Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it is my privilege to recognize the tremendous accomplishments of COL William V. Wenger on the occasion of his receipt of the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award from the Boy Scouts of America and the National Eagle Scout Association. Colonel Wenger has lived a life of honor, faith, and service. He is a patriot who has made America a safer and better nation.

Colonel Wenger served in the U.S. Army for more than 42 years, commanding American soldiers across the country and around the world. He served in the Gulf war, helped reestablish order in Los Angeles after the Rodney King riots, and provided military support to law enforcement after the 1994 Northridge earthquake.

In 2000, Colonel Wenger retired from the military, only to return to Active service after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He then volunteered for two tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where he worked to bring stability, security, and the rule of law to lands haunted by terrorism. Among other contributions, he trained Iraqi and Afghan police and led counter-IED training efforts to save the lives of his fellow coalition soldiers and police.

Throughout his military career, Colonel Wenger demonstrated extraordinary tactical, strategic, combat advisory, and logistical leadership abilities. He consistently volunteered for difficult assignments, overcame daunting challenges, and relentlessly pursued excellence. He is precisely the kind of clear-eyed, tough minded, mission-oriented leader that every soldier should aspire to become.

In the civilian world, Colonel Wenger has earned distinction as a manager, trainer, author, business leader, and professor of business, history, and military science. He is husband to Robin D. Wenger and father to two sons, John Paul and Patrick.

He is also a committed philanthropist who participates in his local Kiwanis, Rotary Club, and Knights Templar, among other civic organizations. He is a U.S. Army Reserve ambassador and a leader of the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, which supports our Reserve servicemembers, their families, and their employers. The ESGR recently awarded Colonel Wenger its highest award, the prestigious James Roche Spirit of Volunteerism Award.

More than any other civic organization, however, Colonel Wenger has demonstrated an exceptional, lifelong commitment to the Boy Scouts of America. He joined the Boy Scouts in 1954 and earned his Eagle Scout Award in 1963. He has since served in senior positions in the organization, including being elected the chief of the Tribe of Tahquitz. While serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, he devoted much of his limited free time to support the development of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in those nations. For his work, he will receive the highest honor bestowed by Scouting on April 23--an honor well earned.

A nation is only as good as its people. America is not made great by its geography or its founding documents alone. It is made great by the patriots who serve the Nation and make us proud when we look up and salute the American flag. It is made great by men who dedicate decades of their lives to protect this Nation in uniform, more than half a century to educating our youth to be ``physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight,'' and who spend their later years teaching young adults about our Nation's history. In short, it is made great by men like Colonel Wenger.

On behalf of a grateful nation, I would like to thank Colonel Wenger for his contributions to our Republic.

Mr. President, we hear from Democrats a lot these days about ``ending the Iraq war.'' Let's pause for a moment to remember the first time they ``ended the Iraq war.''

President Obama pulled American troops out of Iraq just over a decade ago. The ``dumb'' war, as Obama called it, was finally over--except it wasn't. It turns out those American troops had kept a lid on a lot of chaos. When they left, the bad guys came back with a vengeance. President Obama dismissed ISIS as the ``JV team'' of the terrorist world, but even he couldn't turn a blind eye when ISIS seized Fallujah just 2 years after our troops left Iraq, then Mosul a few months later, and then threatened to bring all of Iraq into their so-called caliphate.

So, ultimately, President Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and great ender of the Iraq war, had to start a new Iraq war not even 3 years after he had bugged out, although actually it was an Iraq-Syria war. Obama's retreat backfired so badly that he had to deploy our troops to two countries this time, not one. And guess which use-of- force resolution President Obama cited to fight ISIS. The same one that President Trump relied on in 2020 to kill Iran's terrorist mastermind, Qasem Soleimani, which is the same resolution Democrats want to repeal today. All of which goes to show that this debate is not about Saddam Hussein; it is about whether the President--whether any President should have maximum authority to pursue America's enemies in Iraq and Syria.

The Democrats have argued that the 2002 resolution wasn't necessary to stop

ISIS because the 2001 War on Terror use-of-force resolution also applied. That is true. But apparently President Obama didn't think the 2001 resolution was sufficient since he also invoked the 2002 resolution. I would welcome any Democrat to explain why the leader of their party was wrong.

Somewhat to my amusement, some Democrats and a few Republicans have contended, not to worry, the President can always rely on his Commander in Chief authority under article II of the Constitution to order military operations like the Soleimani strike. I agree. Yet these are the very same Senators who usually argue that article II authorizes only the most immediate and modest actions in self-defense. Everything else, they say, takes congressional approval. I will be curious to hear from them the next time a President relies primarily on his article II authority to take necessary action to defend America.

But enough with debating how many JAG lawyers can dance on the head of a pin. Let's ask a more important question. In the real world, will repealing these resolutions make America more safe or less safe? To which I answer, just look around the region.

Iran's proxies are trying to kill Americans every day, and that is hardly an exaggeration. Just last week, a suicide drone made by Iran killed an American contractor and wounded six other Americans in Syria. An Iranian rocket attack wounded another American after that. Meanwhile, ISIS still carries out dozens of massacres and suicide bombings every year. That is not to mention new terrorist groups who may be waiting in the wings, ready for their shot at the title as America retreats.

If we repeal these resolutions, will it make America more safe or less safe?

The answer to that question is obvious. Threats still originate in and emanate from Iraq, whether terrorist groups like ISIS or Iran's proxies. We should not lightly throw away additional authorities to target them.

Furthermore, we shouldn't give Joe Biden any more reason to avoid taking necessary action to protect America. President Biden is already in full flight from the Middle East. It was President Biden who ended the war in Afghanistan, just like President Obama ended the Iraq war. Now the Taliban rules in Kabul, harboring terrorists who threaten our country.

Iran killed an American last week because Joe Biden never acts until Iran kills an American. Since he became President, Iran has attacked American positions at least 83 times. Yet President Biden has only retaliated four times. Little wonder the ayatollahs think they can get away with it, as they have with that latest strike, because after we finally hit back last week, Iran struck our positions again, injuring yet another American. Yet Joe Biden, as of this moment, has not retaliated.

A couple months ago the administration also cited an obscure legalistic grounds for why President Biden didn't shoot down a Chinese spy balloon over the Aleutian Islands. The last thing this President needs is more encouragement from Congress to turn the other cheek.

Besides the message to the President, we should also consider the signal we send to our friends and enemies in the Middle East. President Biden has made matters worse through his shabby treatment of America's best friends. He has attacked the Netanyahu government over its domestic policies and funded its political opponents. He has attacked Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman and promised to turn the Kingdom into a ``pariah'' state.

If we send the message that we are abandoning our friends, we shouldn't be surprised if they begin to hedge their bets. Already, our allies are doing just that, turning to China as a new power broker. Just this month, Beijing brokered a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It has encouraged the Saudis to trade oil in Chinese currency instead of dollars. China has also undertaken to build a secret port in the United Arab Emirates.

The trend is unmistakable. China looks like a rising power in the region, while America appears to be on the decline and on the way out. We can reinforce that impression today or not. Democrats can say that is not the message they intend, but what matters more is what our friends and foes hear. We will vote on it soon.

And it is not just China that is exploiting our weaknesses. Iran sees our retreat as a green light to dominate Iraq. Already it is manipulating in Iraq's politics and arming Shia militias. Iran just signed a border deal with Iraq to send more arms and cash to its proxies. Tehran's influence will only grow if ours recedes. We will vote on that soon too.

In short, repealing these resolutions will embolden terrorists, embolden Iran, and embolden China, while demoralizing our allies and making it harder to punish attacks on Americans. Do Senators really want to sign up for these consequences?

When another ISIS rears its head or Iran's proxies use Iraq's territory for safe haven, do Senators really want to be responsible for stripping our troops of these additional legal authorities?

I don't, and I won't. But if they do, let them say so plainly. Let them say that this academic exercise, which even they admit won't legally constrain any President, is worth these deadly real-world consequences.

Our men and women deserve that honest debate. After all, it is their lives depending on it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, Washington, DC, is in the middle of a carjacking crime wave. There have been more than 100 carjackings in our Nation's Capital so far this year. It is only March 8. I think that is more than one a day. Two-thirds of DC carjackers use guns to force their terrified victims out of their vehicles.

What do the Washington Democrats do in response to this carjacking crime wave? Do they support ``fund the police,'' install more cameras, put more cops on the streets? No. They passed a law to reduce criminal penalties for carjacking--reduce criminal penalties for carjackings and other serious crimes. I wish I were joking; but, sadly, I am not.

Washington's answer to higher crime is less prison time for violent criminals. The only reason this is not going to happen is because Congress retains its constitutional authority over our Federal city because Washington is not a State, nor should it ever be a State. But in this case, some Democrats--even President Biden--got skittish about the political price they would pay for being this weak on crime, so they broke ranks and headed for the hills.

When House Republicans voted to disapprove Washington's soft-on-crime bill, 31 Democrats voted with them. I suspect something similar will play out later here today. President Biden says he will sign the resolution of disapproval once it passes because--and these are his words:

I don't support some of the changes the DC Council put

forward over the Mayor's objections, such as lowering

penalties for carjackings.

Those are the President's words. I welcome the Democrats' rebuke of the Washington, DC, City Council. I hope it is more than a passing moment of sanity, but I do have my doubts.

So let's put their new tough-on-crime attitude to the test. It is really not enough to stop carjackings just here in Washington, DC, because carjacking is not a Washington, DC, problem alone. Many cities are suffering from carjacking crime waves as well, just as they are suffering from increases in the murder rate and other terrible crimes.

According to a recent report, carjackings rose an astonishing 29 percent in seven major cities between 2020 and 2022. Why the increase? Well, one reason is the FIRST STEP Act, soft-on-crime bill that Congress passed in the final days of 2018. That bill let criminals out of jail early for even serious violent offenses like mild molestation, bank robbery, assaulting a police officer, and, yes, carjacking.

The FIRST STEP Act wasn't the only effort to coddle violent criminals, but it is an egregious law that made clear too many of our elected officials no longer take serious crime seriously. The FIRST STEP Act increased, by about 15 percent, the amount of time that Federal criminals, even carjackers, can get off their sentences for so- called good behavior. This is in addition to the extensive sentencing reductions and early release programs for other crimes in the bill. The result was that if a carjacker, say, got 6 years in prison, he could be back out on the street to offend again in as few as 5 years.

It is time to rectify this mistake and to keep carjackers behind bars. That is why I am offering my bill, the No Early Release for Carjackers Act. The bill is as simple as its title. If you go to jail for violently hijacking someone's car, you should serve your entire sentence, not get time off for supposed good behavior.

So if President Biden and congressional Democrats are really committed to getting tough on carjackers--not just here in Washington, DC, where they drive around a lot--then they should support this effort.

I know that some of the defenders of the First Step Act will say, yes, carjackers should get out of jail early for good behavior. These criminals will, after all, get out of jail one day--or so the argument goes--so shouldn't we rehabilitate them by rewarding them, encouraging their good behavior?

To which I answer: Sure, we can reward good behavior for carjackers in prison. We can encourage good behavior, but we shouldn't reward it in a way that endangers the public. Letting dangerous criminals out of jail early endangers the public.

If the Members of the Senate are truly concerned with rewarding good behavior, we can offer well-behaved inmates other incentives, say, greater access to prison telephones, transfers to lower security facilities. And carjackers will remain eligible for other incentive programs that are so beloved by the soft-on-crime set like gardening classes or whatever else it is liberals think will turn supposedly hardened criminals into model citizens. But there is simply no good reason to release dangerous criminals from prison early, especially not in the middle of a violent carjacking crime wave.

Crime is a policy choice and the choice is simple: If we put criminals behind bars, crime goes down; if we let criminals run amuck, crimes goes up. We have seen the consequences of letting carjackers run amuck. Now we

have a choice to fix that terrible mistake.

Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 713, which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered, and read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Well, Madam President, I am disappointed that our bipartisan bonhomie this week about carjacking only lasted as long as overturning Washington, DC's law.

We should address how we can stop more carjackings. I don't think we should blame cars for carjacking the way some would blame guns for gun violence. The simplest way to stop carjacking is to lock carjackers away in prison for a long time and not to let them out early.

And the Senator from Illinois, I will say, is right. I was the most implacable foe of the FIRST STEP Act, and I remain so. Guilty as charged. I will walk free, like most violent criminals in Washington, DC, who plead guilty as well, but continue my advocacy against that law which has led to hundreds and hundreds of its beneficiaries committing violent crimes. It was a mistake in 2018 when we passed it. Eighty- seven Senators committed the mistake, including most Republicans. President Trump made a mistake in supporting the FIRST STEP Act. That law is dangerous to public safety.

I yield the floor.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, there is one foreign leader for whom the Democratic Party seems to reserve special scorn. Leading Democrats have called him a reactionary, a racist, an ethnonationalist. They have accused him of committing war crimes and of leading an apartheid state. President Biden has called him extreme and has said they don't agree on a damn thing. Strong words.

Who is this monster, you may ask. Were the Democrats talking about Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping or, perhaps, Ayatollah Khamenei? No. They were referring to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's longest serving Prime Minister and one of America's best friends.

Once again, these Democrats have proven their party's tendency to coddle our enemies and condemn our friends. But the Democrats don't stop at mere words. They are working right now to undermine Bibi and his government.

Yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon reported that the State Department is funneling your tax dollars to Netanyahu's domestic opponents. Since 2020, the State has sent more than $38,000 to something known as the Movement for Quality Government, for so-called democracy education.

So what is the Movement for Quality Government, and how good is this democracy education?

This movement is an activist group that is fomenting unrest against the Israeli Government and demanding Netanyahu's resignation. In recent days, leftwing demonstrators associated with this group have protested the government's proposed judicial reforms. Last week, hundreds of protesters harassed Netanyahu's wife, forcing police to intervene and escort her to safety.

Far from staying neutral in Israel's domestic affairs, Secretary of State Tony Blinken lectured Netanyahu about the judicial reforms to his face, tacitly siding with the demonstrators. Some Democratic Senators have also condemned the reform proposals, which is awfully rich coming from Democrats who have voted to shred this Senate's ancient rules to pack our Supreme Court and to rewrite our founding documents. I guess, when American liberals want to change the courts, it is the only way to save democracy; but when Israeli conservatives want to, it is a threat to democracy. Go figure.

The State Department doesn't even deny it is funneling money to these leftwing activities, by the way, which is troubling because it is a clear violation of the usual State Department policy against funding foreign partisan organizations.

Not only is this U.S.-funded organization subverting a foreign government, it is subverting the government of one of our closest allies. Secretary Blinken should immediately apologize to the Prime Minister of Israel, demand your money back, and open an investigation into how this happened. But then again, I suspect we already know how this happened. After all, the Democratic Party has been meddling in Israeli democracy to undermine Benjamin Netanyahu for more than a quarter century.

By his own admission, President Bill Clinton intervened in the 1996 Israeli election to support Netanyahu's opponent, Shimon Peres. Clinton met with Peres; dispatched his own campaign advisers; dangled policy shifts to Israel--all to get Peres across the finish line. Netanyahu prevailed nevertheless.

Team Clinton intervened, yet again, in 1999. The Clinton White House reportedly urged Democratic donors to give money to Netanyahu's next opponent, Ehud Barak.

And it didn't stop there. Clinton's political advisers again campaigned against Bibi while the Clinton State Department allegedly spread falsehoods about the Israeli Government and Netanyahu himself.

Netanyahu lost this time around; though, he was more of a victim of his own success against Palestinian terrorism than Barak and Clinton's campaign against him. But Bibi returned to the Knesset just 3 years later and became Prime Minister again in 2009.

The Obama State Department was, if anything, worse than Clinton's in its funneling of hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars to a group called the OneVoice Movement. Not coincidentally, OneVoice partnered with an organization running anti-Netanyahu ads that was advised by-- you guessed it--a top Obama campaign operative.

Of course, the Democrats will insist they are innocent of these charges and aren't meddling in Israel's democracy, but Israelis know the truth. Obama's meddling was so pervasive that an astounding 62 percent of Israelis thought he was interfering. Indeed, one Foreign Policy magazine headline read ``Obama is Pursuing Regime Change in Israel''--not in Iran--our mortal enemy--but in Israel, mind you.

Now Joe Biden is simply following in Obama's footsteps by trying to sabotage Netanyahu. In 2021, the Biden administration reportedly pressured the United Arab Emirates to cancel an Abraham Accords Summit--all to deprive Netanyahu of a diplomatic victory ahead of that year's election. Then, after Netanyahu won the 2022 election, the Biden administration immediately sought to undermine his coalition government by trying to veto key Cabinet appointments.

This most recent scandal is not an aberration, therefore. It has been the de facto policy of the Democratic Party for a quarter century to beat Netanyahu, though he keeps beating the Democrats. Though, it does provide more evidence, yet again, for the old saw that while it is dangerous to be America's enemy, it can be fatal to be America's friend--at least when the Democrats are in charge.

Instead of trying to topple the democratically elected Government of Israel, I would suggest we should support it. Israelis are more than capable of managing their domestic affairs without Democratic meddling, but they need our help to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb; they need our help to achieve peace with their neighbors; and they need our help to defeat the terrorists who are threatening both of our nations.

They don't get that from the Biden administration either. Iran is racing toward a nuclear breakout while the President dithers. His administration can barely utter the words ``Abraham Accords,'' and President Biden is

breaking U.S. law to subsidize the Palestinian Authority's support for terrorism.

A few years back, Congress passed the Taylor Force Act, which prohibits nonhumanitarian aid to the Palestinian Authority until it ends its so-called martyr payments--a euphemism for bounties given to Palestinian terrorists or their families for maiming and killing Jews. So the administration has, instead, funneled tens of millions of your tax dollars to nongovernmental organizations to build roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and other infrastructure projects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. As a result, since money is fungible, the Palestinian Authority can ignore these basic responsibilities of government and, instead, keep pouring more money into its pay-for-slay program.

The contrast couldn't be starker. If the Palestinian Authority wants to bankroll terrorists and their families, the Biden administration will contort the law beyond recognition to fund the Palestinians; but if a center-right government gets elected once again in Israel, the Biden administration will work overtime to undermine it. This is exactly backward. We should demand the Palestinian Authority stop subsidizing terrorism before it gets another penny of your tax dollars.

While we are at it, we should pass the Taylor Force Martyr Payment Prevention Act, which I am reintroducing this week, to sanction foreign banks that process these so-called martyr payments for the Palestinian Authority.

Meanwhile, President Biden and his administration should quit treating Prime Minister Netanyahu like he is a rival or even an adversary and start treating him as he is--a war hero, a courageous patriot, a towering figure of modern Israel, and most importantly for us, a great friend of America.

Madam President, there is one foreign leader for whom the Democratic Party seems to reserve special scorn. Leading Democrats have called him a reactionary, a racist, an ethnonationalist. They have accused him of committing war crimes and of leading an apartheid state. President Biden has called him extreme and has said they don't agree on a damn thing. Strong words.

Who is this monster, you may ask. Were the Democrats talking about Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping or, perhaps, Ayatollah Khamenei? No. They were referring to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's longest serving Prime Minister and one of America's best friends.

Once again, these Democrats have proven their party's tendency to coddle our enemies and condemn our friends. But the Democrats don't stop at mere words. They are working right now to undermine Bibi and his government.

Yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon reported that the State Department is funneling your tax dollars to Netanyahu's domestic opponents. Since 2020, the State has sent more than $38,000 to something known as the Movement for Quality Government, for so-called democracy education.

So what is the Movement for Quality Government, and how good is this democracy education?

This movement is an activist group that is fomenting unrest against the Israeli Government and demanding Netanyahu's resignation. In recent days, leftwing demonstrators associated with this group have protested the government's proposed judicial reforms. Last week, hundreds of protesters harassed Netanyahu's wife, forcing police to intervene and escort her to safety.

Far from staying neutral in Israel's domestic affairs, Secretary of State Tony Blinken lectured Netanyahu about the judicial reforms to his face, tacitly siding with the demonstrators. Some Democratic Senators have also condemned the reform proposals, which is awfully rich coming from Democrats who have voted to shred this Senate's ancient rules to pack our Supreme Court and to rewrite our founding documents. I guess, when American liberals want to change the courts, it is the only way to save democracy; but when Israeli conservatives want to, it is a threat to democracy. Go figure.

The State Department doesn't even deny it is funneling money to these leftwing activities, by the way, which is troubling because it is a clear violation of the usual State Department policy against funding foreign partisan organizations.

Not only is this U.S.-funded organization subverting a foreign government, it is subverting the government of one of our closest allies. Secretary Blinken should immediately apologize to the Prime Minister of Israel, demand your money back, and open an investigation into how this happened. But then again, I suspect we already know how this happened. After all, the Democratic Party has been meddling in Israeli democracy to undermine Benjamin Netanyahu for more than a quarter century.

By his own admission, President Bill Clinton intervened in the 1996 Israeli election to support Netanyahu's opponent, Shimon Peres. Clinton met with Peres; dispatched his own campaign advisers; dangled policy shifts to Israel--all to get Peres across the finish line. Netanyahu prevailed nevertheless.

Team Clinton intervened, yet again, in 1999. The Clinton White House reportedly urged Democratic donors to give money to Netanyahu's next opponent, Ehud Barak.

And it didn't stop there. Clinton's political advisers again campaigned against Bibi while the Clinton State Department allegedly spread falsehoods about the Israeli Government and Netanyahu himself.

Netanyahu lost this time around; though, he was more of a victim of his own success against Palestinian terrorism than Barak and Clinton's campaign against him. But Bibi returned to the Knesset just 3 years later and became Prime Minister again in 2009.

The Obama State Department was, if anything, worse than Clinton's in its funneling of hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars to a group called the OneVoice Movement. Not coincidentally, OneVoice partnered with an organization running anti-Netanyahu ads that was advised by-- you guessed it--a top Obama campaign operative.

Of course, the Democrats will insist they are innocent of these charges and aren't meddling in Israel's democracy, but Israelis know the truth. Obama's meddling was so pervasive that an astounding 62 percent of Israelis thought he was interfering. Indeed, one Foreign Policy magazine headline read ``Obama is Pursuing Regime Change in Israel''--not in Iran--our mortal enemy--but in Israel, mind you.

Now Joe Biden is simply following in Obama's footsteps by trying to sabotage Netanyahu. In 2021, the Biden administration reportedly pressured the United Arab Emirates to cancel an Abraham Accords Summit--all to deprive Netanyahu of a diplomatic victory ahead of that year's election. Then, after Netanyahu won the 2022 election, the Biden administration immediately sought to undermine his coalition government by trying to veto key Cabinet appointments.

This most recent scandal is not an aberration, therefore. It has been the de facto policy of the Democratic Party for a quarter century to beat Netanyahu, though he keeps beating the Democrats. Though, it does provide more evidence, yet again, for the old saw that while it is dangerous to be America's enemy, it can be fatal to be America's friend--at least when the Democrats are in charge.

Instead of trying to topple the democratically elected Government of Israel, I would suggest we should support it. Israelis are more than capable of managing their domestic affairs without Democratic meddling, but they need our help to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb; they need our help to achieve peace with their neighbors; and they need our help to defeat the terrorists who are threatening both of our nations.

They don't get that from the Biden administration either. Iran is racing toward a nuclear breakout while the President dithers. His administration can barely utter the words ``Abraham Accords,'' and President Biden is

breaking U.S. law to subsidize the Palestinian Authority's support for terrorism.

A few years back, Congress passed the Taylor Force Act, which prohibits nonhumanitarian aid to the Palestinian Authority until it ends its so-called martyr payments--a euphemism for bounties given to Palestinian terrorists or their families for maiming and killing Jews. So the administration has, instead, funneled tens of millions of your tax dollars to nongovernmental organizations to build roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and other infrastructure projects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. As a result, since money is fungible, the Palestinian Authority can ignore these basic responsibilities of government and, instead, keep pouring more money into its pay-for-slay program.

The contrast couldn't be starker. If the Palestinian Authority wants to bankroll terrorists and their families, the Biden administration will contort the law beyond recognition to fund the Palestinians; but if a center-right government gets elected once again in Israel, the Biden administration will work overtime to undermine it. This is exactly backward. We should demand the Palestinian Authority stop subsidizing terrorism before it gets another penny of your tax dollars.

While we are at it, we should pass the Taylor Force Martyr Payment Prevention Act, which I am reintroducing this week, to sanction foreign banks that process these so-called martyr payments for the Palestinian Authority.

Meanwhile, President Biden and his administration should quit treating Prime Minister Netanyahu like he is a rival or even an adversary and start treating him as he is--a war hero, a courageous patriot, a towering figure of modern Israel, and most importantly for us, a great friend of America.

Mr. President, as the new year began, an exceptional life tragically ended. The State of Arkansas lost a powerful voice and community leader when Qubilah Jones passed away, age 45, after a 14-year battle against lymphedema.

Qubilah was born in Corpus Christi, TX, but her legacy and her heart are in Jonesboro, AR. Qubilah was a daily companion to countless Arkansans as the host of KLEK's ``Community Conversations,'' a morning show where she interviewed hundreds of leaders about faith, government, and community involvement.

Qubilah had a God-given gift for words, and she was a relentless advocate for northeast Arkansas. She was a pillar of her church, New Mount Zion Baptist Church, where she produced the church newspaper. She was a curious soul who returned to education later in life, put in the work, and ultimately earned undergraduate and graduate degrees from Arkansas State University and Grand Canyon University. She was the driving force behind community celebrations such as KLEK's award- winning Juneteenth in Jonesboro Celebration. She was a proud and active alumna of her sorority, Delta Sigma Theta. And perhaps above all, she was a loving mother to her son, Quante Jeffrey.

For these accomplishments, and for the more than 2,000 hours of community service that Qubilah performed, the city of Jonesboro named her Volunteer of the Year in 2017.

More incredible still, Qubilah accomplished these things while battling lymphedema, an incurable disease that slowly sapped her mobility and strength. She spoke often on her radio show and podcast about living with a serious illness, providing advice and consolation to those who had their own cross to bear. But even as the disease took its toll on her body, it could not wipe away her warm smile or infectious laughter. Qubilah's sister, Gwen

Henderson, put it well: ``as she declined in mobility, she never declined in spirit.''

Qubilah's battle against disease set her up for one last act of service--one of her greatest. After witnessing the suffering that lymphedema can cause, she became a restless and passionate advocate for the Lymphedema Treatment Act, a bill to ensure that compression treatment items essential to managing the disease are covered by Medicare. I was proud to cosponsor that bill, along with 73 of my Senate colleagues. And on December 23, just 1 week before Qubilah passed from this life, that bill became law. Countless Americans suffering from lymphedema will get needed relief as a result. It is yet another part of Qubilah's extraordinary legacy of service.

The city of Jonesboro, the State of Arkansas, the U.S. Senate, and all those touched by Qubilah's words and deeds mourn the loss of the ``Voice of Jonesboro.'' May she rest in peace.

Mr. President, in the past half century, Arkansans have played millions of basketball games, most of which have disappeared into a blur of fond memories and forgotten scores. For many of the residents of Jefferson County, however, one game still stands out from the rest: the 1973 State overall championship final between the Vaster High School Pirates and the Little Rock Central High School Tigers.

In that game, the Pirates represented a small rural community of only a few hundred, against the Tigers of Little Rock, a city of a quarter million. The Tigers were taller, better ranked, and were defending champs. Vaster, on the other hand, had overcome great odds just to get to the championship final, and few thought they had a chance. The Pirates could have made a halfhearted effort that March day and met expectations. But that is not what makes a great game and not what the Pirates had in mind.

When they took the court, Vaster's coaches and players were intent on shattering expectations, and that is exactly what they did. Far from being blown out, the Pirates went toe-to-toe with the Tigers. Central would take the lead, only for Vaster to wrest it away. The Pirates made the Tigers fight for every pass, point, and inch of progress. And you better believe they made Central sweat. This climactic battle between two great teams ended in a one-point Tiger victory, after Vaster missed a free throw in the last 12 seconds of the game.

Fifty years later, that game still fills many Arkansans with pride. It remains proof that extraordinary effort, commitment, and drive, even by teenagers on a basketball court, can inspire and make a difference years later. That is why I would like to honor the great coaches, players, and staff of the 1972-73 Vaster High School Pirates: head coach Herbert Pryor, assistant coach Andrew Carr, Cleveland Allen, Eric Biley, Samuel Biley, Jr., Reddic Borkins, Jimmy Dade, Carl Evans, James Evans, Tommy Evans, Roy Franklin, Jimmy Gladney, Homer Jackson, Melvin Jackson, Charles Petty, Rodney Ryce, Thomas Tarty, Ronnie Grice, Rodney Crawford, and Jacob Jones.

The State of Arkansas and the U.S. Senate salute you on this 50th anniversary of your great game.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to recognize Lt. Col. Jeffrey ``Slander'' Entine, who has worked in my Senate office for the past year as a defense fellow. Lieutenant Colonel Entine is a patriot who has served our country nobly and made it a safer and better place. It has truly been a pleasure to have him in my office.

Lieutenant Colonel Entine graduated from Florida State University in 2006. After graduation, he commissioned as a second lieutenant and set off for pilot training in Mississippi. Lieutenant Colonel Entine stood out early during pilot training. Not only was he the distinguished graduate of his class, but he was also the best rated student pilot with the highest academic grade in his class.

Later, Lieutenant Colonel Entine deployed for 6 months to Kandahar Air Base, Afghanistan, flying F-16s. He flew 63 combat missions, earned three Air Medals, and was named the outstanding performer of the 480th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron's deployment.

He then went through the crucible of Weapons School, which forges promising airmen into leaders and tactical experts. Again, he distinguished himself in this challenging environment. When Lieutenant Colonel Entine graduated from Weapons School in December 2016, he became the chief of weapons and tactics in the 55th Fighter Squadron at Shaw Air Force Base. Shortly after arriving, he overhauled the base's training program. His boss said the new plan was ``the best he's ever seen'' and rated him first out of the 27 company-grade officers in the squadron.

In October 2017, Lieutenant Colonel Entine shipped off to Afghanistan again--this time to Bagram Airfield, not far from Kabul. He deployed as the wing weapons officer, where he advised the operations group commander and wing commander on tactics. He also worked with special operations forces conducting raids across the country. On one such raid in April 2018, Lieutenant Colonel Entine coordinated with two formations of F-16s, two AC-130s, three MQ-9 drones, and a ground controller who was on his very first combat mission during a day-long firefight with ISIS-K fighters. Lieutenant Colonel Entine employed weapons six times during the battle, three times within danger-close distances, and twice dropped bombs just 30 meters from friendly troops. Thanks to his heroic efforts, no Americans died, three were safely evacuated, and scores of enemy fighters were killed. And that was just one combat sortie out of the more than

70 he flew during a 180-plus-day deployment. Lieutenant Colonel Entine received the Air Medal with C device, a medal just beneath the Distinguished Flying Cross, for his courageous exploits that day. The Air Force Association also awarded him the Lieutenant General Clare Chennault award in 2018 as a ``most outstanding aerial tactician.''

After 10 years on the frontlines, Lieutenant Colonel Entine moved to Florida, where he served in an operational test squadron. While there, he invented a method to use air-to-ground laser- guided rockets to shoot down cruise missiles. In December 2019, Lieutenant Colonel Entine proved the concept by shooting down a target drone over the Gulf of Mexico using an air-to-ground rocket. Lieutenant Colonel Entine and his team later recognized that the Air Force and Navy's premier air-to-air missile, the AMRAAM, could reach ranges much longer than advertised, prompting the Air Force to launch its longest-ever air-to-air missile test in May of 2021.

Unsurprisingly, given his tireless tinkering and work ethic, Lieutenant Colonel Entine's performance reports remained stellar. He left Eglin as top-rated major out of 158 and headed to Washington, DC, to represent the Air Force in Congress as a defense fellow.

While serving in my office, Lieutenant Colonel Entine solidified his position as a key member of my team. He quickly became a trusted adviser, especially concerning my duties as the AirLand Subcommittee Ranking Member on the Armed Services Committee. A true visionary, Lieutenant Colonel Entine led my initiative on a rated officer retention amendment which was incorporated into the FY23 NDAA. His fellow Air Force pilots owe Lieutenant Colonel Entine a debt of gratitude for his tireless work to provide his service with four additional retention related authorizations as part of this initiative. In total, Lieutenant Colonel Entine drafted nearly 70 pieces of legislation demonstrating an incredible ability to unify staff over bipartisan policy issues. Lieutenant Colonel Entine undoubtedly proved his worth as a member of my team, helping notch countless legislative victories.

Beyond legislation, Lieutenant Colonel Entine demonstrated an exceptional talent for hearing and nomination preparation and staff work. His work in this arena was distinct from any fellow we have had previously and, I suspect, that we will have ever again. This type of preparation is one of the most crucial functions of my staff, and Lieutenant Colonel Entine distinguished himself as an invaluable member of the team. Our office greatly benefited from his talents and keen insights. He attended over 58 Senate Armed Services Committee Hearings and staffed over 60 engagements.

Furthermore, Lieutenant Colonel Entine represented me on multiple staff delegations, conducting much needed oversight and research on my behalf. On his trip to Honolulu, HI, to visit INDOPACOM, Lieutenant Colonel Entine was a key interlocutor, ensuring that my personal staff was well prepared to engage in technical discussions regarding the needs of the Air Force. His insights have helped shape my policy objectives for years to come. Lieutenant Colonel Entine also participated in a Naval Embark, a critical component of our oversight agenda related to my duties on the Seapower Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. I also remain grateful for the sacrifices of Lieutenant Colonel Entine's family, as he spent time away from home, many hours, and late nights to ensure this crucial work was completed. Lieutenant Colonel Entine has had a remarkable career and he has a promising future ahead. He is exactly the kind of man and servicemember that our military needs in leadership. For these reasons and more, I was honored to have Lieutenant Colonel Entine in my office this year. Lieutenant Colonel Entine Slander thank you for your service to Arkansas and to the United States of America.

Mr. President.

Reserving the right to object--and I will--I want to make a few brief remarks here about why I object to the passage of this bill, the so-called PRESS Act, which would open a floodgate of leaks damaging to law enforcement and our Nation's security.

The press, unfortunately, has a long and sordid history of publishing sensitive information from inside the government that damages our national security. During the Vietnam war, the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers in an effort to demoralize the American people and turn them against the war effort.

During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the press routinely revealed details about America's efforts to hunt down terrorists, details that helped our enemies cover their tracks and evade justice.

These leaks were reckless and harmful to our national security. Yet the PRESS Act would immunize journalists and leakers alike from scrutiny and consequences for their actions. This bill would prohibit the government from compelling any individual who calls himself a journalist from disclosing the source or substance of such damaging leaks.

This effectively would grant journalists special legal privileges to disclose sensitive information that no other citizen enjoys. It would treat the press as a special caste of crusaders for truth who are somehow set apart from their fellow citizens.

But that is not how the law historically has treated journalists. Our laws have always made clear that journalists can be held criminally liable for what they publish. In the Pentagon Papers case itself, a kind of holy grail for the liberal media, Justice White wrote the press is on ``full notice of the position of the United States and must face the consequences if they publish'' material damaging to our national security.

So while prior restraints were ruled out, consequences for violating the laws of our country remained necessary, and they remain necessary today as well because, moreover, if recent history has taught us anything, it is that too many journalists these days are little more than leftwing activists who are, at best, ambivalent about America and who are cavalier about our security and about the truth.

For instance, as the publisher of the New York Times during the Pentagon Papers case, Arthur ``Punch'' Sulzberger, wrote:

I am not sure that what we offer the Vietnamese peasant or

what their own leaders offer them is any better than what the

communists offer.

Think about that for a minute. The publisher of the New York Times, whose family still controls it today, couldn't see a difference between us--the United States--between Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson and Ho Chi Minh, a murderous, communist butcher. This is the kind of person we would be giving special legal privileges to that no other citizen enjoys.

Supporters of this bill insist that it is necessary to grant journalists this special kind of immunity in order to ``preserve the free flow of information to the public.'' But, of course, there are many legal avenues that whistleblowers can use to air their concerns about potential government misconduct.

In the executive branch, they can go to their Agency's inspector general. They can also go to the Office of Special Counsel, and, of course, they can go to the proper oversight committee here in Congress. Put differently, there is no shortage of legitimate and legal avenues for whistleblowers to unveil potential government misconduct. But this bill would allow any disgruntled bureaucrat, totally unaccountable to democratic processes, to circumvent these legitimate channels and go straight to the press, relying on the highly questionable judgment and unaccountable judgment of these bureaucrats and reporters alone to determine whether America's most sensitive secrets should be revealed.

And, finally, quite aside from all these grave concerns, this bill hasn't been through the Senate's usual process for debating and refining legislation. And, as I have explained, it shows. It hasn't been through regular order. There have been no hearings, no markups, or even a previous effort to pass the bill on the floor, to my knowledge.

This bill needs to be thoroughly vetted before we take such a drastic step to ensure that we don't open a floodgate of damaging leaks to our national security.

Therefore, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, part of China's strategy to defeat the United States includes unfairly helping corporations buy out American companies. We can prevent these propped-up companies from gobbling up American businesses, but we don't always know which companies China subsidizes or by how much.

A bill I introduced with Congressman Fitzgerald, the Foreign Merger Subsidy Disclosure Act, would require companies to disclose any subsidies they receive from foreign adversaries before a merger. If a company has received subsidies from a nation like Russia or China, U.S. antitrust regulators can use that information to determine whether or not the merger is fair. This bill has support from Republicans and Democrats, the administration, and the House of Representatives.

We should pass this package of bills today to protect American businesses and consumers and to stop China's economic war against the United States.

I yield to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, it is my great privilege to recognize Senior Master Sergeant Ryan E. Byrne--senior enlisted leader of the 389th Fighter Generation Squadron, Mountain Home Air Force Base, ID--for his distinguished military service.

Senior Master Sergeant Ryan E. Byrne has dedicated two decades of service to the U.S. Air Force, ensuring that our Nation's frontline of air defense and precision strike is properly trained and equipped to deter or destroy our adversaries. He exemplifies the best qualities of an airman, consistently demonstrating a calm and dependable demeanor in high stakes, no-fail situations.

Throughout his various deployments in support of Operations Enduring Freedom, Inherent Resolve, Spartan Shield, Pacific Iron, Noble Eagle, he masterfully utilized his team's combat capabilities to deliver on call, around the clock airpower. His actions ensured the safe, reliable maintenance of the U.S. Air Force premier strike fighter, the F-15E, which led to the decimation of foreign terror threats including the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Senior Master Sergeant Ryan E. Byrne was instrumental in sustaining combat readiness of the revered 389th Thunderbolts from Mountain Home Air Force Base, ID, which propelled the 389th T-Bolts in surpassing several of Air Force Central Command's longstanding records. He is a recipient of the Air Force Meritorious Service award, which is a true testament to his forthright leadership and commitment to the mission and our great Nation.

I join all grateful Americans in extending a sincere thank you and heartfelt congratulations to Senior Master Sergeant Ryan E. Byrne for his decorated service in protecting the United States of America.

Madam President, the United States is in the midst of the deadliest drug epidemic in our Nation's history, caused by the most lethal drugs ever created.

More than 108,000 Americans died last year from drugs--more than 108,000--which is almost double the number of Americans killed in the entire Vietnam war. That is the worst slaughter of American citizens by drug dealers and traffickers on record.

The biggest killers, by far, were lab-made opioids, most notably fentanyl, which are cheap to produce and easy to mix with other street drugs. These lethal cocktails have devastated countless families and communities across our Nation. Too many parents have come home to a dead child who has mistakenly taken a prescription pill or a so-called party drug that might have been laced with fentanyl. Indeed, almost no one dies of a fentanyl overdose thinking he took fentanyl. It is laced into other drugs.

That is why, repeatedly, over the past 2 years, I and many of my colleagues have offered a measure to keep it illegal to traffic new variants of fentanyl, but, each time, a Democrat has blocked that measure. Later today, they will do so again.

Perhaps we can at least agree on one thing: We should have no tolerance for people who willingly trick addicted drug users or other innocent persons into taking deadly fentanyl by telling them it is really something else. This happens every day with heartbreaking consequences across the country.

For example, just 2 weeks ago, a drug trafficker was sentenced to life in prison for his role in distributing fentanyl to unsuspecting users in Minnesota. Eleven people died. They thought they were buying illicit Adderall. When he heard about the deaths, the dealer asked his Chinese suppliers for a discount on his next shipment.

That same week, another drug dealer was arrested just minutes from the Capitol Building, where we stand--in Silver Spring, MD--for killing a child with a fentanyl pill, which he said was Percocet. He was hiding the fentanyl-laced, fake Percocet pills inside small bags of marijuana.

Last week, a few minutes in the other direction, a trafficker was tried in Northern Virginia for distributing cocaine laced with fentanyl at a party. Six partygoers overdosed. One died.

These cases happen every day. Drug addicts are especially lulled into a false sense of safety by fake prescription pills, believing them to be medicine for which they have some past experience. That is why fake prescription drugs are on the rise. Federal law enforcement encountered as many fake prescription pills in 2021 as in the previous 2 years combined.

If Democrats refuse to help Republicans keep all fentanyl variants off the streets, hopefully, we can at least agree on keeping deceptive fentanyl traffickers behind bars. My bill would establish that any drug trafficker who knowingly misrepresents fentanyl as though it is something else would be subject to 20 years in prison. If the criminal has a prior felony criminal record or if its misrepresentation kills someone, then the criminal would be subject to life in prison or would even be eligible for the death penalty. There can simply be no leniency for people who trick unsuspecting users into taking deadly fentanyl.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4984, which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, what we heard is a lot of the same excuses that the Democrats have made for years about being soft on crime and their claims about mass incarceration or systemic racism or what have you.

I would point out that almost no one--almost no one--is in Federal prison for mere drug possession. It is a myth that there are low-level, nonviolent offenders in prison because they are addicted to drugs.

Where we are is at a 21-year low in the number of Federal inmates we have. Do you know where we are not at? A 21-year low in drug deaths-- the highest on record every single year, year after year. Almost twice as many have died as in the Vietnam war. Almost 24 times as many have died as in the entire Iraq war. Almost 35 times as many have died as on 9/11. Yet the Democrats repeatedly refuse to crack down on deceptive fentanyl dealers.

As I have mentioned, I have also offered bills in the past that would permanently add fentanyl to the Controlled Substances Act scheduling. The Democrats refuse to do so. They will do it temporarily from time to time, but they want a trade. They want to get a trade for something. They want to either reduce sentences or let prisoners out. This is whether they are Democratic Senators or Democratic Governors in places like Illinois, in their eliminating the bail system, or whether they are Democratic mayors or Democratic prosecuting attorneys in places like Chicago. As a result, we have a crimewave and a drug epidemic all across America.

Let me just reiterate. The bill I just offered, which the Senator from Illinois blocked, would simply say that you cannot sell another drug and not acknowledge that fentanyl is in it; that you cannot misrepresent what you are selling.

It is not just opioids. It is not just heroin. It is even marijuana. It is pills that are passed off as mere prescription drugs, like in some of the examples I gave--Adderall, OxyContin, Percocet--that people all across the America are dying from.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 621

Madam President, let's take another angle on this problem. Almost all of these drugs come from Mexico. Almost all of the drugs in America today come from Mexico. Almost all come from a handful of vicious, depraved cartels in Mexico--cartels that have taken on the powers of a quasi-state, cartels that the Mexican Government either cannot or will not crack down on. So let's look at it from that perspective. It is past time that we bring the full weight of the U.S. Government to bear on these cartels and to destroy them for what they are unleashing on our streets.

Imagine if ISIS or al-Qaida set up shop across our border and was responsible for more than a hundred thousand American deaths every single year. What would we do? What would you do?

I know what we wouldn't do. We wouldn't hesitate to act, and that is exactly what we should do with these Mexican cartels.

Unfortunately, President Biden has done the opposite. Since the day he took office, he has flung open our borders, created a border crisis, and made it easier than ever to smuggle massive amounts of illegal drugs into the United States.

Already this year, the Border Patrol has found over 12,000 pounds of fentanyl being smuggled over our borders--12,000 pounds. You may not be able to put that in perspective. Let me put it in perspective for you: It is enough to kill every man, woman, and child in America many, many times over.

That doesn't even include any fentanyl brought in by the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens whom the DHS calls got-aways.

President Biden could declare fentanyl-peddling cartels to be terrorist organizations, but he has refused to do so. So the bill that I am about to bring up would give him additional tools, short of labeling these cartels ``terrorists.''

My bill would create a new designation called a significant transnational criminal organization, and it would enable the Federal Government to impose many of the same sanctions and use many of the same tools against cartels that it already does against terrorist organizations like al-Qaida and ISIS. Those would include barring cartel members and their immediate families from entering the United States, freezing assets belonging to the cartels to hit their wallets and to keep them from profiting off of death and destruction, and enabling civil and criminal penalties for anyone who provides material assistance or resources to the cartels.

The Democrats are going to block a bill later today that would keep new fentanyl variants illegal. They just blocked another bill that would target drug traffickers who trick people into taking the fentanyl that kills them. I hope at least Democratic Senators would be willing to say that we should give the Biden administration more tools to use against the Mexican cartels, some of the worst and most depraved criminals on Earth.

Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of my bill, S. 621, the Significant Transnational Criminal Organization Designation Act, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I think we know who is soft on crime. It sounds like I hit a nerve. I didn't stand up here saying I am not soft on crime five or six times in a row. It is the Senator from Illinois who said that, just like Senate Democrats have been saying it for the last several months, just like their candidates all across America are saying it.

Let's look at the first bill he mentioned, the American Rescue Plan. You know what that is, right, the American Rescue Plan? That is their $2 trillion wasteful spending bill from last spring that is responsible for 13 percent inflation.

Do you know what is also included in it? A measure that would get stimulus checks to prisoners. That is right--depraved, violent felons; murderers and rapists and drug traffickers all across America. People like the Boston marathon bomber got stimulus checks last year because the Democrats believe that criminals are really, at heart, victims as well, victims of an oppressive society and system.

If I am not mistaken, when I offered my amendment to prevent prisoners from getting stimulus checks, I think it was the Senator from Illinois who stood up and blocked it. I know that he voted against it. I know that he wanted prisoners to get stimulus checks. That is what he is talking about.

What about his objection to this bill, that it is going to target mothers and kids, the poor mothers and children of drug kingpins, a very common feature of American sanctions efforts--in fact, sanctions efforts that we are doing exactly against Russian oligarchs and regime figures, which I support, by the way. I support. No, the wives and the children of Russian oligarchs and Mexican cartel kingpins should not benefit from their ill-gotten gains.

But I care more about the lives of American citizens--the hundred thousand-plus American citizens whom we lose every single year--than anyone else in the world.

The Biden administration's policy, though, is that we will use this tool against Russians, but we are not going to use it against Mexican cartel members. I think that goes to show you where their priorities are.

Again, just to recap, we tried to pass legislation that would have imposed heightened penalties on drug traffickers who misrepresent their drugs and say they don't contain fentanyl. The Senator from Illinois blocked it on behalf of the Democrats.

Just now, we tried to give the Biden administration more tools to target the cartels that are smuggling these drugs into our country, that are killing a hundred thousand of our fellow citizens. Again, on behalf of Senate Democrats, the Senator from Illinois blocked it.

I say, again, over 108,000 Americans were killed by drugs last year. Yet the Democrats continue to refuse to crack down on drug traffickers and cartel kingpins.

Some of my other colleagues are going to offer similar bills today, just like I am going to offer, yet again, my permanent fentanyl scheduling bill that would stop the annual Kabuki dance here of the Democrats demanding some pro-criminal law just so we can permanently add fentanyl to the Controlled Substance Act schedule.

Think about that. At a time when 108,000 Americans are dying every single year--that is not an aggregate number, every single year--the Democrats refuse to act if they don't get something in return on behalf of criminals, if they can't reduce drug sentences for hardened criminals, if they can't let more felons out of prison. It shows a depraved indifference to the lives of our people.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, tens of thousands of Iranian citizens are taking to the streets in dozens of cities across Iran as we speak. The chant that is echoing across that ancient land is: ``Death to the dictator.'' Yet Joe Biden and the Democrats in Washington would rather make another disastrous deal with the ayatollahs and those who declare ``death to America'' and who are, at this very moment, working to assassinate American citizens on our sovereign soil. Barack Obama's betrayal of the Iranian people during the Green Revolution is replaying before our very eyes.

The latest revolt against the ayatollahs was inspired by yet another reprehensible crime by this theocratic dictatorial regime against its own people.

Last week, the ayatollahs' thugs, known as the morality police, arrested a 22-year-old woman on the street for the heinous crime of allegedly not wearing a head scarf in public. They threw her into a police van; they brutally beat her on the way to the detention center; they inflicted terrible injuries on her, from which she soon died.

Countless Iranians were immediately horrified by this cold-blooded murder and are now taking to the streets to protest their illegitimate outlaw regime. They are burning hijabs and protesting the oppression under which they have suffered every day for 43 years. In the murder of this young woman, we see the true face of the ayatollahs, a regime which our President hopes to enrich with hundreds of billions of dollars and to appease with yet another terrible nuclear deal. In fact, just minutes ago, President Biden stood before the world at the U.N. General Assembly, stating at great length that he would continue negotiations toward this dangerous deal while offering only the briefest and emptiest of words to reproach the ayatollahs for the murder of this young woman for the grave crime of refusing to wear a headscarf in public and only the briefest of words for the thousands of protesters--at latest reports, seven of which have been murdered and many more shot and beaten--I would say this does feel a lot like deja vu, a replay of Barack Obama's betrayal of the 2009 Green revolutionaries. And why did he betray them in 2009? Was he caught flatfooted? Was he overwhelmed by events? Was he simply new to the job? naive? even incompetent? No. He betrayed those Green revolutionaries in cold blood because his one overriding objective was his terrible nuclear deal with Iran.

He wanted a deal because he believed America was to blame for the decades of tension and conflicts with Iran; that America had sinned and we needed to atone for our sins against Iran and to pull in our horns; and therefore he stood idly by so as not to offend the mullahs and their street militias as they beat the Iranian people.

And, today, for the very same reason, Democrats are once again selling out those brave Iranian protesters so they can once again try to buy the friendship of the oppressive ayatollahs. The U.S. Congress should stand with the Iranian people and prevent another betrayal by a Democratic President. And

you wouldn't think it would be that hard. I mean, on face value, you would think self-professed progressive Democrats would stand up as one against a so-called morality police who arrested a woman for the grave crime of not wearing a scarf over her hair in public and then beat her so severely that she died in custody.

Imagine what would happen if this had occurred in, say, Saudi Arabia. Imagine what these Democrats would be saying if a country in Western Europe enforced its laws in this way. You would expect that Democrats could marshal just a tiny bit of outrage--the tiniest bit of outrage possible when the ayatollahs arrest a woman for not wearing a headscarf in public and then beat her to death. But, no, they don't.

And to be honest, you don't even have to imagine these things either. We see how the Democrats have treated Iran for 13 years--as if America is at fault and we are the problem and Iran deserves an apology and hundreds of billions of dollars and to be brought into the civilized world. Look at how they treated Saudi Arabia as a pariah for years. In fact, look at Barack Obama's entire response to the Arab Spring in 2011. It was just like his response to the Green Revolution in 2009 in Iran. The Iranian people rise up in protest, silence; the people of Egypt rise up in protest, Barack Obama withdraws political support for Egypt's leader and demands his immediate resignation; protests in Libya where Muammar Qadhafi had been scared straight by George Bush and had come out of the cold, Barack Obama attacks his government and overthrows him militarily; protests in Syria, silence.

What is the common thread in those responses in 2009 in Iran and 2011 in Egypt and Libya and Syria and 2022 in Iran? It is very simple. If you are pro-American, you get condemned--maybe overthrown. If you are anti-American, you get rewarded with hundreds of billions of dollars and a blind eye toward your grave crimes against your people and your aggression against America and our allies throughout the region. Again and again, the Democrats excuse the crimes of our enemies while they obsess over the flaws of our friends.

As Jeane Kirkpatrick, the legendary Ambassador to the United Nations, once said--and it is true today of so many Democrats--``they always blame America first.''

We cannot allow Joe Biden to repeat the mistakes of Barack Obama and once again betray the brave people of Iran, which I would remind you is a mortal enemy of the United States. So I call on my colleagues to join me in standing with the people of Iran, with the brave people of that ancient nation who stand in the streets today chanting ``Death to the dictator,'' not with the dictator and the ayatollahs who still to this day chant ``Death to America.''

I yield the floor.