Floor Statements

Objection.

Madam President, today, the Senate exercises one of our unique and most important constitutional responsibilities: debate and ratification of a treaty.

The NATO accession treaty for Sweden and Finland is the most consequential kind of treaty because it commits America to the mutual defense of another country. We commit, along with our NATO partners, to come to Sweden's and Finland's defense if they are attacked, just as Finland and Sweden will come to our defense if we are attacked. It is a weighty matter, indeed.

I want to explain why, if one honestly considers all the circumstances and weighs all the evidence, I don't believe this is a close debate at all.

If Finland and Sweden join NATO, the alliance will unquestionably be stronger. The risk of war and of America being dragged into war will decrease in Europe, and Vladimir Putin's unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine will backfire in another significant, lasting way.

I note at the outset how unusual this moment is. Finland and Sweden are historically neutral countries. Sweden has refrained from joining military alliances since the days of Napoleon. Once Finland obtained independence a century ago, it also charted a course of neutrality, even after the Soviet Union invaded Finland during World War II.

Now these historically neutral countries have petitioned to join NATO. Why? Sweden and, especially, Finland have always lived closer to the bear's den, and thus had a different relationship with Moscow than we do. But now the Russian bear is rampaging, mauling a sovereign country on its borders that is not in the ranks of NATO. Finland and Sweden naturally want to avoid Ukraine's fate. They concluded, reasonably enough, that there is strength in numbers, and they are right about that.

If I were sitting in Stockholm or Helsinki, I would want to join NATO, too. But we are here in the United States Senate. What matters to us--what should matter to us--is what is in it for us. Much as we may esteem the Finns and the Swedes--and we should; they are great people-- we need allies who enhance our common defense, not ones

who detract from it, allies who can pull their own weight and then some.

Military alliances are not charities, but Finland and Sweden aren't charity cases. They bring into NATO their well-trained and well- equipped militaries, technologically advanced economies, and vital geography.

In particular, Finland is a country of warriors, with a long and proud tradition, to put it bluntly, of fighting and killing Russian invaders. In 1939, Russia launched an unprovoked war of aggression--odd how Russia keeps doing that--against Finland, in what has become known as the Winter War. Few observers gave small Finland a chance, but the outnumbered and outgunned Finns shocked the world--not least Stalin and the Russian communists--by matching the Red Army blow for blow.

Ever wonder where the term ``Molotov cocktail'' comes from? The Finns gave it to us. What they lacked in anti-tank weapons, they made up in grit and courage. Finnish soldiers rushed Soviet tanks and dropped the bottle bombs inside them, and they named the cocktail after Russia's deceitful Foreign Minister for good measure.

Then there is the legendary sniper Simo Hayha, who killed an estimated 500 Russian soldiers, among the highest number of confirmed sniper kills ever recorded in combat. He entered into the history books better known by his well-earned nickname, ``White Death,'' which also happens to be what every Russian general to this day fears from another tangle with the Finns.

The Finns also haven't forgotten the lessons of the Winter War. Still today, every adult Finnish man must fulfill a period of national service. Almost all of them choose the military. Finland has a 900,000- man reserve it can draw on in times of crisis and can field an army of 280,000 when fully mobilized. Finland's reserves are larger than the reserves of France, Germany, and Italy--combined.

Finland has firepower in addition to manpower. According to scholars at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Finland has one of the strongest artillery forces in Europe, with more rocket launchers and howitzers than France, Germany, or the United Kingdom. It has a strong fleet of fighter jets and plans to buy 64 American-made F-35s by the end of the decade.

For its part, Sweden is an economic and industrial powerhouse that will add muscle to the alliance. The Swedish Navy is an effective force with advanced warships and submarines. The Swedish firm Saab produces some of the world's finest fighter aircraft, radar systems, and weapons. In conjunction with the British, the Swedes manufacture the NLAW anti-tank missile, which is second only to the Javelin in killing Russian tanks in Ukraine. I would also add that the Swedish firm Ericsson, along with the Finnish firm Nokia, are among the world's few alternatives to China's Huawei for advanced 5G telecommunications hardware.

Finally, I should note that Finland and Sweden, unlike too many of our European allies, are putting their money where their mouths are when it comes to their defense. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Finland boosted defense spending by 70 percent and will spend more than 2 percent of its total economy on its military this year. Sweden is in the middle of doubling its defense spending and plans to reach that 2- percent goal no later than 2028.

For these reasons alone, Finland and Sweden are not only worthy additions to the alliance but, indeed, will become two of the strongest members of the alliance from the moment they join.

But that is not all. They also add key geographic advantages to our alliance.

First, the Swedish island of Gotland is an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the middle of the Baltic Sea--fewer than 200 miles from the Russian exclave and military base in Kaliningrad. He who controls Gotland controls the Baltic, which is why Russia tried to seize Gotland in the 19th century and why Sweden garrisoned the island during the Cold War. In the event of a conflict with Russia, NATO forces on Gotland could prevent the Russian Navy from transiting the Baltic Sea freely or from resupplying Kaliningrad by sea. Gotland-based forces would also make it easier to relieve the Baltic States by sea and air in the event of a Russian invasion.

Second, Finland controls the northern shores of the Gulf of Finland, through which Russian ships must pass to reach St. Petersburg, Russia's second largest city. Our NATO ally Estonia already controls the southern coastline of this long and narrow waterway that is not even 30 miles wide at its smallest point. By adding Finland to the alliance, Russian naval operations through the gulf would become even more difficult.

Third, the Danish Straits would also become, in effect, NATO waters. Russia's Baltic Fleet must pass through this strategic chokepoint to get in or out of the Baltic. Denmark, a NATO ally, controls the southern and western portions of the straits. Sweden controls the northern and eastern shores. By adding Sweden to the alliance, we further complicate Russia's naval operations.

Fourth, the 800-mile border of Russia and Finland rightly complicates Russia's war planning and defense in the event of conflict. In fact, this border would more than double the amount of border that Russia must defend. Finland will also threaten Russia's major military installations in the Kola Peninsula, where Russia's largest and most advanced naval forces are positioned to break out into the Atlantic and threaten the United States.

So aside from their military strength and economic power, Finland and Sweden also allow us to turn the Baltic into a NATO lake, bottle up Russia's Baltic Fleet, cut off its isolated military base at Kaliningrad, and expose Russia itself to much greater risk in the event of a conflict.

All things considered, then, one might contend that Finland and Sweden are the strongest candidates to join NATO since its origin in 1949. We will soon see that most Senators agree, when we vote later today.

And, really, how can one disagree? After all, the last countries to join NATO, Montenegro and North Macedonia, were each approved by the Senate with only two ``no'' votes. Those countries brought their own case for accession to NATO. But let's be honest. Who can deny the much stronger cases for Finland and Sweden, countries that are far larger and far more capable and far more strategically situated?

It would be strange indeed for any Senator who voted to allow Montenegro or North Macedonia into NATO to turn around and deny membership to Finland and Sweden. I would love to hear the defense of such a curious vote.

But since some observers have criticized their bid for membership, let me address those arguments now.

The most basic argument isn't really directed at Finland or Sweden, but at NATO itself. Some critics say America shouldn't pledge to protect countries halfway around the world, but these critics are seven decades too late. We are already treaty-bound to defend more than two dozen nations in Europe. Whether we support this treaty today or not, we will still be treaty-bound to defend those nations. So the real question today is whether adding two capable and strong nations to our mutual defense pact will make us stronger or weaker. The evidence I have shared demonstrates that adding Finland and Sweden will indeed make it stronger, more likely to deter Russian aggression and to defeat Russian aggression, should it come.

Next, some opponents contend that admitting Finland, in particular, is a liability because the United States would be committing to the defense of its 800-mile border with Russia. This argument is both alarmist and backward. It is alarmist because Russia hasn't attacked a NATO member in its more than 70-year history, even as it has attacked many non-NATO countries. Given the Russian Army's pitiful performance in Ukraine, they will be in no shape to break with that record any time soon. And of all European nations, Finland is probably the least likely to be attacked by Russia after the searing trauma of the Winter War. ``White death'' is a strong deterrent.

Moreover, these critics are thinking about this issue backward. As I said earlier, it is Russia that has to worry about its long border should it attack our allies. NATO is a defensive alliance. It always has been, always will be. Neither Finland nor any other NATO country has any plan or desire

to invade Russia. But should Russia ever be tempted to attack NATO, the Finnish border creates nearly insurmountable war-planning dilemmas for the Russian general staff. To borrow what U.S. Grant told his commanders about Robert E. Lee, rather than worrying about what Russia might do at Finland's border, Russia should be worried about what NATO would do if Russia attacks us. Putin seems worried, after all. He blustered and threatened consequences if Sweden and Finland sought NATO membership, but he meekly acquiesced once they did.

Still, other critics say our main strategic focus should be on China, not Russia. I agree. China is the greatest long-term threat to the United States, but admitting Finland and Sweden to NATO enhances our common defense, especially our defenses in Europe. A NATO that is stronger militarily, economically, and geographically in Europe is a NATO that needs to lean less on American power. We ought to welcome strong, capable allies in Europe who can free up the American military to focus more on the Pacific theater. That is doubly true when those allies have key companies, like Ericsson and Nokia, that can also help us beat China in the global technology race.

Others have objected that the majority of NATO members are currently failing to pay their fair share toward our common defense. I agree here too. I am tired of freeloading, grandstanding friends. But how is that a criticism of Sweden or Finland? As I said, Finland already pays its fair share, and Sweden has charted a clearer path there than have many current NATO members, and both nations are doing so for a reason more durable than diplomatic sweet talk--perceived danger.

Some claim that expanding NATO will provoke Russian aggression, but the fact is, NATO expansion is the result, not the cause, of Russian aggression. Countries are banging on NATO's door because of Russia's behavior. Indeed, Russian aggression is the cause of today's debate. As I mentioned earlier, Sweden and Finland have long histories of neutrality. Vladimir Putin's violence toward his neighbors has now made that neutrality untenable in their minds.

Finally, a few critics of NATO expansion love to quote the words of George Washington's Farewell Address. It is true our first President warned against ``permanent alliances,'' and he recommended ``as little political connection as possible'' with other nations. That advice was well-suited for a young, weak Republic in 1796. Yet Washington didn't stop writing where these critics stopped reading. That great statesman foresaw a future when America would gain strength, stand up, and assert itself.

Washington continued:

With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain

time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent

institutions, and to progress without interruption to that

degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to

give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

We have gained, since Washington's time, the command of our own fortunes. One of the pillars of our strength in modern times is our network of allies and partners in the Old World. These beachheads and lodgments of freedom help us keep the awful power of modern war at a distance. Finland and Sweden are two such nations. They have asked to join our mutual defense alliance, and they are worthy partners.

I urge my colleagues to grant their request, ratify this treaty, and welcome two more strong beachheads and lodgments into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, I join Senator Boozman with a heavy heart to mourn the death of a young patriot and a selfless public servant.

Last month, Jeremiah Story, a member of the Arkansas National Guard and a correctional officer at the Perry County Sheriff's Office, died in the line of duty. Officer Story was only 21 years old. He worked at the Perry County Detention Center and hoped to one day become a State trooper.

He was known as an infectious source of joy among his friends and within his community, always uplifting those who needed cheering up and including those who felt left out. He was a devoted Christian who encouraged everyone to go to church and who shared the gospel with anyone who would listen. And he loved America, joining the Army National Guard as soon as he graduated from high school. Jeremiah Story was the type of selfless servant every young person should aspire to be.

Three weeks ago, Officer Story was in the process of booking a drug criminal at the Perry County Detention Center when the criminal pulled out a concealed pistol and shot Officer Story in the chest. He died soon thereafter at a Conway hospital, and the coward who shot him is now charged with capital murder, as he should be.

His murderer didn't get away with anything, didn't gain anything, didn't escape--nothing for this evil deed. He only snuffed out a bright, young, wonderful life.

He should know, and every criminal in our State should know, that justice will be rendered for this awful slaying.

In the aftermath of Officer Story's death, hundreds of Arkansans have come together to remember his life and mourn his loss. Among those who attended candlelight vigils for this special young man were the inmates at the Perry County Detention Center. The chaplain of the detention center said Officer Story was ``loved by a lot of different people, not just outside but

inside.'' He added that he had used Officer Story as an ``example setter'' for the inmates for the kind of citizen and man they could aspire to be if they turned their lives around.

Officer Story's example lives on. Those who knew him, those who have just now heard of him, can draw inspiration for a life well lived. In 21 short years, Officer Story did more good and spread more joy than many others who have been blessed with many more years on this Earth.

He was a great Arkansan and a great American. May God bless and keep Officer Jeremiah Story, and may God console his family and friends in this time of grief.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate to honor an important member of Her Majesty's diplomatic service, Mr. Edward Ferguson. Edward has been the latest in a long line of impressive British diplomats who have furthered the Special Relationship between the United Kingdom and United States.

Edward has served as the Minister Counsellor for Defence at British Embassy in Washington, DC. The Minister Counsellor is the senior Ministry of Defence--MOD--civil servant in the embassy. This position is responsible for aspects of the bilateral defense relationship, paying close attention to defense strategy; security and operational policy; acquisition and trade.

Since arriving in September 2018, Edward has played a pivotal role in further strengthening the already indispensable United States-United Kingdom defense relationship. As the UK's senior policy adviser on defense relations with the United States, he was responsible for United Kingdom-United States collaboration on strategic planning, nuclear policy and programmes, trade and acquisition, and science and technology. He can point to a number of significant successes on his watch, not least the signing of the Australia-United Kingdom-United States--AUKUS--Agreement.

Prior to his service at the British Embassy Washington, Edward served as Her Majesty's Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina from 2014 to 2018, where he created and led a new international strategy, co- launched by the British and German Foreign Ministers, that re-energised Euro-Atlantic integration after years of stagnation, while stimulating economic growth and reducing high levels of youth unemployment.

From 2011 to 2014, Edward was Head of Defence Strategy and Priorities, where he led two teams, one responsible for leading the MOD's contribution to developing the 2015 National Security Strategy and the Strategic Defence and Security Review and the other for prioritising the MOD's international defence engagement activities.

A former exhibitioner and choral scholar of Trinity College, Oxford, where he was also treasurer of the Oxford Union, Edward graduated with first class honours in classics in 2001. In 2013, he graduated from the London School of Economics and Political Science with an MSc with distinction in strategy and diplomacy. He has been a member of the Royal College of Defence Studies--RCDS--strategic advisory panel, a member of the US Air Force Grand Strategy Advisory Board, and is a graduate of the PINNACLE Command and Staff course at National Defense University--NDU.

Edward has served in numerous roles within the Ministry of Defence, starting out in the Iraq Secretariat during the build-up to and subsequent execution of Operation TELIC in 2003. In 2006, he volunteered for an operational tour, serving as political advisor to a British battlegroup in Maysaan Province, Iraq--while his brother was a troop leader with the British Army in Basra. On his return, he took on responsibility for the strategic management of the United Kingdom's bilateral defence relations with the United States, Canada, and Western Europe.

From 2007 to 2009, he worked as Private Secretary to three Defence Secretaries, acting as their closest adviser on issues relating to operations in Iraq, the 6-billion defence equipment programme, science and technology, counterterrorism and counterpiracy.

In 2009, he was appointed the head of Afghanistan and Pakistan policy, responsible for advice to the National Security Council on the policy, financial, legal, parliamentary, and presentational aspects of the UK military contribution to operations in Afghanistan and on the long-term defence role and interests in Pakistan.

Edward has been a key voice engaging on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, particularly with Congress. He has been a strong proponent of increasing the breadth and depth of the bilateral relationship since his arrival at the embassy and has gained many friends and allies in a bipartisan basis throughout Capitol Hill. He has travelled far and wide throughout the heartland of the United States--and has many excellent memories of American hospitality to show for it. His presence and strong support of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance will be sorely missed, but I know he will always be a stalwart advocate for our alliance.

I know I speak for a chorus of voices in the Senate in wishing him, his wife Caroline, and their children, Henry, Tessa, and Mimi well as they transition into their next diplomatic posting.

Madam President, I call up my motion to instruct conferees, which is at the desk.

Madam President, the United States is in a new cold war with China, but Joe Biden doesn't seem to be up to the fight. China's military is growing while ours is shrinking. The President's Defense budget can't even

keep up with the Democrats' own rate of inflation. The President even denies that China is waging a cold war against us.

And while we are shortchanging our own military against a dangerous communist adversary, the Government wants to send $8 billion of your money to a U.N. boondoggle called the Green Climate Fund.

If anyone should be paying for a Green Climate Fund, it should be the Chinese communists, the world's worst polluters--not American taxpayers.

My proposal is simple. Instead of giving that $8 billion to the United Nations to waste on climate schemes and corruption, we should send it to our troops and help rebuild our military.

The U.N. or the U.S. military? It is an easy choice. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

Reserving the right to object, I want to say a few words about this matter.

Two months ago, I sent a letter to the Attorney General demanding answers why the Department of Justice was hanging out to dry four deputy U.S. marshals who had bravely defended the Portland courthouse against leftwing street militias in the summer of 2020. Those marshals are now facing civil litigation, but the Department is refusing to defend them in court, putting them at risk of bankruptcy, and perhaps most alarming of all, it won't even tell them why.

Now, the Department still hasn't provided definitive answers; and after I raised this alarm, they took another step and put the marshals on limited duty, telling them that after 20 months of active unrestricted duty they are now under investigation for the events in Portland. That is despite the fact that they received an award for their actions in Portland, received outstanding and excellent performance evaluations for 2020, and were, again, deployed to some of the most dangerous and high-risk missions that our law enforcement officers can undertake.

Call me crazy, but I have to say this seems like a case of potential retaliation. But it does, in a way, give the marshals the information we were seeking to help them understand their status. I also understand that at least one marshal has filed a complaint for retaliation against Vanita Gupta, the Assistant Attorney General.

The facts will come out one way or another. My message to the Department of Justice today is this: You will be held accountable for your actions against these law enforcement officers if they are inappropriate or even unlawful. If not this year, it will happen next year because I also want to add that yesterday, I and several of my colleagues, including the Judiciary Committee's ranking member Senator Grassley and the former Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Graham, sent a letter to the Department about this investigation. We intend to get to the bottom of it, and we are committed to an oversight investigation in the 118th Congress if one doesn't occur in this Congress.

I have also spoken to our Republican colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee who have today issued a request to the Department of Justice to preserve documents in this matter.

Now that I am confident the Department will receive the oversight that it deserves in this matter, I will no longer object to these nominees. Therefore, given these developments in this matter, I will withdraw my objection to the confirmation of today's nominees.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to complete my remarks before the scheduled vote at 3:30.

Madam President, 200 years ago today, one of our Nation's greatest heroes was born. Ulysses S. Grant rose from humble beginnings to stand next to Lincoln and Washington as one of America's indispensable men. This great defender of America won our bloodiest war, crushed the darkest forces of disunion, bandaged our deepest national wounds, and bridged the greatest political divides. He was an unshakable pillar of strength upon which this Nation's future rested time and again.

Virtually no one foresaw Grant's rise to greatness before the Civil War. Although he had graduated from West Point and distinguished himself as a soldier in the Mexican-American War, he had later stumbled from one failure to another in business.

In 1861, Grant was a man bent by humiliation and ridicule but unbroken.

After the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter, Grant rose from his knees as destiny called, he redonned his uniform, and he marched into the history books.

For the first 3 years of the Civil War, Grant fought on the western front, winning several of the Union's early victories while commanders in the East dithered. After Grant's first great victory, his Confederate counterpart sued for peace and asked what terms he would give them. Grant firmly responded that he would accept ``no terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender.'' This earned him the nickname ``Unconditional Surrender'' Grant and resulted in the largest capture of enemy troops in the history of the Western Hemisphere up to that time.

Grant waged a relentless form of warfare. He knew that, in his words, ``the art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on.''

Grant's warrior spirit famously moved President Lincoln to declare ``I can't spare this man--he fights.'' When Grant's enemies spread the rumor that he was an alcoholic and should be dismissed, Lincoln wryly responded that if he could find out what brand of whiskey Grant drank, he would send a barrel of it to all the other commanders.

Grant's famous determination and grit were on full display during the brutal Battle of Shiloh, one of the bloodiest episodes of the Civil War. In the first day of fighting, Grant's army was mauled by Confederate forces under the command of Albert Sidney Johnston, the Confederacy's most competent general at the time.

William Tecumseh Sherman approached Grant that rainy night beneath a great oak tree and he said, ``Well, Grant, we have had the devil's own day, haven't we?''

Grant replied, between puffs of his ubiquitous cigar, ``Yes. Lick em tomorrow though.'' He made good on this promise, threw back the Confederate forces, and won the carnage-filled battle.

Sidney Johnston was killed in the fighting, and Confederate President Jefferson Davis later wrote that ``it was the turning point of our fate.''

This story remains so legendary in the Army today that it was commonplace for young officers in the Iraq war to conclude a hard day by borrowing from Grant: ``Lick em tomorrow.''

Grant continued his brilliant streak of victories, and on July 4, 1863--the 87th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence--he seized the fortress city of Vicksburg on the Mississippi, splitting the Confederacy in two and securing the Union's control of that mighty river. This was perhaps the greatest strategic victory of the war, and combined with the victory at Gettysburg the previous day, Grant's seizure of Vicksburg put the Union on the path to victory.

Soon after Grant's decisive victory in the Battle of Chattanooga a few months later and capture of the supposedly impregnable heights of Missionary Ridge, Lincoln promoted him to the rank of lieutenant general--a position that no one had held since George Washington. A few days later, Lincoln also named him commander of Union forces.

In his new command, Grant quickly turned eastward and confronted Robert E. Lee, a skilled tactician who had run circles around the Army of the Potomac for 2 years. Lee had spooked Union commanders for so long with his audacious battle plans but not Grant. He said:

I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to

do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to

turn a double somersault and land in our rear and on both our

flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to

think what we are going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee

is going to do.

What Grant did was pursue Lee's army ruthlessly. As he marched into the Confederacy, he told a reporter:

If you see the President, tell him from me that whatever

happens, there will be no turning back.''

In the weeks and months that followed, Grant attacked Lee's army again and again. Whether he won or not, Grant continued to advance deeper into the Confederacy. Grant's army fought in the burning forests of the wilderness and in the muddy trenches of Petersburg, experiencing extraordinary hardship but never allowing Lee to regroup or reinvigorate his shrinking army. Less than a year after Grant began his overland campaign, the Union forces finally took the rebel capital of Richmond and broke the back of Confederate resistance.

But U.S. Grant wasn't a great leader simply because he won the war; he was also great because he never lost sight of the first goal of the war: to reunite our shattered Republic and restore what Lincoln had called the ``bonds of affection'' and the ``mystic chords of memory'' between Americans, North and South.

Instead of humiliating Lee at Appomattox Court House, Grant offered him generous and honorable terms. Uncompromising in war, Grant was magnanimous in peace. He allowed Confederate officers to keep their sidearms and horses, did not demand Lee's sword, and promised not to prosecute rebels who laid down their arms. As Lee departed the courthouse, Grant and his staff took off their hats in respect--a small act for the victors but an extraordinary gesture to the defeated Confederates.

Grant remained in the Army after Appomattox and continued to be a force for reconciliation and union as we stitched the stars back on Old Glory. He didn't allow vengeance or anger to overcome prudence and wisdom. He even defended his former antagonist Robert E. Lee when President Andrew Johnson tried to renege on the terms of Grant's surrender agreement. When Johnson asked Grant ``When can these men be tried?'' Grant replied ``Never, not unless they break their parole.'' He went so far as to tell his staff that ``I will not stay in the Army if they break the pledges that I made.'' To Grant, his word was more important than any office. Thanks to his principled stand, Johnson backed down, and our Nation avoided cycles of fruitless recrimination. At the same time, Grant also opposed Johnson's attempts to weaken Reconstruction and leave newly freed slaves exposed to inhumane treatment by vengeful former masters. Grant wanted neither excessive punishment nor excessive lenience; he wanted justice.

Never a politician, Grant nevertheless acquiesced to popular demand and Republican entreaties to run for President in 1868 on the simple platform ``Let us have peace.'' Although his administration was imperfect, he fought to make good on his promise. He continued his work to bring the South back into the Union, restoring the rights of citizenship to over 150,000 former rebels and bringing Robert E. Lee to the White House as a symbol of reconciliation.

Grant was also one of the greatest civil rights Presidents in our Nation's history, protecting freed slaves with laws and, when necessary, with force. When the first Ku Klux Klan terrorized the South, Grant ordered and empowered the Department of Justice and the Army to destroy it, and it was destroyed.

Grant also healed the wounds that the Civil War had inflicted on our relationship with other nations. He settled a spiraling diplomatic crisis with Great Britain, provoked by Britain's decision to allow Confederate warships to be built in its ports, which went on to sink over 150 Union ships. After years of negotiation, the United States and Great Britain signed the Treaty of Washington, in which Great Britain formally apologized for its support of the Confederacy. The treaty further established an independent commission to assess damages inflicted on American commerce, which in turn ordered the British to pay our country over $15 million in damages. Grant also worked to settle other outstanding concerns in the treaty, paving the path to strong relations with Great Britain in the future.

After his Presidency, Grant sadly was conned in business ventures and fell deeply into debt. But even as he lay dying of cancer, he resolved to provide for his family. A week before his death, he completed his memoirs, a monumental literary achievement that continues to rank among the greatest ever written by any statesman. He also saved his family from debt, demonstrating one last time his indomitable will.

Grant's funeral procession was the largest public demonstration in American history up to that point, with an

estimated 1\1/2\ million Americans in attendance.

Frederick Douglass described Grant as ``a man too broad for prejudice, too humane to despise the humblest, too great to be small at any point.'' Douglass saw in Grant ``a protector'' to freed Blacks, ``a friend'' to Indians, ``a brother'' to vanquished foes, and ``a savior'' for our imperiled Nation.

Yet progressive historians, a partisan press, and political enemies tarnished his record from the beginning. They have maligned him as a drunk and a butcher and a bumbling western rube who was ill-suited to politics and probably corrupt at that. This is an ahistorical slander against a great American.

As a deeply honest man and a Washington outsider, Grant perhaps wasn't always astute in spotting the unscrupulous swindlers and grifters attracted to our capital then as now. As President, he trusted some who didn't deserve that trust. His critics have exaggerated this guilelessness as a mortal sin, using dishonesty of others to besmirch the record of a good and great man. But Douglas was right; Grant was ``a savior'' of this Republic, and his few failings pale in comparison to his extraordinary achievements. And Grant's countrymen agreed, electing him twice by historic landslides.

I have four photos hanging on the wall of my Senate office, photos of great statesmen who saved the West in our hour of crisis: Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, and U.S. Grant. Throughout his life, U.S. Grant embodied a profound patriotism and selflessness that our Nation should remember with awe and reverence. On this bicentenary of his birth, we should restore him to the pantheon of American heroes, first among Americans.

Madam President, the Senate will soon vote on the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I will vote against her nomination.

Judge Jackson may be a fine woman, but she is a dangerous judge. She built her career as a far-left activist, and it didn't change when she put on a robe 10 years ago. She personifies activism from the bench. She has crusaded to undermine criminal sentences, and she cannot be trusted to interpret the law or the Constitution as written.

Judge Jackson's record makes clear that her brief stint as a criminal defense attorney wasn't motivated merely by a devotion to equal representation of all. It was part of a deep commitment to leniency for criminals. Indeed, she has continued to act as a de facto lawyer for criminals from behind the bench as she did from in front of it.

Judge Jackson's average sentences for criminals are 34 percent lighter than the national average for criminal cases and 25 percent lighter than her own court's average, the DC District Court.

Disturbingly, some of the most sensational examples of her soft-on- crime attitudes are cases involving child pornographers. She has given more lenient sentences than recommended by the sentencing guidelines in every single child pornography case where the law allowed it--every single one, every time. Individuals sentenced by Judge Jackson for child pornography possession receive, on average, 57 percent lighter sentences compared to the national average. For child pornography distribution, the sentence is 47 percent lighter than the national average.

These aren't just numbers. These are predators, and they go on to commit more of the most heinous crimes imaginable because Judge Jackson lets them off so easy. In one case, Judge Jackson gave child pornographer Wesley Hawkins just 3 months--3 months--in prison when the sentencing guidelines recommended 8 to 10 years--3 months versus a recommended 8 to 10 years. Judge Jackson even gave him a sentence that was one-sixth as long as what her own probation office recommended. And a few years later, when Hawkins should have still been in prison for his original offense, he did something else that got him 6 more months in custody. That is twice as long as his original sentence.

When all 11 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee sent a letter asking for details of what happened to justify this new sentence, Judge Jackson refused to provide any further information--so much, I guess, for looking at her record, as she urged us to do.

Her leniency isn't limited to child pornographers, either. In 2017, Judge

Jackson apologized--she apologized--to a fentanyl kingpin--his own words: kingpin--because she couldn't find a way to sidestep the law to give him less than the mandatory minimum sentence. She was very sorry that she had to give him such a long sentence.

But I guess, where there is a will, there is a way. A few years ago, she found a way to resentence this self-described kingpin below the mandatory minimum sentence. Through a completely made-up reinterpretation, Judge Jackson made the First Step Act retroactive for this fentanyl kingpin, something Congress had explicitly tried to avoid when it passed the law. This was judicial activism, plain and simple.

In her testimony, Judge Jackson claimed that there were no victims in that case. She is wrong. Fentanyl trafficking is not a victimless crime, and anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

In another case, Judge Jackson granted compassionate release-- compassionate release--to a man who brutally murdered a deputy U.S. marshal on the steps of a church at a funeral. While in prison, this cop killer threatened prison staff and was caught in possession of a dangerous weapon--not exactly a model inmate. He was repeatedly denied parole. Yet Judge Jackson granted him compassionate release because he had high blood pressure.

In yet another case, a career criminal assaulted a deputy U.S. marshal with a deadly weapon while resisting arrest. This was the third time that this criminal had assaulted law enforcement officers--the very officers who risk their lives to keep judges like Judge Jackson safe.

Judge Jackson didn't just sentence him below the government's request or the sentencing guideline range. She gave the criminal less time than even the criminal himself had advocated. You can't make this stuff up.

In 2013, a sex offender who had repeatedly raped his 13-year-old niece was arrested for falsifying sex offender registration records to avoid telling the government where he was living and that he was working at a daycare. The government sought a 2-year prison sentence, but Judge Jackson gave him just 1 year instead. And during that second year, when he would have been in prison, he tried to rape again and then bribed the victim with $2,500 to recant her testimony. This dangerous sex offender was convicted of obstructing justice, yet when presented with a do-over, Judge Jackson sentenced him to just 24 months in prison for those violations. I wish I could say this was to her credit because, to be fair, 24 months was the sentence recommended by the government. But she ensured in her order that this sentence would run concurrently with his sentence in local DC jail so he only ended up serving 1 year instead of 2.

Judge Jackson habitually sympathizes with criminals over victims. These are just a few of the many outrageous cases in Judge Jackson's record. The takeaway is crystal clear: If you are a criminal, you would be lucky to have your case assigned to Judge Jackson. If you are a victim or anyone else seeking justice, you should hope that your case is assigned to literally any other judge. As a trial judge, though, Judge Jackson could only help one criminal at a time. As a Supreme Court Justice, she would be able to benefit criminals nationwide, in all cases.

Judge Jackson's far-left activism extends beyond crime, as well. Not only did she engage in what the Sixth Circuit called an ``end run around Congress'' to retroactively reduce the sentence of the fentanyl kingpin I mentioned earlier, she also worked hard to strike down a Trump administration order expediting the removal of illegal aliens on equally specious legal grounds.

The law passed by Congress granted the Department of Homeland Security ``sole and unreviewable'' discretion--``sole and unreviewable'' discretion--to decide which illegal aliens should be subject to expedited removal. Nonetheless, Judge Jackson inserted herself to strike down what she called ``a terrible policy'' by the Department of Homeland Security. Well, I regret to inform Judge Jackson that it is not her role in our system to decide whether immigration policy is good, bad, terrible, or any other adjective she wants to use, only whether it is lawful and authorized by law.

And, of course, the DC Circuit Court, which is not exactly a hotbed of conservative jurists, agreed and reversed Judge Jackson's decision noting that there ``could hardly be a more definitive expression of congressional intent'' than the language in that law that she disregarded. But Judge Jackson didn't care. She had an anti-Trump op-ed she wanted to write in the form of a judicial opinion.

Judge Jackson has also shown real interest in helping terrorists. It is true you shouldn't judge a lawyer for being willing to take on an unpopular case, but you can certainly learn something about a lawyer whose cases they seek out. And for Judge Jackson and her friends in the liberal legal profession, these cases were not unpopular at all. Judge Jackson represented four terrorists as a public defender, one of whom she continued to represent in private practice voluntarily, and she voluntarily filed multiple friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of terrorists while in private practice.

To make matters worse, she apparently didn't even bother--when she was representing these terrorists, she didn't bother to establish a reasonable belief that what she filed with the court was factually true. Three of her four case filings were identical--word for word, comma for comma. She alleged identical facts and legal arguments in each case. The only differences between the briefs were the names and the case numbers. And in every one of those cases, she claimed the terrorists had never had any affiliation with the Taliban or al-Qaida. And in every one of those cases, she accused the Bush administration and American soldiers of war crimes.

And who are these supposed innocent victims of American war crimes who, according to Judge Jackson, had nothing at all to do with terrorism, no siree, nothing at all? One of her clients designed the prototype shoe bomb that was used in an unsuccessful attempt to blow up a passenger airplane. Another planned and executed a rocket attack on U.S. forces in Afghanistan. And a third was arrested in a raid on an al-Qaida explosives training camp. Yet in every case, she claimed that none of them had anything to do with terrorism--not a thing, totally innocent, just goatherders who were picked up by marauding American troops.

You know, the last Judge Jackson left the Supreme Court to go to Nuremburg and prosecute the case against the Nazis. This Judge Jackson might have gone there to defend them.

Judge Jackson also refused to answer one commonsense question after another. For example, when Senator Blackburn asked her what a ``woman'' is, she pretended not to know. I asked her who has more of a right to be in the United States, new citizens who follow the rules or illegal aliens whose very first act in the United States was to break our laws. Judge Jackson refused to answer.

When I asked the simple question of Judge Jackson whether releasing Guantanamo Bay terrorists would make us more safe or less safe, she again pretended not to know the answer, even though it is published by the Biden administration.

I also asked Judge Jackson if criminals were more or less likely to commit a crime if they knew they would be caught, convicted, and sentenced. I asked this pretty basic question at least three times. It was not a hard question; yet, again, she refused to answer.

Judge Jackson also refused to say whether packing the Supreme Court was a bad idea, even though the judge for whom she clerked and seeks to replace, Justice Breyer, and the late, sainted Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg--neither of whom are known for their conservative views--were both willing to publicly denounce such court-packing schemes by the Democrats.

Judge Jackson may feign ignorance, not because she doesn't know these answers, but because liberal judicial philosophy is all too often based on denying reality. As a judge, Judge Jackson has denied that reality again and again. Judge Jackson will coddle criminals and terrorists, and she will twist or ignore the law to reach the result that she wants. That is not what we need in a Supreme Court Justice, and that is why I will be voting against her nomination.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, I stand with a heavy heart, alongside Senator Boozman, to mourn the deaths of two great Arkansans, Arkansas Department of Corrections Sergeant Joshua Caudell and West Memphis firefighter Jason Lang. They both died as they lived: serving their fellow Arkansans.

Like every State, Arkansas is suffering terribly from the crime wave that has crashed across the country in the past 2\1/2\ years. Our men and women in law enforcement are on the frontline of this crisis, fighting against the forces of disorder, ridding our streets of poisonous drugs, facing down evil itself.

Sadly, too many in law enforcement have paid the ultimate price while protecting the innocent and fighting the guilty.

Honoring Sergeant Joshua Caudell

Madam President, last Monday, another Arkansan lost his life as an officer in the line of duty.

The other week, Pulaski County Sheriff's deputies were asked to check on a woman who hadn't shown up to work that day. Her friends were concerned about her well-being and wanted to make sure she was safe. When the deputies arrived at the woman's house, an armed assailant opened fire, forcing them to take cover and call backup. The shooter managed to escape, and deputies then called in canine officers to find the would-be cop killer.

One of the officers assigned to this dangerous job was Sergeant Joshua Caudell. Sergeant Caudell helped track the shooter to a trailer not far away. Tragically, unknown to the officers, the shooter was lying in wait underneath the trailer. He once again opened fire on the police, this time hitting Sergeant Caudell and killing him.

Sergeant Caudell was 29 years old. He had a wife and three children. My prayers and Senator Boozman's prayers reflect the prayers of all Arkansans going out to his family. We can only imagine their heartbreak and pain.

The heinous criminal who committed this murder is now in custody. He will face justice--stern, swift, and fair. And he must face the sternest justice possible because an attack on a law enforcement officer is also an attack on the rule of law, on order, on civilization itself.

Sadly, the slaying of Sergeant Caudell was not the only tragedy that befell our State in the last 2 weeks.

Honoring Jason Lang

Madam President, on Saturday, February 26, 20-year-old West Memphis firefighter Jason Lang was on his way to an EMT class when he saw that a stranger had gotten into a car accident. Exactly as you would expect from such a fine public servant, he pulled over, and he tried to help the crash victim. As he was selflessly helping the stranger, Jason was tragically struck by an 18-wheeler and killed.

Jason's death is a heartbreaking loss for our State. When Jason saw a fellow Arkansan in distress, he ran toward the danger. Every young boy and girl should aspire to serve their community with the same sense of bravery.

Today, all of Arkansas weeps red and blue. My heart and Senator Boozman's heart goes out to all Arkansas firefighters and police officers who do so much for our State each and every day.

President Reagan said in his first inaugural address that ``those who say that we're in a time'' without heroes ``just don't know where to look.'' Jason Lang and Joshua Caudell were, indeed, heroes; and we can look to them, and we can honor their legacy. God bless them, God bless their families, and God bless the State of Arkansas.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the world is in chaos everywhere you turn. In the last week, Vladimir Putin has launched an unprovoked, naked war of aggression against the people of Ukraine. The reason he did this is because of his imperial ambitions to reincorporate Ukraine into the greater Russian Empire in his mind but also because he perceived weakness and opportunity in the West and, regrettably, from President Biden.

We saw last night the President congratulated himself on the diplomatic coalition he has put together to confront Vladimir Putin. That is akin to Neville Chamberlain celebrating the coalition he assembled against Germany after Germany invaded Poland. The whole point was to deter Vladimir Putin. That failed. Why did that fail? Because for the last year, the President has projected weakness and signaled to Vladimir Putin that he didn't have the nerve to counteract his ambitions. His first action in office was to give Vladimir Putin his No. 1 foreign priority--a no-strings-attached extension of a one-sided nuclear arms control treaty. Shortly after that, he gave Vladimir Putin his second foreign priority. He waived sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. We didn't really take stern measures for the Colonial Pipeline hack from Russian-affiliated hackers. We rewarded Vladimir Putin with a high-stakes summit last summer.

But it is not just foreign policy; it is also domestic policy here at home. As day follows night, Vladimir Putin gets emboldened and more aggressive when the price of oil is higher. For the last year, the Biden administration has done everything they can to stifle the production of American oil and gas that would not only keep the price of gasoline lower for our citizens, keep the price of heating their homes lower, it would also constrain Vladimir Putin by reducing the revenues he has for his war machine.

But the Biden administration's war on oil and gas has, in fact, emboldened him, so much so that we are to this day still importing hundreds of thousands of barrels of Russian oil and petroleum products every day.

Since Vladimir Putin launched his naked war of aggression last week, we have filled his coffers with millions and millions of American dollars to fund his aggression against the Ukrainian people. We still haven't taken the steps necessary to stop this--sanctions on Russian oil and gas to cut off those revenues, to bankrupt Vladimir Putin's war machine, but also to continue the pressure that those sanctions impose,

to begin to once again pump more oil and gas here at home.

If we really wanted to add the pressure to Vladimir Putin that oil and gas sanctions would put on him, we would unleash a flood of American oil and gas into the market and deprive Vladimir Putin of those revenues. But, instead, on the very day--literally the very day-- last week when Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, President Biden halted all new oil and gas leases on Federal lands. Think about that. A ruthless dictator invades an innocent nation of 45 million souls, using oil and gas as a weapon against the West, which could come to the aid of that nation, and President Biden's action on that day was to halt all new oil and gas leases on Federal lands.

To the extent the President even talked about energy in his speech last night, he simply made pipedream promises about green energy that maybe will come true in a decade or two but will do nothing at the moment to deter Vladimir Putin and, in fact, will continue to embolden him by highlighting a lack of seriousness to confront and undermine his aggression.

In fact, the President only mentioned oil once last night in that entire speech when he bragged about releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which wouldn't fuel our country for even 2 days.

What we need is not half measures; we need a sustained, reliable, and affordable flow of American energy. That is why I am here to ask for unanimous consent for my bill ordering the Biden administration to start issuing new oil and gas leases for Federal lands.

It won't solve all of our problems, but it is an important and immediate step that we can take to start producing the American oil and gas that will undercut Vladimir Putin's war machine.

President Biden's foolish energy policy couldn't have come at a worse time for Ukraine, but we can begin to end it right now by putting our American oil and gas workers back to work. I urge my colleagues to stand with Ukraine and to support the bill. It is really a choice between American energy or Russian energy. We can decide.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3731, which is at the desk; further, I ask unanimous consent 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.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object because, here we are again, 2 weeks later and nothing has changed.

The Democrats and the Department of Justice once again want their well-connected and wealthy political nominees confirmed, while the Department of Justice hangs out to dry four career law enforcement officers and threatens them with fiscal ruin and bankruptcy.

The Senator from Illinois said I am having none of it. You are absolutely right; I am having none of it.

These officers, I remind you, faced down leftwing street militias for months in Portland. They were attacked with blinding lasers, ball bearings, Molotov cocktails. There were efforts to lock them into the courthouse and set it afire and burn them alive.

Now, the Senator from Illinois keeps saying that my objections are completely unrelated--those were his words--or had nothing to do with these nominees. We have heard this now for weeks. I don't know why he keeps repeating it. I will give my answer once again. I am not making objection to some random, unconnected agency. I am not upset that the Corps of Engineers didn't approve a water project in Arkansas.

I am not making some doomed-to-fail demand like Merrick Garland should resign in disgrace--though he should. I am making a very specific point about this Department.

If Merrick Garland and the Democrats want their political nominees to be confirmed on a fast-track basis, then they need to protect their career law enforcement officers from financial ruin and bankruptcy.

I have talked to these officers; the anxiety and the stress that this has created for them is real. They have received no explanation whatsoever beyond ``not in the interest of the United States.'' That is not an explanation; that is a conclusion.

Three of them haven't heard anything at all. It has been months-- actually, more than a year. The Senator from Illinois said the Department of Justice often represents law enforcement officers sued for actions in the line of duty. It is not ``often represents.'' It is ``almost always represents.''

I have spoken with multiple former Department of Justice leaders. They say they cannot remember a time when they declined to represent a law enforcement officer sued for actions in the line of duty.

The Senator from Illinois, once again, waves around the idea of a privacy waiver like it is a big ``gotcha'' or something. I don't have a privacy waiver, but I know what these officers would say. They would say, We have no idea what the Department would tell us.

So if the Senator from Illinois would like me to be a good bureaucrat and run off and get a privacy waiver, I guess I could do that. And then once they gave it to me, I would ask them, Why did you get denied coverage? And they would say, I don't know. They won't tell us anything.

The point of the matter here is that career law enforcement officers are being hung out to dry and facing financial ruin. And they cannot get an answer, and we cannot get an answer.

Now, is it possible they engaged in misconduct? Sure. It happens. However, I would note, as I did last time, that all four officers are on unrestricted active duty--unrestricted active duty. Three are in the special operations group. One is in the warrant group. Both assignments likely to result in situations where the threat of violence, and even lethal violence, is high.

If these officers somehow acted inappropriately in Portland to the point we can't represent them when they are sued by leftwing activists, surely, they shouldn't be serving high-risk warrants. Surely, they shouldn't be out on the street in the special operations group. So I can only infer that is not the case.

The Department of Justice won't tell us anything more. They won't tell these officers anything more. None of these facts has changed-- nothing in 2 weeks.

The only thing we know that we didn't know 2 weeks ago, actually, is that three of these marshals received an award for their service in Portland.

This is the award that was given out to marshals who risked their lives in defense of the Federal courthouse in Portland. I blurred out the names to protect the safety of those marshals, but, I assure you, their names are on there. They received an award for their service. They are being sued for that very service, and the Department of Justice won't represent them. They deserve answers.

The Senator from Illinois said that last night the President spoke about funding the police after the Democrats spoke for years about defunding the police. Well, I have a suggestion, How about funding these officers' legal defenses? How about that for funding the police?

Stand by the law enforcement officers who did their job and can't now get an explanation for why Merrick Garland is not standing by them.

And until that happens, I guess we can keep coming down here every week or 2 weeks because they deserve to be represented or we deserve a credible, fact-based explanation.

Now, I am just one Senator. I can't block these people forever. We can have a vote on them. We were in session yesterday for 10 hours; we didn't

have a single vote. On Monday night, we voted on late-term partial- birth abortion. If these are so important, we can have a vote on them. Or the Department of Justice could just do what it should, which is right and moral: It should represent law enforcement officers who are being sued for actions in the line of duty, or it should give an explanation for why they are not.

So I do object, and I will continue to object until that happens.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, which I most certainly will do, I will just address what the Senator from Illinois said.

He said he has heard no explanation for why I am objecting to every Department of Justice nominee moving forward on a fast-track basis. That is false. He has heard my explanation repeatedly. He may not like it, but he has heard it.

I am taking this stance on behalf of four brave U.S. marshals who defended the Federal courthouse in Portland from leftwing street militias associated with the BLM movement and antifa.

The summer of 2020 was part of riots all across our country, but in Portland these riots were particularly dangerous. Marshals were targeted with lasers to blind them, with ball bearings,

with fireworks. There were efforts to barricade them inside the courthouse and set it on fire to burn them alive. These marshals are heroes, and they should be celebrated. Anyone who says they support law enforcement should be defending these marshals.

Not surprisingly, leftwing activists and leftwing organizations, like the ACLU, are coming to the defense of the leftwing street militia that attacked these marshals, tried to burn down the Portland courthouse, suing marshals on frivolous grounds.

Many of these marshals are being defended by the Department of Justice, as is the Department of Justice's longstanding custom and practice to either provide representation for its law enforcement officers when they are sued in court or, if there is some conflict, to reimburse them and pay their legal fees. Four marshals are not being defended, though.

These four marshals are GS-11s, GS-13s. They have been serving our country for a lifetime. Many of them are veterans, veterans of foreign wars. They face financial bankruptcy and ruin because the Department of Justice won't represent them; in many cases, won't even give them an answer or explain why the representation was denied.

When I learned of this, I demanded answers. And the Department of Justice had no answers. So if my colleagues think that I am going to just roll out the red carpet for Department of Justice nominees to be confirmed to politically connected positions, while GS-11s and GS-13s are hung out to dry, they have another thing coming.

Now, some of you may say: Well, maybe there are investigations underway. Maybe these officers engaged in misconduct. We don't know. They won't give us answers. But here is what we do know: All four of them--all four--are currently on unrestricted Active Duty--unrestricted Active Duty.

And I would add, all four--all four--are in the Special Operations Group for the Marshals Service, which means to say they are the marshals who are most likely to be deployed nationwide and put in circumstances that risk their lives and call for them to use violence, to include lethal violence.

Now, I don't know the circumstances that led to the denial of representation of these four marshals or why some of them are being strung along, but I have to assume--I have to assume--that if they are on unrestricted Active Duty in the Special Operations Group of the Marshals Service, that Merrick Garland and Vanita Gupta can't have any doubts about their fitness to serve or their actions for all those weeks in Portland when they defended the courthouse from leftwing street militias.

I understand my colleagues want to get their U.S. attorneys or their U.S. marshals confirmed. Maybe there are people at Main Justice they want to get confirmed as well. That is very simple. We could do it today. We could hear from Merrick Garland or Vanita Gupta that they will defend these four U.S. marshals in court or we could hear a satisfactory answer of why they won't defend the marshals in court.

Is it because they were standing up to a leftwing street militia? Is it because they were taking a stance to defend Federal property from antifa? I don't know. We can't get an answer. Maybe my Democratic colleagues could get an answer.

But to think that I am just going to roll over and allow the Senate to fast-track nominees to the Department, when GS-11s and GS-13s, law enforcement officials, are being hung up to dry--sorry.

These are people--and I have talked to them--who were worried about buying Christmas gifts for their children last year because they had to pay legal fees, who are worried about paying the mortgage next month, who are worried about sending their kids to camp. Sorry if your lawyers have to wait for a week or two to get confirmed to the U.S. attorney's position. I am worried about four heroes who defended Federal property from leftwing street militias.

So, yes, I do object.

Madam President, I am surprised to hear the Senator from Illinois continue to refer to this as a political issue or a political story when we have career law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line to defend Federal property from leftwing street militias. And they are worried if they can put the food on the table for their children, if they can buy them gifts at Christmas, if they can put braces on them, if they can send them to summer camp.

I don't consider that a political issue; I consider it standing up for law enforcement--not just these four but every deputy marshal around the country who forms the backbone of the Marshals Service, the backbone of the Marshals Service all across the country, who have to wonder if maybe they are going to be the next one to be hung out to dry by the Department of Justice if they confront a rioter with the wrong politics.

This is not a political issue.

Now, the Senator from Illinois continues to speak about confidentiality and attorney-client privilege as if this is all information that has been communicated to these four marshals and they just don't want to share it with us here in the Senate. That is not the case. Three of them, I would say, haven't heard anything. In a lawsuit that is almost 18 months old, they have been told nothing yet. That is why they have had to go out and retain their own counsel.

One of them was denied representation with no more basis than saying it is not in the interest of the United States of America. Well, forgive me if I don't trust Vanita Gupta to determine what is in the interest of the United States when it comes to defending law enforcement.

These marshals are told that these determinations are final and there is no appeal and there is no recourse. Well, I am the recourse now.

The Senator from Illinois keeps talking about these urgent law enforcement needs in his own State of Illinois. I would point out that the position that is empty has been empty since 2018. If it was so urgent, the Senator from Illinois could have cooperated with the Trump administration and tried to fill it then. These U.S. attorney positions that are empty--President Biden fired all U.S. attorneys a year ago. If it was so urgent to have Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys in position, he could have asked them to continue to serve until he was able to find suitable replacements.

The Senator from Illinois also said: Well, Senator Cotton got his letter responded to. I am not looking for some courtesy exchange of letters here; I am trying to protect four U.S. marshals who defended the Portland courthouse from a leftwing street militia, who have been hung out to dry, imperiling the confidence of all marshals across the country in whether or not their political leadership at the Department of Justice will back them up when they are in a controversy. The Department still won't answer that. They won't

take any steps to answer it. They simply hide behind confidentiality and privilege just like they are hiding behind it with these four U.S. marshals--after 18 months.

What is so complicated? As the Senator from Illinois said, they are representing 70 others. What makes these four so different? Maybe they engaged in misconduct. Is that possible given the fact that they are all on unrestricted active duty in the Special Operations Group, the element of the marshals most likely to have to use violence, to include lethal violence? Would Merrick Garland and Vanita Gupta really send them back out on the streets if they had engaged in misconduct in Portland?

These marshals deserve better, and they could get better if the Department of Justice would just agree to represent them or if they would give a satisfactory, fact-based answer about why they are not representing them. Maybe some of my Democratic colleagues could call Merrick Garland or Vanita Gupta and ask them for such an answer or maybe just call them and say: Why don't you represent these four marshals? That seems like the obvious, satisfactory outcome for everyone here: U.S. marshals are represented in court, as they should be, and we can go back to fast-tracking Department of Justice nominees. But until we get to that outcome, we won't be fast-tracking Department nominees because I will continue to stand up for these brave men of law enforcement who deserve better from this Department of Justice.

Madam President, I feel like we are ships passing in the night here. I could go on and on about the exploits of these deputy marshals when they were Rangers and Green Berets and what they did in combat. But my Democratic colleagues aren't getting the heart of the matter: why they are being denied representation for defending the courthouse in Portland.

So I will direct a question to the Senator from Minnesota through the Chair: Does she believe that these four U.S. marshals should be represented in court like all other marshals are being represented?

Madam President, again, I feel like we are ships passing in the night, not getting to the point here. So I will address a question to the junior Senator through the Chair, slightly differently than when I spoke to the Senator from Minnesota.

If officers are returned to unrestricted Active Duty on the Special Operations Group, does the Senator believe that they should be represented for past incidents of alleged misuse of force?

Unfortunately, they don't have any information to divulge. That is part of my point. The Department of Justice won't tell them why they are not being represented.

If that is a question for me, I reject the premise of your question. I am not harming law enforcement; I am standing up for law enforcement.

Once again, if you deny four U.S. marshals legal representation because they stood up to leftwing street militias--which may be unpopular in certain quarters of your party--then you cause every marshal across the country and, for that matter, every law enforcement official across the country to doubt whether their political superiors are going to defend them in the future.

Look, if you want to have a broader debate about law enforcement, I can, but we are going to be here for a long time.

It is your party that voted in lockstep for the FIRST STEP Act that let thousands of violent felons back on the street who have now committed innumerable violent crimes. It is your party that marched and chanted in the streets for defunding the police. It is the Democratic floor leader who blocked my resolution in the summer of 2020 to condemn the ``defund the police'' movement. You all voted in lockstep to confirm Vanita Gupta, the Associate Attorney General, who is responsible ultimately for these decisions, even though I and other Republicans cautioned you she would use her position to wage a war on the police from the Department of Justice. That is what is happening now.

I am standing up for law enforcement.

To respond to the Senator from Illinois, it is true that President Trump signed the FIRST STEP Act. The FIRST STEP Act was the worst mistake of the Trump administration. Yes, it is true that a number of Republican Senators voted for it. They were wrong. They didn't start demanding that we defund the police in the summer of 2020. They condemned that. They stood up for law enforcement.

I yield the floor.

We keep hearing that this is unrelated, as if I am upset with something the Coast Guard did or the Corps of Engineers wants to improve some water project in Arkansas. These are Department of Justice nominees, and right now, the Department of Justice is not standing up for law enforcement officers by hanging these four marshals out to dry. That is why I am not agreeing to fast-track these nominees. I am not going to agree to fast-track political nominees while the Department of Justice hangs out to dry career law enforcement officers.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, so contrary to what the Senator from Ohio says, I am not offended by the lack of a letter or offended by something someone said. I'm offended that four U.S. marshals--four U.S. marshals had to decide whether they are going to have enough money to buy Christmas gifts for their kids, pay their mortgage next month, put braces on their kids, send them to summer camp because that is the position that the Department of Justice has put them in.

To recap, four U.S. marshals were among dozens deployed to Portland last summer to guard the courthouse from leftwing street militias. They were targeted with blinding lasers, ball bearings, fireworks. There was an effort to barricade them into the courthouse and set it afire to burn them alive.

Now leftwing activists in leftwing organizations like the ACLU are suing them, and the Department of Justice won't provide them representation, won't even tell them why they are not providing them representation.

Maybe they engaged in some kind of misconduct? Maybe it was excessive force? That would be strange, because all four of these deputy marshals are now back on unrestricted active duty with the special operations group of the Marshal Service, the element most likely to be sent into the most dangerous circumstances and have to use violence, including lethal violence.

It would be pretty strange to send them back to the special operations group with no restrictions if they engaged in some kind of misconduct in Portland. That is what this is about and what it does to undermine the faith and confidence of every career law enforcement professional in the Department of Justice.

So, no, I will not agree to fast-track political nominees to the Department when the Department leadership is hanging out to dry career law enforcement officers.

No, I have not. But I know that the response that that marshal received was that the denial of representation was not in the interest of the United States. No more----

No more facts, no more explanation, just like the three who are waiting for a determination and have been waiting for more than a year do not have any fact-based explanation.

This is exactly the point. Privacy waiver or not, what does it matter? Here is what we do know. Here is what we do know. That none of these four know why they were denied representation or why they haven't had a determination. We know that. And we know that they were sent back on unrestricted active duty to the special operations group.

I think the Department of Justice political leadership owes these brave law enforcement officers an answer before it hangs them out to dry and exposes them to risk of financial ruin and bankruptcy.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murray and I be allowed to complete our remarks before the scheduled rollcall votes.

Mr. President, for the past 2 years, our Nation's kids have suffered. They have suffered socially, academically, and psychologically at the hands of Democratic politicians, the Biden administration, and their political bosses in the teachers unions.

Although kids are at the lowest risk of hospitalization and death from the Wuhan coronavirus, they have endured and they continue to endure some of the most excessive, extreme, and suffocating COVID restrictions of any population in our country. This treatment has been nothing short of cruel. The politicians and the neurotic public health obsessives who enforce these policies should all hang their heads in shame.

There are few things in a kid's life, outside of family and church, that are more important to them than their school. For them, open and happy schools are precious. But for teachers union bosses like Randi Weingarten, they are just useful hostages.

For the better part of a year, teachers unions shut down our schools while they shook down politicians for more funding and benefits that they promised would allow them to reopen safely. Yet they kept schools closed. They kept kids masked.

Desperate parents watched their socially isolated kids fall behind while they engaged in Zoom schools, but the unions still dragged their feet.

When schools finally reopened, our kids faced insane coronavirus protocols. They weren't allowed to sit with friends at lunch. They weren't allowed to play at recess. They had to eat outside on freezing- cold days. And every moment of every day at every school, they were forced to wear a mask.

Confused and hyper kids naturally often rebelled, and they have been reprimanded and they have been punished for simply trying to play, trying to make friends, trying to breathe a little easier.

Some parents may think that masks work for their kids, and that is fine. If they want to, they can put their kids in a mask. They should be able to choose. But under Democratic-forced masking policies, parents have no choice at all. Tragically, but predictably--not just predictably--predicted--these absurd policies have had severe psychological effects on our kids. Suicide and mental health problems have skyrocketed in the past 2 years. Grades have plummeted, while depression has surged. And as is so often the case, those with the least have suffered the most.

But when parents dared to complain on behalf of their kids, they were condemned by teachers union bosses and by Democratic politicians as anti-science and extremists. They were investigated when Attorney General Merrick Garland sicced the Feds on parents who were simply going to school boards to protest these stupid policies. The Secretary of Education threatened to withdraw Federal funding from States and schools who did not have mask mandates.

Thankfully, the tide has begun to turn. Sometimes I hear the phrase ``the science changed.'' The science hasn't changed. What has changed is that there is an election coming and Democrats have seen the polling on this question. Now they are running scared, and they want to pretend that they didn't force your kid to wear a mask for 2 years.

You see it in States that are run entirely by Democrats: California, New Jersey, New York, the President's own Delaware. Just yesterday, across the river in Virginia, the State senate, to include many Democrats, voted not just to allow parents a choice but to prohibit mask mandates by local schools.

Yet, in many places, forced masking remains. Kids as young as 2, 3, 4 are still being forced to wear hot, restrictive, and ineffective masks for hours on end. Yes, ineffective because almost all those kids are wearing cloth masks, which don't even work. And that is not me speaking; that is the CDC speaking. These masks don't even work. Yet the kids are forced to wear them all day long.

I can tell you that most Democratic politicians don't think they work either. How do we know that? Look at the candidate for Governor in Georgia, Stacey Abrams--or maybe I should say the Governor of Georgia, since she still refuses to concede the 2018 election and many of my Democratic colleagues have endorsed her view that she is somehow the shadow Governor of Georgia. Just last week, photos emerged of her sitting in classrooms with masked kids grinning ear to ear, the only person not wearing a mask in the classroom.

Also, Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, was yucking it up at SoFi Stadium when the Rams played the 49ers, taking pictures--without a mask--with Magic Johnson and a bunch of other celebrities, while he enforced one of the most onerous mask mandates in the country.

What about Eric Garcetti, whose nomination to be the Ambassador to India is in front of the Senate right now, who said that pictures of him without a mask on are fine because he was holding his breath--I guess like Bill Clinton, who didn't inhale.

Barack Obama, pictures recently emerged of him standing outside-- outside--on the beach, without a mask, while all the peons who are building his multimillion-dollar beach compound were forced to wear a mask in front of him.

And I will let you in on something. The same goes for Democratic Senators. I was in a hearing this week. It was in a small, closed room. Not a single Democratic Senator wore a mask in that hearing in that room. The catch is, the TV cameras weren't on, so there wouldn't be video of them sitting in that closed room without a mask on.

But masks in school have become symbols of control and fear. They are not instruments of public health. It is past time for the mask mandates to end and for parents across this country to have a choice. That is why I am asking the Senate to pass my legislation today to require schools that receive Federal funding to give parents a simple choice on whether their kids should wear a mask.

If my Democratic colleagues will join me, we can get this done now, today. That is why I urge them to support this bill. And I ask, as if in legislative session, unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3604, which is at the desk; further, I ask unanimous consent 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.

Mr. President, I would simply reply to the remarks of the Senator from Washington, she asserted that I or others who oppose these mask mandates think that we know better. That is the whole point, though. It is not that we think we know better; I think that you, as a parent, know better. You know what is best for your child--not some Democratic politician, not some liberal superintendent, not some neurotic public health obsessive.

And, apparently, the Democrats have no problem using these Federal funds when it suits their neurotic policies. After all, the Department of Education last year threatened Federal funding for States and schools that did not permit mask mandates. The whole point of this exercise is this: the Democrats who think they know better than parents to make the choices for the parents' kids.

I am disappointed today that my Democratic colleagues want to continue to see kids forced to wear masks in schools across America, but, trust me, change is coming one way or another. It will be because Democratic politicians, like Gavin Newsom, run for the hills or because the American people repudiate them all in November.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, inflation is at its highest level in 40 years. Drug overdose deaths and illegal border crossings are at record levels. The murder rate is its highest since the 1990s. Russian troops are massing on Ukraine's border, and the President of the United States just green-lighted Vladimir Putin to invade. China is continuing its aggression.

So what have the Democratic floor leader and Senate Democrats spent the last 2 months doing? Trying to overturn 200 years of Senate rules and customs so that they can do things like ban voter ID nationwide and use your tax dollars to support political campaigns.

They tell us that Americans are living under Jim Crow 2.0, and they cite the recent Georgia election law as proof. Well, let's investigate this so-called voter suppression law.

Under the new law, the State of Georgia will have 17 days of early voting. If this is Jim Crow 2.0, then I have bad news because the Democratic leader's home State of New York and the President's home State of Delaware were engaged in I guess what you would call Jim Crow 3.0 as recently as last year because New York only had 9 days of early voting and Delaware had no days--zero days--of early voting.

Next, I have heard complaints that Georgia has reduced the number of ballot drop boxes in the State, even though they now require every county to have a drop box, as was not the case as recently as 2018, and that Georgia has added new security measures to prevent fraud.

Once again, I hate to break the news that the Democratic floor leader's home State of New York had zero ballot drop boxes and that the President's home State of Delaware allowed for just five last year.

Of course, one of the Democrats' favorite claims is that all of those terrible Republicans down in Georgia have stopped campaign and political workers from giving food and drinks to people who are waiting in line at the polls. Where could Georgia have gotten such an idea? Well, as it turns out, the Democratic floor leader's home State of New York also has a nearly identical law banning such electioneering near polling places.

The Democrats also say that voter ID is a kind of new Jim Crow. That might surprise the 69 percent of Black Americans who support voter ID.

Now, what are they up to? This is an especially good question, given the letter that 28 Democrats, still in the Senate, signed on April 7, 2017, to the leadership around here, urging them to oppose any effort-- any effort--to stop the Senate's tradition and custom of extended debate.

Some of those Senators are on the floor with us at this moment. I see the junior Senator from Illinois, the junior Senator from Hawaii, and the junior Senator from Maine, the Presiding Officer, for that matter. Many more were down here earlier.

I would invite, through the Chair, any of those Senators, if they would like to engage in a colloquy, to explain why they have changed their position since they signed that letter on April 7, 2017.

I guess I don't have any takers.

I will point out that out of the 28 Democrats who actually signed that letter--

I will certainly yield.

Well, I thank the Senator from Maine for explaining the change in position. I was not seeking an apology, merely an explanation, since I haven't heard that much over the last year or so.

I can respond to a few of these points. The Senator from Maine said it was the nature of the issue at stake. Well, first off, I will point out, I have the letter in front of me here. It is very short. It is only two paragraphs long, but there is nothing in there about the nature of the issue at stake, about whether we are talking about immigration or gun control or, in this case, election takeover laws.

The Senator from Maine referred to the cheap and easy filibuster. I don't necessarily agree with that characterization, but I would point out that that is exactly the kind of cheap and easy filibuster that was in place in 2017, when 28 Democrats signed this letter.

I will also point out that I wouldn't necessarily agree with the characterization that the current filibuster was created by accident in 1975. We are going to have a debate, but the rules and customs under debate today go back to the second decade, the second decade of the U.S. Senate. And, perhaps more importantly, every time those rules have been modified--up to and including the most recent changes on the legislative calendar--they have been modified in accordance with the rules, not using the nuclear option, breaking the rules so we can change the rules.

I also note we have had a few other signatories to that letter arrive. We have the senior Senator from Colorado. We have the senior Senator from New Hampshire. We have the senior Senator from Montana. And we have the letter's chief Democratic author, the junior Senator from Delaware.

I asked earlier, through the Chair, if any Senators would like to explain their change in position. Since those Senators have joined us, if they would like to explain their change, as well, I would invite them into colloquy.

I would be happy to yield.

I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Oregon. And I want to commend him for principled consistency on this question. He did not sign that letter.

In fact, one of the earliest conversations I had with any Democratic Senator in 2015 was with the Senator from Oregon about some of these very questions. He has had these reservations about the cloture rule, about the rights and customs of extended debate. He has not changed his on this position so I commend him.

I will point out, he mentioned the nuclear option on the Supreme Court. Of course, that simply followed what the former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid did in 2013 on the Executive Calendar.

I will also point out that that happened in February or March of 2017, if I recall. This letter was written in April of 2017.

But if there is no more extended debate on this question--oh, I would invite the Senator from Virginia, through the Chair.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I invite the Senator from Colorado to engage in colloquy.

Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma was directly addressed, and I believe he would like to engage in a brief colloquy.

Mr. President, before I move on from this letter, I just have to note that, as I have said several times, 28 Democrats in the Senate today signed that letter. Twenty-seven of them changed their position. There is one signatory who didn't change their position: the Senator from West Virginia. Not only did he not change his position in that letter he signed, he has been consistent from the very beginning.

He was also here in 2013 when we started down this path on the Executive Calendar. And there are differences, to be sure, between the Executive Calendar and the legislative calendar. The Senator from West Virginia is the sole signatory still in the Senate who has been consistent throughout, and I want to commend him for that.

And I want to note for the record the Senator from Arizona-- apparently, the only other Democratic Senator who will oppose this maneuver--did not sign the letter in 2017 because she was not in the Senate in 2017.

So, in conclusion, why are we doing all this? Why are we going down this road? Is it because this legislation is so popular, this issue is so important? You would think it was the top issue on the minds of a majority of Americans. But no, according to Gallup, only 1 percent of Americans list elections and Federal election takeovers as their top priority.

Maybe the majority of Americans support the procedural maneuvering here tonight, the overturning of 200 years of Senate rules and customs--nope, wrong again. According to a recent CBS poll, barely a third of Americans support this.

And while we are waiting here for the Democrats' doomed charge to overturn 200 years of Senate rules and customs and federalize our elections, Americans are dealing with very real, concrete, kitchen- table issues. Our people are getting poorer. Inflation rose by 7 percent over the last year, the highest rate in 40 years. Wages are failing to keep up. Inflation might not be so bad for some of the millionaires around here, with their stock portfolios and their real estate, but for most Americans it is crippling, and it is most crippling for those who can least afford it.

I shouldn't have to point out that people are dying in our communities all across the country. Murder was up by its highest record level in the keeping of modern records last year, and it is up again this year, at a time when we also have 100,000 Americans dying of overdoses, the highest number ever reported--another grim record.

Meanwhile, America is being overwhelmed at our southern border. Border Patrol is stopping more than 175,000 illegal immigrants at our southern border each month. We can only guess how many more are getting through.

These are all the real problems that the American people have told us repeatedly they want us to address, but we haven't heard much about those problems. We are not here in session this week to debate those problems. The Democrats apparently don't want to acknowledge these crises because they created these crises and they have no solution for these crises.

I yield the floor.