, and for that reason, I hope we will reject the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Amendment No. 1646

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Whitaker nomination be waived.

Mr. President, I have a little advice, really, of a parliamentary nature for the U.S. Senate. I hope it will be taken in the constructive spirit that it is intended. This week, the Senate is expected, once again, to vote on a budget resolution. It is among the most important actions we will take all year.

Unfortunately, one unpleasant aspect of this process will be the so- called vote-arama. We just had one a few weeks ago. There is no specific mention of the vote-arama in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act. This process was never envisioned by the drafters of the budget law. But it evolved to its current form because the Congressional Budget Act allows debate up to 20

hours and does not restrict the number of amendments Senators can offer.

Here is how it actually works. And you know this quite well, Mr. President, as a new Member of the Senate. On the day of the amendment votes, Senators will sit around on the floor and in the Cloakrooms and in the anterooms of the Chamber and stare at each other all day, make offers and counteroffers. Then late in the day, usually in the early evening, we begin debate. We make brief 1-minute speeches, and we vote over and over and over into the wee hours of the morning.

One result is that the process is, by then, hidden, relegated to the darkness of nighttime. Most Americans are already asleep when we get down to business in the vote-arama. What they miss, though, is mostly political theater. In this production, the roles never change. I have been in the minority at times during my tenure in the Senate. I have been in the majority, as I am now. But the roles stay the same. The minority party has one job: to offer amendments--germane or not, pertinent or not--that put the majority in an uncomfortable position.

As a Member of the minority party, I have done that. The majority party has the job of defeating every amendment, if possible. It doesn't matter what the merit of the amendments are. The majority party often defeats each one. Why? Because otherwise, we would delay the important work of actually, finally, getting to passage of a budget reconciliation bill, which will come later.

The vote-arama hardly ever has any budgetary substance. The vote- arama is merely a messaging process. Every Member of the Senate, minority and majority, knows this. Americans at least deserve to hear this debate during the light of day. Both parties can achieve their goals without running this process into the wee hours of the morning, which is what we always do.

Over the last few weeks, I have talked with Members on both sides of the aisle, my Republican colleagues and our Democratic friends. I floated the idea of a unanimous consent agreement to conduct these votes during the light of day. I simply say, Mr. President, there is widespread support among the rank and file for getting this done during working hours.

So I would urge the leadership of both parties and all Members of both parties--because it takes unanimous consent--to adopt a unanimous consent agreement that avoids the political theater of a dead-of-night vote-arama. The American people deserve better. And I would like to think the U.S. Senate is better than the process we have come to practice.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following law clerks on Senator Capito's staff be granted floor privileges until April 4, 2025: Camryn Runyon, Megan Banke, and Harry Kazenoff.

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, I rise this afternoon to offer some remarks

on the situation in Europe and the prospects for peace in Ukraine.

We should start with recent positive developments. President Trump and President Zelenskyy have demonstrated remarkable resolve and remarkable wherewithal. Just this week, we heard news from the peace talks in Saudi Arabia. Ukraine publicly expressed openness to prisoner exchanges, a welcome development. Notably, Russia did not express such willingness. We should applaud Ukraine's overtures. An agreement is in reach that reflects the common cause of the United States and Ukraine.

Separately, much ink has been spilled on the economic investment deal. Less has been said about why the United States is interested in an investment deal with Ukraine. President Trump recognizes that America is better off when Ukraine is free, strong, and industrious. The economic investment deal shows that our President wants peace and that he wants an honorable peace, one that ensures the prosperity and protection of Ukraine and the United States.

This peace will require that Russia put down its weapons in an enduring and verifiable way. It is clear that Vladimir Putin does not share President Trump's desire for peace. As Putin's representatives prepare to sit down with American diplomats, President Putin has ordered salvo after salvo of missiles and drones to strike Ukrainian apartments, killing noncombatant women and children. These are not the gestures of a statesman who wants to negotiate peace. We are dealing with a tyrant who speaks the language of war and terror. We have to deal with him, but that is who he is.

In recent decades, several successive U.S. Presidents have extended the hand of peace to Mr. Putin. Each one of them had different tactics, but none of them achieved the outcome they desire. In this series of failed diplomacy, the common denominator was not the American Presidents, regardless of party. The common denominator was and is Russia's dictator, Vladimir Putin, a war criminal. So we need to remind the American people exactly what kind of strongman we are dealing with here, the kind of strongman we are trying to negotiate with, the kind of strongman we are forced to negotiate with.

Vladimir Putin, regrettably, is not interested in peace. He is interested in a phony deal. He has shown this with his words, his acts of violence, and the peace agreements he has shredded.

Dictators frequently tell us who they really are. In 2007, Putin stood before the Munich Security Conference, and he rejected a world in which nations cooperate. In his other writings, he has publicly mourned the collapse of the Soviet empire, and he dreams of its resurrection.

In 2021, President Putin wrote an essay laying the groundwork for his invasion of Ukraine. This was a year before the recent invasion. In it, he rejected the very right of the Ukrainian people to exist as a distinct and self-governing nation. In writing, the essay is full of lies. It would have made Adolf Hitler proud. But it shows one thing is true: Mr. Putin is a Russian imperialist to the core. Here is a man who believes the greatest historical tragedy of the last 40 years was the collapse of the Soviet power and influence over Eastern Europe.

Putin publicly proclaims his delusions of grandeur but has not stopped at words and speeches. He has used any means necessary to continue his decades-long political warfare against NATO, and he has ruthlessly worked to achieve the empire he craves.

In the year after his Munich speech, Vladimir Putin and his army invaded their neighbor, the Republic of Georgia. In the year after his essay about Ukraine, he invaded Ukraine. Mr. Putin no longer technically works for the KGB but still thinks like a KBG agent--the kind who uses chemical weapons to poison people in Russia and all over the world, exacting revenge on his critics without regard for international borders.

He jails reporters and activists. Why does he do this? Because dictators actually live in fear of their own people. Putin has imprisoned scores of Americans in Russian gulags. He has killed and kidnapped American citizens across the globe. His commandos have targeted our soldiers in Afghanistan. He has no respect for our country or for human life in his country or any other country.

And he has the weaponry to back up his threats. Mr. Putin sits atop the world's largest and most diverse nuclear arsenal. And I might add that this arsenal is postured specifically at us to destroy the United States.

In another perverse action--I have to say this--Mr. Putin has tried to co-opt Christianity, if you can believe that. He has twisted a religion of repentance into a propaganda machine. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow professes to lead the Russian Orthodox Church. In reality, Kirill is a puppet of Vladimir Putin. His father baptized Vladimir Putin. And now Kirill follows his father's footsteps by sanctifying the dictator's crimes.

Kirill has blessed the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, absurdly claiming that the Russians are fighting against evil. As patriarch, he blessed the invasion. As Russia bombs Ukrainian women and children, Kirill invokes God's name to justify Putin's butchery. Kirill is the very definition of the Prophet Isaiah's portrait of corruption. Isaiah condemned men like him, those who ``call evil good and good evil.''

Shame on this phony patriarch.

President Putin has publicly shared his imperialistic dreams. He violently pursued those goals even in God's name. Along the way, he has torn to shreds every cease-fire deal he has ever signed. Before World War I, the Kaiser's regime in Germany called a treaty ``a mere scrap of paper.'' Well, Vladimir Putin feels the same. He has no regard for the Budapest Memorandum. He has no regard for the INF Treaty. He has no regard for the Minsk agreement. In each case, Putin has lied, stolen, and misdirected to further his empire-building ambitions. And that is what he is trying to do with negotiations today.

President Trump is interested in peace. President Zelenskyy is interested in peace. Putin values peace as little as any piece of shredded paper he would deceitfully sign.

Many people do not realize that Ukrainians have been valiantly and steadily weakening Putin's forces. Half a million Russian soldiers-- half a million souls--have either been killed or injured so severely that they cannot return to the battlefield. That is half a million Russian moms without sons, wives without husbands. That total is steep, and the blame rests upon one person, the man who ordered the invasion: Vladimir Putin and his imperialistic vision.

Russia is barely managing to sustain this war. And I think the American people do not know this, but Russia is barely hanging on. They are struggling from heavy battlefield costs and economic sanctions. We should not support a peace deal that could let Russia up off the mat and reconstitute its army.

Both the previous and the current Secretaries General of NATO expect that Russia will not be ready to threaten NATO conventionally for 5 to 7 years. The wrong deal with Russia could allow them to be off to the races sooner. And Russia wants just that, as we have seen this week. Putin is trying to work the peace process deceptively to skew it in his favor.

This week, his office has pushed out messages from the peace talks in Riyadh. Putin's officials maintain that the United States is prepared to lift a number of sanctions, sanctions the West imposed after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I certainly hope that is not true.

These Kremlin officials claim that we will soon readmit Russia to SWIFT. SWIFT, of course, is the global financial system that Russian depends on for global trade. Putin relies on trade to finance his war machine. Russians also think we are prepared to grant sanctions relief for any company that ships goods on vessels flying the Russian flag or they could claim any ties to food production, shipping, and securities. Such a deal would be full of loopholes. Such a deal would be designed to let Russia, which is on the ropes, off the mat.

Mr. Putin's men asked for all of this. Yet they offer little in return. They won't even talk about prisoner exchanges. That is breathtaking, especially when Ukraine has publicly expressed openness to a cease-fire. They are the ones that have publicly said

they will agree to a cease-fire. Mr. Putin and his negotiators have never proclaimed that. The Ukrainians, who have been ruthlessly attacked, have extended the hand of peace. Russia still has not even though it demands so much. Putin says he is willing to work toward peace, but his demands show that he is lying. His demands make it clear he intends to use the sanctions relief to rearm.

It would be a mistake to grant sanctions relief to Russia without reciprocal support for Ukraine. Doing so would devastate the prospect of a lasting peace. Let me repeat. Mr. Putin has never agreed to a cease-fire, to a treaty that resulted in a lasting peace. As we negotiate in Saudi Arabia, the United States must remember that Russia is barely managing to sustain this war.

The economic and battlefield price is very costly for Mr. Putin. Undoing these sanctions would instantly lower Putin's cost. It would evaporate the leverage his financial penalties have given to the United States and the free world.

As I close, let me reiterate, many have tried to negotiate with Vladimir Putin on his terms. I think President Trump is beginning to understand that peace comes through American and Ukrainian strength; that dictators respond to power because it is the only thing they respect. We need to see this Russian dictator and war criminal for what he is: a murderous dictator who hopes he can back us into a corner during the peace process and thus pursue another invasion.

If Vladimir Putin lives up to a cease-fire or peace treaty with Ukraine, it will be the first time ever. Vladimir Putin has a long track record, and it is filled with lies, violence, and treachery. That is whom we are dealing with. We have to deal with him, but that is whom we are dealing with. Getting a deal with him will be a challenge. We must bear history in mind if we are to reach a settlement that benefits the free countries of the world.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall votes.

Madam President, I have the greatest respect for the previous speaker and also for the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee.

If she gets her way this afternoon or later tonight, the government will shut down. We would have to call the House back in. It will be a long period of uncertainty in a shutdown. That is the choice we are faced with.

The Speaker of the House has been faced with a very, very slim margin in the House of Representatives. He has had to do a deal that none of us likes, but he has decided that we have a responsibility to govern, and the better choice is to keep the government open.

The previous speaker has had 6 months to try to negotiate the deal which she says we can do now in 30 days. It is not going to happen.

We are here to make tough choices. Today, Senator Collins and I and others will make tough choices. We don't like the choices before us, but that is the way you have to govern.

Let me talk about an easy choice that the Senate will soon have to make, and that is the nomination of Mr. Stephen Feinberg, President Trump's choice to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Here is the reason it is going to be an easy choice for us in just a few moments. He was reported from the Armed Services Committee by an 18-to-9 vote--a bipartisan overwhelming vote--and he will do a good job.

The Secretary of Defense focuses on policy, on the overall policy. The Deputy Secretary of Defense--the position that Mr. Feinberg will hold if he is confirmed, as I am sure he will be--this person oversees the day-to-day operations of the vast Pentagon by leading its budget process, managing its people, and driving crucial internal reforms. Steve Feinberg is the exact person for this.

Now, under normal circumstances, the Deputy Secretary of Defense requires exemplary skills in management, budgeting, and problem- solving, but today's extraordinary environment requires even more than that--a manager of the highest caliber in that role. So let's look at just two or three items from Steve Feinberg's resume.

He has been founder and cochief executive officer and chief investment officer of Cerberus. He founded and cofounded other Cerberus affiliates and Cerberus funds. He managed separate pools of capital for Gruntal & Company, and he also had high responsibilities in Drexel Burnham Lambert. He knows how to manage huge, billion-dollar operations and to manage people.

He is also a perfect person for this role. He is well-spoken. He is calm. He is understated. He will be largely invisible. But he is the man to help us rebuild the military, reform the way the Pentagon does business, and turn this unaudited Pentagon bureaucracy around.

He will get a resounding bipartisan vote on the floor, I predict, as he did in the committee.

I congratulate the President on this nomination and on the bipartisan vote that we will soon get on a vote that is relatively easy compared to some of the harder votes later on today.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.