Floor Statements

Madam President:

Right now, we are on the precipice of a constitutional crisis. We are about to step into the abyss. I want to talk for a few minutes why we are on that precipice and why we are looking into the abyss.

Let me first ask a fundamental question: What is the crisis

that calls for the undoing of two centuries of tradition? . .

. Are . . . Senators merely doing their jobs as legislators,

responding to a generalized public calling for the abolition

of the filibuster? Clearly not. It is not the American people

at large who are demanding detonation of the nuclear option.

[T]he nuclear option is being pushed largely by the

radioactive rhetoric of a small band of radicals who hold in

their hands the political fortunes of the President.

Constitutional scholars will tell us that the reason we

have these rules in the Senate--unlimited debate, two-thirds

to change the rules, the idea that 60 have to close off

debate--is embodied in the spirit and rule of the

Constitution. . . . That is what the Constitution is all

about, and we all know it.

It is the Senate where the Founding Fathers established a

repository of checks and balances. It is not like the House

of Representatives where the majority leader or the Speaker

can snap his fingers and get what he wants. . . . On

important issues, the Founding Fathers wanted--and they were

correct in my judgment--that the slimmest majority should not

always govern. . . . The Senate is not a majoritarian body.

The bottom line is very simple: The ideologues in the

Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called the

cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of

dictatorship. . . . They want to make this country into a

banana republic where if you don't get your way, you change

the rules! Are we going to let them? It'll be a doomsday for

democracy if we do.

I, for one, hope and pray that it will not come to this.

But I assure my colleagues, at least speaking for this

Senator . . . I will do everything I can to prevent the

nuclear option from being invoked not for the sake of myself

or my party but for the sake of this great Republic and its

traditions.

Those are powerful words, but they are not mine. Every word of my speech today was originally spoken by our esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer. Senator Schumer spoke so eloquently in defense of the Senate's rules, customs, and traditions when the fortunes of his party looked a little different. My, how times have changed. Now it is Senator Schumer's fingers that are hovering over the nuclear button, ready to destroy the Senate for partisan advantage.

Think about it. The narrowest majority in Senate history wants to break the Senate rules to control how voters in every State elect Senators. Could there be a better argument to preserving the Senate's rules, customs, and traditions?

So, before it is too late, let us reflect on the wise and eloquent words of Senator Schumer's, words that are as true today as they were when he spoke them, even if Senator Schumer is singing a different tune today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I oppose passage of the Inspector General Act. This bill or similar versions of it have been around for at least a decade now. To my knowledge, the Judiciary Committee hasn't had a hearing on this specific issue--certainly hasn't had one this year.

As my colleagues have said, this bill has bipartisan support, and they have a principled position on the bill. The Senator from Illinois pointed out that he supports the bill now that Merrick Garland is the Attorney General, just like the Senator from Utah supported it when Bill Barr was the Attorney General, just like the Senator from Iowa supported it when Bill Barr was the Attorney General. So it is true it has bipartisan support. Bipartisanship can cut another way as well.

To my knowledge, every Attorney General, both Democratic and Republican, has opposed this bill since the very beginning of the inspector general for the Department of Justice.

Both the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Utah used the word ``loophole''--a loophole that an inspector general can't investigate attorneys in the Department of Justice. That implies it was an unintended consequence. That simply is not the case.

In 1988, when Congress created the inspector general for the Department of Justice, Congress had detailed negotiations with the Department of Justice under the leadership of Attorney General Thornburgh, and they reached a compromise to keep investigations of allegations of attorney professional misconduct within the responsibility of the Office of Professional Responsibility.

In 2007, Eric Holder--not someone whom I usually cite as an authority--after he had been the Deputy Attorney General, called an earlier version of this bill ``deleterious and unnecessary,'' and he said he ``believe[s] strongly'' that it ``would create additional opportunities for improper political concerns to influence law enforcement decisions.'' In other words, Eric Holder thought the bill would compound the problem it purported to address.

In 2017, the Department of Justice once again articulated similar concerns with the bill.

Just yesterday, I can relay, the esteemed Judge Michael Mukasey--also a former Attorney General--said that he opposed the expansion of inspector general authority into allegations of attorney professional misconduct, which has always been handled competently by the Office of Professional Responsibility. Judge Mukasey also relayed that he would be happy to testify at a hearing at a later date on such legislation.

I share some of those same concerns raised about this bill, and I think at the very least we should have a hearing on what would be a significant change in the way the Department polices allegations of attorney misconduct to study its relevance and its impact.

I want to note that the Office of Professional Responsibility historically has conducted its investigations with integrity and competence. I did not hear any allegations to the contrary today either. That is in part because it is composed of attorneys--both former prosecutors and former defense attorneys--who have decades-- decades--of experience and a special expertise in legal ethics rules and the many complicated decisions any Department attorney makes in the process of charging grand jury proceedings or jury trials. The inspector general and his investigators simply do not have that expertise. The inspector general is charged with investigating waste, fraud, and abuse.

We also heard some today about independence and alleged conflicts of interest. I have to say I am also concerned that this bill would create a serious conflict of interest itself if the inspector general is given broad authority to investigate allegations of attorney professional misconduct.

The inspector general can and does refer criminal matters to Department prosecutors. Let's say a prosecutor declines to prosecute one of these referrals. An inspector general could then come up with any reason to investigate that prosecutor.

I think we all agree that the determination of who will be prosecuted or not be prosecuted lies with and must constitutionally lie with the Attorney General and that the inspector general should not be able to influence who is prosecuted or not prosecuted with the looming threat of potential investigation.

I, of course, as the Senator from Iowa said, do not want to see a government of the bureaucrats. But I would point out that the inspector general is a bureaucrat. The Attorney General is a politically accountable officer of the United States.

I also have concerns that this bill could empower criminals.

Criminals can additionally use the inspector general to try to harass Federal prosecutors by making unfounded targets of Federal investigations. With the wrong inspector general and with the wrong political climate, a career prosecutor could be under pressure by leftwing jailbreak advocates into dropping cases against violent criminals,

pursuing cases against police officers who have broken our laws. It is not surprising that this bill is supported by leftwing groups such as the ACLU, Demand Progress, and the Brennan Center.

The inspector general could easily weaponize professional misconduct investigations also to defeat anti-crime policies the executive branch chooses to pursue. Imagine, for instance, an inspector general who refused to dismiss allegations of racism when the U.S. Attorneys' Office simply chooses to prioritize gun prosecutions in high-crime areas. Such investigations have a chilling factor, of course, on other offices for prioritizing similar prosecutions.

We also heard some about transparency. But I would note this bill does not necessarily provide more transparency, because, just like the Office of Professional Responsibility, the inspector general is governed by the Privacy Act, rules pertaining to grand jury materials and court orders sealing documents. This bill would not change that.

If it is punishment and sanctions that the bill is concerned about, I would also note that the Office of Professional Responsibility is not responsible for the legal level of discipline imposed. That falls, instead, to the Professional Misconduct Review Unit, the unit created by then-Attorney General Eric Holder in 2014. Expansion of inspector general jurisdiction would not change where that responsibility falls.

I, of course, share concerns with my colleagues about politically motivated prosecutions or prosecutions pursued by so-called glory seekers. But I do not want to proceed down a path where we unintentionally exacerbate the very problem we are trying to solve. Therefore, Mr. President, I object.

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

Mr. President, 20 years ago this week, the People's Republic of China became a member of the World Trade Organization. There was great rejoicing across Washington by lobbyists and politicians and bureaucrats and, for that matter, among corporate CEOs and Wall Street bankers and perhaps most of all, the Communists in Beijing. But for Americans out in the heartland, in places like Arkansas, China's entrance into the WTO was nothing to celebrate. That was the moment their leaders left them exposed to the predations of the Chinese Communist Party.

Millions of Americans lost good-paying blue-collar jobs to the China trade shock in the years that followed. Countless small towns, Main Streets, and working-class neighborhoods were gutted and boarded up. Michigan lost 24 percent of its manufacturing jobs. Ohio lost 27 percent of its manufacturing jobs. My home State has lost 26 percent of all of our manufacturing jobs since China joined the World Trade Organization. Families were shattered and communities crumbled. The opioid crisis killed thousands of those who were left behind.

Twenty years ago was nothing less than the beginning of the great hollowing of our Nation's industrial base, economy, and working class. It is worth recalling what our leaders said and what they promised as they unleashed this disaster.

During the yearslong lobbying campaign for China, then-President Bill Clinton said it was ``ironic . . . that so many Americans are concerned about the impact on the world of a strong China.'' From an economic standpoint, he said, ``this agreement is the equivalent of a one-way street.'' In other words, it was all upside for America if only all those knuckle-draggers who opposed the Chinese Communist Party entering the World Trade Organization would get out of the way.

Now, that attitude was the conventional wisdom in Washington for years, and it was in both parties, to be sure. Four years after China joined the WTO, Republican U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick reflected that ``our policy has succeeded remarkably well: the dragon emerged and joined the world.''

Well, it turns out--not surprisingly--that this dragon has fangs and claws, and now it is sitting on top of a vast pile of looted wealth. It is clear that our leaders and their naivete have created a monster by admitting China to the WTO. Let's just review some of the numbers.

Since 2001, China's economy has grown by nearly 1,200 percent, transforming a third-world backwater into the second largest economy, largest exporter, and dominant industrial power in the world. The PRC today makes one out of every four automobiles in the world--more than the United States, Japan, and South Korea combined. Combined. It makes one out of every three merchant ships. In the United States, we make basically none. In addition, China produces 40 percent of mobile phones, 70 percent of televisions, and 96 percent of shipping containers on which global commerce moves.

Equally worrisome, China has gained a stranglehold over the production of essential materials. China produces more than half of the world's steel, two-thirds of its active ingredients in our generic drugs, and processes 85 percent of rare earth elements, 85 percent which are used in everything from the smartphone in your pocket to advanced fighter jets.

China is also making strides in advanced technology. A few years ago, China's space agency sent the world's first quantum communications satellite into orbit. It already possesses 200 of the world's 500 fastest supercomputers. And Chairman Xi Jinping has pledged an astounding $1.4 trillion over 6 years to help China take the lead in cutting-edge fields like semiconductors and artificial intelligence.

The stark fact is that China controls nearly a quarter of global trade. A stunning 70 percent--70 percent, 7 out of 10 countries--in the world trade more with China than with the United States.

Now, it would be one thing if China had gotten rich and powerful the honest way, through fair competition and trade with other countries.

Instead, China has gotten rich through a criminal spree of intellectual property theft, industrial espionage, strong-arm trade agreements, and illegal subsidies and protection or as the office of U.S. Trade Representative wrote:

China has continued to embrace a state-led, non-market and

mercantilist approach to the economy and trade, despite WTO

members' expectations--and China's own representations--that

China would transform its economy and pursue the open,

market-oriented policies endorsed by the WTO.

``Despite WTO's members' expectations.'' WTO members are stupid if they expected China to change its ways.

But in other words, China lied, and the rest of the world has paid the price. China is the world's most prolific IP thief, stealing the equivalent of Arkansas' economy two times over every year, year after year. And that is just the beginning.

The Chinese Government recruits its citizens working and studying in our

country to act as spies, infiltrating our research laboratories and companies and college campuses to steal valuable secrets. Chinese nationals are the subject of nearly half--half--of all FBI counterintelligence cases involving economic espionage.

The Chinese Communist Party also uses illegal subsidies and trade practices like dumping to help its ``national champions'' offload their stolen goods below-market prices. The Chinese Government has poured tens of billions of dollars into its steel industry, encouraging overcapacity to flood foreign markets with cheap Chinese steel. As a result, China's production of crude steel rose from 15 percent of the world's total to 50 percent between 2000 and 2017, while 64 percent of America's raw steel producers were totally wiped out, two-thirds of it gone.

Of course, the World Trade Organization exists--supposedly, allegedly--to curb these kinds of abuses, but it has utterly failed to get China to change its ways and live up to its promises. If anything, under Chairman Xi, China has dropped even the pretense that it is on the path to freeing its economy and society.

Twenty years after China entered the WTO, it is clear that China has betrayed our trust and is waging an economic war against us. We didn't seek out this conflict, but now that it has started, we have no choice but to finish it.

Congress can start by passing my bill, the China Trade Relations Act, to terminate China's permanent normal trade relations status. We ought to acknowledge there is nothing normal about our trading relationship with China, and we cannot afford the state of affairs to be permanent. We should return to the pre-WTO status quo that recognized China as a nonmarket, communist country, to which I would add now, committing genocide against its own people. If we do this, we can begin to correct the historic mistake our leaders made 20 years ago when they welcomed China into the WTO with open arms and open wallets and unleashed that dragon on the world.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.

The Senate is a special institution. It is a unique institution. James Madison said the Senate was the only truly innovative part of our Constitution.

It remains the case today that our Senate is the only upper Chamber in a Western parliament that has more power under our Constitution than does the lower Chamber. That is in part because of the design of the Senate in our Constitution; because of our Senate rules, of our traditions, of our customs.

We have heard a lot about courtesy and collegiality and respect. Those are very important customs around here, but it has to be a two- way street.

Earlier this year, in the Judiciary Committee, during the markup for Vanita Gupta to be Associate Attorney General, I was speaking, as is my right under the Judiciary Committee rules. There was at least one other Republican Senator who was preparing to speak. There may have been more. The Senator from Illinois, in his role as

chairman of the committee, cut off my remarks and forced through the vote on Vanita Gupta, all so he could save 1 week to get her confirmed--just 1 week.

I said right here at this desk 9 months ago that when our rules and our traditions are so flagrantly breached, there has to be some kind of consequence, and I outlined exactly what that consequence would be at the time: that I would not expedite consideration, as the Senator from Illinois rightly observes is the custom here, for any U.S. attorney nominee from a State represented by a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee because if there are not consequences when rules and traditions are breached in this institution, we will soon not have rules and traditions.

Now, I also said that if the Senator from Illinois would simply express regret for what happened that day and pledge that it wouldn't happen again, I would be happy to let all of these nominees move forward. We have communicated this to the Senator from Illinois and his staff on multiple occasions. I reiterated today that I would be happy to confirm these nominees in the following few minutes if the Senator from Illinois would simply express regret for what happened in the hearing that day and commit that it won't happen again, which, I say again, is simply committing that we follow our own rules. If we hear that from the Senator from Illinois, we will have five new U.S. attorneys.

And I see the Senators from Rhode Island and Hawaii and New Jersey are here. As the Senator from Illinois said, I have no objection to moving forward with any of these particular nominees. All these States can have their U.S. attorneys this afternoon, but if not, I will have to continue to insist that we not expedite these nominations. So I object.

Mr. President, I would like to address the Chair with a question to the Senator from Illinois.

I appreciate those comments. I would observe that since that day, we have not had a similar circumstance in which any Republican wishing to speak was cut off in a markup.

Can we simply have a commitment that that will not happen again in the future, as it hasn't happened in the last 9 months?

Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks from the Senator of Illinois. I will invite him to make his unanimous consent request again. I do not intend to object further. And a voice vote is fine.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the 433rd Fighter Weapons Squadron, which began providing advanced instructor training to experienced F-15 pilots on January 3, 1978, as part of the USAF Fighter Weapons School. The 433rd Fighter Weapons Squadron was deactivated on June 1, 1981, and designated the U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School, F-15 Division. On February 3, 2003, the 433rd was reactivated and designated the 433rd Weapons Squadron, once again retaining its informal name, ``The Barnyard.'' Though the squadron name has changed over the last 43 years, the tradition established by the individuals of the institution has remained consistent.

December 11, 2021, is graduation day for the pilots of the F-15 Barnyard, bringing the total to 511 F-15 patch wearers. That is 511 individuals who, over the last 43 years, have shouldered the burden of responsibility in training and preparing America's fighting force to go to war in the F-15 air superiority fighter. They are the pilots who have flown on the front lines of aerial combat when called upon by their nation. They are the warriors who lead their wingmen safely home. The graduates of the F-15 division have collectively preserved the Eagle's undefeated record in combat, suffering no losses during its time in service. Twelve of the F-15 Weapons School graduates account for 18 of the F-15's 38 air-to-air victories.

It is no surprise that those who have passed through the 433rd Weapons Squadron, F-15 Division have gone on to do great things and achieve high-ranking positions, in and out of the military. The tradition of the F-15 Division is rooted in the never-ending pursuit of excellence in aerial combat. Throughout their history, the fighter pilots of the Eagle Division have devoted themselves to a worthy cause with enthusiasm, devotion, and discipleship. They have trained and led the pilots who have enabled air supremacy for our forces around the world and in numerous conflicts.

The fighter pilots of the 433rd Weapons Squadron, F-15 Division join a long lineage that has ensured air superiority for our Nation. From DESERT STORM, to ALLIED FORCE, to SOUTHERN and NORTHERN WATCH, and IRAQI FREEDOM, the fighter pilots of the F-15 Division of the Weapons School have ensured that control of the skies is never in question. The 433rd Weapons Squadron, F-15 Division has stood on the shoulders of the giants and dared to reach higher. It has established itself in the history of this great Nation and its contributions to national defense are highly commendable. Their brave pilots now pass the torch to the next generation of air superiority warriors.

Mr. President, Jerome Powell was a better choice for Federal Reserve Chair than Lael Brainard, but that alone is not a good enough reason to confirm Chairman Powell for a second term. Chairman Powell has presided over a series of failures at the Fed, while the Fed's actions during his tenure have harmed working-class Americans and worsened inequality. The Senate should not support his renomination.

The core mission of the Federal Reserve from the very beginning has been to foster stable prices and ensure a sound currency. No one--no one--can seriously argue that the Fed has accomplished this mission under Mr. Powell's leadership. After years of reckless policy and months of obfuscation, inflation now exceeds 6 percent, the highest rate of inflation in 30 years--the highest rate of inflation in 30 years.

An inflationary economy rewards will-be speculators and the holders of large assets and debts like, for instance, the Federal Government or giant corporations, but it ruins responsible citizens who are just trying to save for their retirements or maybe their kids' colleges.

In the worst-case scenario, the value of money can collapse, endangering society itself. In less catastrophic but still serious conditions, Americans who have played by the rules for many years, responsibly working and saving, see the value of their money slowly erode over time.

Nearly half of all Americans have no exposure whatsoever to the stock market, not a single stock or mutual fund or pension--no exposure to the stock market. Their money is usually held in low-interest checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, and cash. The Fed's extreme low-interest-rate policy means their thrift and prudence earns them nothing. In fact, it sets them back every day with this inflationary spiral. Money outside the stock market loses value every day when inflation is at 30-year highs and interest rates are near record lows.

Likewise, 6 percent inflation has totally wiped out any nominal wage gains for workers. In fact, inflation-adjusted weekly earnings are down 1.6 percent compared with a year ago. Real inflation-adjusted wages are down from last year when employers across the country report shortages of workers. That is because inflation is eating away at all those wage gains. And there is no guarantee that inflation at 6 percent is the ceiling.

Still, the Fed has refused to change course even as prices rose on everything from groceries to gasoline. Chairman Powell insisted for months that the pain was only ``temporary'' or ``transitory.'' According to so-called ``experts,'' inflation would simply vanish once Pete Buttigieg sorted out the supply chains and we got the Delta variant under control. But after months of skyrocketing prices, Chairman's Powell's confidence looks not only misplaced and misinformed but reckless.

This week, Mr. Powell admitted that he would retire--retire--the word ``transitory,'' the very word he helped popularized. If only American families could so easily retire the devastating effects of inflation on their monthly budgets.

Mr. Powell has directly contributed to this inflation. He has maintained the Fed's so-called emergency monetary policies a decade after the emergency of the financial crisis had ended. That means the Fed had already exhausted the normal tools of monetary policy when the pandemic hit last spring. It had to prop up the economy through unprecedented levels of government intervention. These policies,

while perhaps justified for a very brief period of uncertainty in the spring of 2020--very brief--policies which included huge purchases of government bonds, mortgage debt, and corporate debt--but they were not justified after that, just as they weren't justified before it, even as the Fed was continuing unparalleled levels of quantitative easing.

As a result, the Fed's balance sheet has ballooned to $9 trillion, and it continues to grow by more than $100 billion a month. Nine trillion dollars. Let me put that in perspective. The Fed's balance sheet after the financial crisis barely surpassed $2 trillion.

The chief result of these policies during the pandemic has been to boost asset prices, especially the stock market valuations of giant corporations. But the price of these gains has been inflation, which especially harms working-class Americans. After releasing a torrent of cash into the economy, it is no surprise that prices are rising in this flood of cheap money.

This week, Chairman Powell testified that he might--he might--unwind these policies a little faster than previously planned, but even if the Fed follows through--and I will believe it when I see it after the last many years of radical emergency monetary policy--it will still be too little, too late.

The simple fact is, the Fed, under Chairman Powell's leadership, has forced millions of American families to choose whether to pay the mortgage or feed their families or fill up their gas tanks, heat their homes, or maybe buy a couple of extra Christmas presents. That is failure.

While inflation is the Fed's worst failure under Chairman Powell, it is not their only failure. At a time when they cannot achieve their core mission of price stability, they are adopting ancillary missions like ``woke'' activism at the Fed. The Fed has joined an international effort devoted to ``greening'' the financial system, whatever that means. Fed branches around the country are even spreading critical race theory, claiming that terms like ``Founding Fathers'' and ``blacklist'' are ``biased'' and sharing radical materials that claim that--this is a direct quote from some of the materials that Fed branches have shared-- ``race-neutral policies uphold racism.'' Think about that. The Fed's core mission is to maintain price stability. While they fail on that mission, they are teaching their employees that race-neutral policies are racist.

We might chuckle and shake our heads and have a good laugh when this kind of nonsense happened at Bard College or some other college campus, but now it is happening at the Nation's central bank, which plays a role in determining whether we end up rich or poor. This mission creep is alarming, especially when the Fed is failing to fulfill its core mission.

I know many people have made excuses for the Fed, and they defended Mr. Powell's tenure. They said inflation was not his fault or primarily the Fed's fault. But it is true the Democrats have been spending trillions of dollars this year we don't have. But, as Bill Parcells said about NFL teams, you are what your record says you are. The Fed's record is 6 percent inflation, the worst inflation in 30 years.

Most Americans live in a world of accountability and consequences, the lack of which is one of the things they hate most about Washington. Failure in Washington is too often rewarded. The Fed has manifestly failed during Chairman Powell's tenure, further skewing our economy in favor of the wealthy while the working class suffers. There have to be consequences for this kind of failure. Jerome Powell is not the right choice to continue to lead the Federal Reserve.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, in a couple of hours, Senator Schumer is bringing to the floor one of the most dangerous pro-crime, anti-cop U.S. nominees in American history. The Senate floor leader wants to ram through President Biden's extreme nominee to be the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts, the current Suffolk County district attorney, Rachel Rollins. In doing so, the Democrats are showing they don't care about crime as a crime wave crashes across the country, they do not support law enforcement, and they have a wanton disregard for the safety and security of Americans.

Now, it is true that we rarely have record votes of U.S. attorneys in the Senate. In fact, I think it has been 28 years.

It is also true that Rachael Rollins is so radical that she is without precedent as a nominee to be the U.S. attorney.

Rachael Rollins is the very epitome of a Soros prosecutor, although it is generous to call her a prosecutor at all.

For those of you who do not know the term, ``Soros prosecutor'' refers to the wave of so-called progressive political activists backed by wealthy liberal mega donors like George Soros, who have run for local district attorney and State attorney positions throughout the country with the express purpose--the express purpose of igniting revolution and destroying our criminal justice systems from within.

They have left a trail of death, pain, suffering, and misery in their wake. Chicago has already had more than 1,000 murders this year--1,000 murders, with a month to go. Philadelphia has already had more than 500--already an all-time record. Crime is so bad in San Francisco, they closed downtown on Black Friday to avoid gangs of armed robbers smashing into retail stores and stealing everything in sight. They closed it on Black Friday because Chesa Boudin, the radical Soros prosecutor in San Francisco, has helped a crime wave destroy public safety in San Francisco so much that the liberals in that city have already announced a recall petition against him.

And perhaps most notoriously, just last weekend, in Waukesha, a career criminal with a rap sheet as long as your arm committed mass murder--one of the deadliest massacres in recent years--while he was out on $1,000 bail; $1,000 for a career criminal who consistently committed violent crimes for 20 years. And the Soros prosecutor in Milwaukee who let him out acknowledged that it may have been inappropriately low.

But that is not the unintended consequence; that is the intended consequence: to destroy our criminal justice system from the inside, to let violent, repeat felons out immediately and not keep them on bail, and then to not charge them with the appropriate crimes, and then to reduce their sentences when they are convicted.

What do they all have in common?

They are all pro-criminal, Soros prosecutors, just like Rachael Rollins--the first one to be nominated for U.S. attorney.

Now, she is not simply a Soros prosecutor, she is one of the most preeminent legal arsonists in the country. She is a founding member of an organization of Soros prosecutors called the Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation Commission, which claims that the American justice system--and this is a quote; this is a direct quote--has ``been a cruel and oppressive force of injustice for . . . all marginalized communities.''

And she also claims--this is, again, a direct quote--``this isn't a bug in the

system, but a feature. It's operating exactly the way it was designed and built to function.''

That is her view of our criminal justice system, that it is a cruel and oppressive force of injustice for marginalized communities; that is not a bug; that is a feature.

That is textbook critical race theory.

Rachael Rollins believes that the American criminal justice system is racist and rotten to its core, and the Democrats want to put her in charge of prosecuting criminals in the largest State in New England. Rollins hopes to destroy the criminal justice system from within. That is not hyperbole. She has not been shy about her views, until she was nominated for this office, of course.

When asked why she became a prosecutor last year, she answered-- again, this is a direct quote. I am not making it up. You may find it hard to believe. This is her own words why she wanted to be a prosecutor: ``I chose to jump into this job to dismantle the system from the inside.''

Soon after being sworn in as district attorney of Suffolk County, MA, she declared that she was going to battle--going to battle--against the U.S. attorney on offenses like opioids, marijuana, and immigration.

Just think about that. A newly elected prosecutor in the largest city of the State decided that her mission was not to stop criminals, not to protect innocent civilians, but to stop the U.S. attorney in that State from prosecuting criminals, and now she wants that job for herself.

I don't think so.

Mrs. Rollins also published a list of 15 crimes that she would refuse to prosecute except in special cases, sending the clear message to criminals that it was open season to commit these crimes.

Among the crimes on Rollins' presumptive do-not-prosecute list are not just things like jaywalking, but things like drug trafficking with intent to distribute, including fentanyl, malicious destruction of property, criminal threats, breaking and entering, trespassing, resisting arrest, and more.

This isn't an exercise of prosecutorial discretion in a case with exceptional circumstances. This is prosecutorial nullification. The Legislature of Massachusetts passed criminal laws that prosecutors are elected to enforce, and she refuses to enforce them.

What do you think she will do to our Federal criminal laws?

What do you think she will do to you if you are a homeowner in Suffolk County and someone trespasses on your yard and walks up to your window to see if you are home or not?

And if you are not, they will break and enter because you won't be prosecuted. And if you are home, well, they will just walk off the lawn and wait until you leave. And you dial 9-1-1, and the police won't even answer because they know Rachael Rollins won't prosecute you.

And this is the woman that Joe Biden nominated to be a U.S. attorney in this county. I don't think so.

Rollins has tarred police officers as murderers, causing the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association to condemn her for ``undoubtedly incit[ing] violence against the proud men and women of the Boston Police Department.''

Her response, naturally, was to accuse the Boston police of ``white fragility.'' That is not a summary; that is an exact quote. She accused the Boston police of ``white fragility.''

There is a word for what Mrs. Rollins traffics in, and that word is ``racism;'' presuming that every officer in the Boston Police Department is guilty of ``white fragility,'' presumably the Black and the Hispanic and the Asian ones too.

The truth is that Rollins has nothing but contempt for the rule of law. If she is confirmed, the citizens of Massachusetts and New Hampshire and all of New England will suffer the dangerous consequences. We have already seen these consequences in her own county.

In 2020, the first full year in which her policies have been in force, Boston's violent crime rate surged, and the number of murders skyrocketed by 38 percent.

When Rollins took office, Suffolk County had the fifth highest opioid overdose death numbers in Massachusetts, with 39 percent fewer deaths than the leading county. By the end of 2020, not surprisingly, Suffolk County's opioid overdose deaths had increased by 32 percent, and Suffolk County had become the second deadliest county for opioid overdoses.

If Rollins' abysmal record is brought to Massachusetts as a whole, it also poses a significant threat to the health and safety of the people of New England, especially New Hampshire--a threat that extends beyond the 100,000 Granite Staters who work in Massachusetts.

Rollins' insane drug policies would worsen the drug epidemic, which is already ravaging New Hampshire. The opioid crisis, which is fueled by narcotics smuggled from Massachusetts, is responsible for over 80 percent of drug overdose deaths in New Hampshire. Cartels and traffickers use Boston and its ports as a staging ground to smuggle vast quantities of heroin and other drugs into New Hampshire.

Rollins' failure to vigorously enforce Federal drug laws in Massachusetts will severely harm families and communities not just in her own State, but in New Hampshire and across New England.

Rollins' appalling statements, actions, and records caused Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to unanimously-- unanimously--oppose her nomination. That is a nearly unprecedented action for a U.S. attorney nomination, and it is not one that we took lightly.

By contrast, for example, Republicans have allowed President Biden's other 15 U.S. attorney nominees across the country to go through committee with a simple voice vote. It goes to show that Mrs. Rollins is uniquely unfit for the role of U.S. attorney and deserves no deference from the Senate and no confirmation.

If the Democrats vote to confirm Rachael Rollins, they will be responsible for every action she takes. It is not a secret. It is right here in her record. And when crime spikes in Massachusetts and crime spikes in New Hampshire, Democratic Senators who are on the ballot next year are going to answer for it.

And I promise I will be there to make you answer for it if you vote for her today.

And if you are a Soros prosecutor around the country watching this nomination today and you think maybe you are next if Ms. Rollins is confirmed, maybe you can be the U.S. attorney, maybe you can be the attorney general in your State, I promise you, this will not be the start of a trend. I will stop at nothing to make sure none of you ever achieve higher office and none of you get reelected, because you are a danger to the families and the communities of this country.

President Biden should immediately withdraw Mrs. Rollins' nomination and should consider submitting someone who would actually be a prosecutor rather than a pro-crime, defund-the-police activist to serve as a U.S. attorney in Massachusetts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the record, I would object on behalf of anyone who is not here, and so the question is moot.

If the Democrats really wanted all these nominees to go forward, maybe you should talk to the President about the fact that he caved in on Nord Stream 2 sanctions.

I know the Senator from New Hampshire has been strong on that, but she could have stopped any single bill or nominee going forward by insisting that the President impose Nord Stream 2 sanctions.

Now we are in a situation where all of Western Europe is hooked on German gas and Vladimir Putin is about to invade Ukraine, and the best we can get is stern words.

So, yes, I would object on behalf of any Senator who is not present, and I don't even know what I am objecting to.

Mr. President, 8 months--for 8 months any Senate Democrat could have stepped forward and demanded the President impose Nord Stream 2 sanctions. For 4 years--for 4 years--we stood together and cast votes--with 85 votes, 90 votes, or 95 votes--in defense of Nord Stream 2 sanctions when the Democrats were discovering their inner Jack Ryan when it came to Russia.

But now that Donald Trump is gone from office and Joe Biden is in office and he is appeasing Vladimir Putin at every turn by extending the New START Treaty and by not imposing sanctions on Nord Stream 2, suddenly the Democrats have reverted back to their old, conciliatory ways toward Russia.

The simplest way to deter invasion of Ukraine, the simplest way to deter Russian aggression is to draw clear red lines of enforcement-- something that Joe Biden will not do; something that, apparently, the Democratic Senators will not force him to do.

Mr. President, I did not make any personal insult. I simply observed that, for 4 years under the Trump administration, we repeatedly took action on a bipartisan basis to try to stop Nord Stream 2.

One of the reasons we didn't have a vote on amendments last week on the Defense bill is because the Democrats were carrying water for the Biden administration, refusing to have a vote on Nord Stream 2. And that is consistent with the Biden administration's record on Russia, which can get all chesty in its rhetoric but always appeases Vladimir Putin.

One of the first actions he took was to give a no-strings-attached extension to the New START Treaty, something that Donald Trump never did--the very first priority of Vladimir Putin.

The second priority was Nord Stream 2. We have been trying to have votes in

this Senate all year long, and we haven't had them because the Democrats won't insist on a vote because Joe Biden doesn't want it.

Madam President, I sadly join my colleague and friend Senator Boozman to honor the life and service of Frank Ramirez.

Every time that a police officer kisses his or her family goodbye before their shift, every time they strap a side arm on or put on their badge, they know that it may be the last time they see their loved ones. These heroes accept that danger because the love of their families, neighborhoods, and communities is greater than any fear they may face on the job.

Our men and women in blue don't just talk about doing good, they actually do it each and every day. Sadly, far too many of them have had to make the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their service.

One such hero was Arkansas Sheriff's Deputy Frank Ramirez. A week before Thanksgiving, Deputy Ramirez was working after midnight when a call went out there was an accident. He answered the call and quickly drove toward the scene. But it was raining hard that evening. Roadways were slick. And as Deputy Ramirez rounded a left turn on Highway 14, he lost control of his car, ran into a culvert, and was sadly killed in the resulting crash.

This heartbreaking tragedy has brought countless Arkansans to their knees in prayer. Deputy Ramirez was serving his community when he died. There are few causes more noble, and we recognize his supreme sacrifice and promise to remember him.

Deputy Ramirez was a husband of 5 years and a father of two young children, a son and a daughter. He is also survived by both his parents and several loving brothers and sisters.

My prayers, Senator Boozman's prayers, and the prayers of all Arkansans go out to his family. They, too, have paid an unbelievable price in the service of our State, our communities, and our safety.

Deputy Ramirez was only 29 years old. He served in the Batesville Police Department and the Independence County Sheriff's Office. He was in law enforcement for nearly 2\1/2\ years. In that short time and at his young age, Deputy Ramirez sacrificed more for his communities than many police veterans who have been on the force for much longer. I join them in saluting his service and honoring his sacrifice.

May God bless Frank Ramirez, may God bless his family, and may God bless all the brave men and women in law enforcement in Arkansas and around our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to acknowledge and honor MAJ Kevin ``Rowdy'' Murphy for his dedicated service in the U.S. Air Force and in the Senate as part of the Legislative Defense Fellowship. Major Murphy joined my office in January of this year, where he has expertly served as a trusted adviser and critical member of my team. He is one of the Air Force's finest fighter pilots, having capably flown the F-15E Strike Eagle for the past decade and graduated from the distinguished Air Force Weapons School.

Rowdy served with distinction while assigned to my office. He was instrumental in bringing a partner fighter training mission to Ft. Smith, AR, he helped establish a Defense Department aviation safety council, and he designed legislative defenses against the threat of fiber optic cables from China.

While Major Murphy excelled at his legislative duties, he truly distinguished himself during the evacuation

of Kabul. As Afghanistan collapsed, thousands of Americans and Afghan partners reached out to my office for assistance. Overwhelmed by a flood of stranded civilians a world away, Rowdy snapped into action. He quickly organized a process for triaging and assisting American citizens, green card holders, and Afghans who had fought alongside American forces. He created ``baseball cards'' for isolated Americans in Kabul, which were passed along to the 10th Mountain Division and special forces units. He helped technologically illiterate evacuees navigate the State Department's onerous online registration for evacuation, and in dozens of cases, he alerted the State Department to the presence of American citizens stuck inside a collapsing country. In conjunction with my staff in Arkansas, DC, and even one inside Kabul's airport perimeter, Rowdy worked a long stream of 20-hour days to exfiltrate evacuees.

It is difficult to quantify the number of lives that Major Murphy saved. He provided direct planning support and guidance to 76 evacuees, drawing on his expertise as a fighter pilot to design and execute dozens of successful evacuation strategies. The evacuees ranged from a 1-month-old infant to an 83-year-old cancer patient, all of whom are now safely free of the Taliban's grasp. During the course of these missions, he coordinated directly with Joint Special Operations Task Force and NATO tier-1 units. Rowdy indirectly helped countless others. He received, logged, and relayed innumerable evacuation requests over those 2 weeks and directly passed along the State Department's terror warning prior to the suicide bomb attack on the airport's Abbey Gate. At least 70 people received this notification from Rowdy and took shelter, a testament to his organization and persistence.

Those are the statistics. The personal stories are far more profound. There was Mikey, a brave translator who served alongside U.S. troops. When Mikey's wife and son were shot by the Taliban, Rowdy acted as a personal 911 dispatcher, staying on the line with Mikey's family of four for over 5 days and exhausting countless options to safely deliver them from the throngs outside the airport gates. After nearly a week of constant communication, stopping only to sleep for a few hours a night, Rowdy's direct coordination with U.S. military personnel succeeded in delivering Mikey's family to safety and medical care. When Mikey finally made it through the airport gates, he was crestfallen to learn that Rowdy was in DC, and not there to greet him inside the airport.

My staff described those 2 weeks in August as relentless and exhausting. When Rowdy would take 3 to 4 hours a night to sleep, he would wake to dozens of new messages from people stranded in Kabul, pleading for help. One member of my DC staff, a marine with combat experience in Afghanistan's Helmand province, said the personal toll from 2 weeks of helping desperate people pleading for rescue was more profound and exacting than his wartime service. Yet throughout it all, Rowdy stayed calm, cool, and professional. He kept a relentless focus on his mission. When the final American troops left Afghanistan, Rowdy was instructed to put his phone down for a few days to recover. As a testament to his resilience, he ignored those instructions and kept working on alternate evacuation options for those left behind.

Major Murphy was recently invited to the wedding of one of his evacuees, as a token of deep gratitude and affection for the Air Force major who helped deliver them to safety. His ingenuity, resourcefulness, stamina, and composure under pressure reflect the best that America has to offer.

I want to sincerely thank Rowdy and his wife, Laurel, for a year of exemplary service in my office. But I am especially grateful to him for those 2 weeks in August, when he rose to the challenge that history had thrust upon him. It has been a privilege to watch him work, and he will always have an open door here in my office. It is my sincere hope that the Air Force sees fit to decorate Rowdy after his distinguished service during those dark days. My best to the Murphy family, and ``Banzai!''

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

Mr. President, last night, the American people sent an unmistakable message to the Democratic Party: We don't like your agenda, we don't want your agenda, and we won't vote for your agenda or for you.

During this election, the Democratic Party was exposed for what it has become: a party that holds police, parents, and patriotism in contempt. And now the Democrats have paid the price. The Democrats will continue to pay that price until they reject the repugnant radicalism that has infected their party.

The Democratic defeat last night was not in a single State or one county or some isolated municipality. It was not some isolated incident. It was not the result of just a single quirky issue or a bad candidate. It was a nationwide disaster and wipeout for the Democratic Party.

After 12 years of uninterrupted statewide victories in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Democrats appear to have lost not one, not two, but all three statewide races this year, along with control of the Virginia House of Delegates. And the only reason they didn't lose the Virginia State Senate is the State senate wasn't on the ballot last night.

I would remind you that Virginia is not a swing State, as you may have heard this morning to excuse the Democrats' terrible performance. Joe Biden won Virginia by 10 points. It has been 12 years since Virginia voted for a Republican. Virginia is a Democratic State and has been for more than a decade. Yet, now, Joe Biden's acolytes have been soundly defeated by Republican Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin, Lieutenant Governor-elect Winsome Sears, and Attorney General-elect Jason Miyares. It is remarkable how quickly the President's party has frittered away all of the good will in Virginia.

Now, I have also heard some Democrats try to explain away the loss in Virginia by saying Terry McAuliffe was a bad candidate. Now, I certainly have no grief for Terry McAuliffe, but I would say that Terry McAuliffe was such a bad candidate that he also is causing the Democratic Governor in New Jersey to lose. Joe Biden won that State by 16 points, and at this moment, the Governor's race is too close to call--too close to call. So it is at least a 16-point swing even if the Democratic Governor squeaks it out.

Oh, by the way, the Democratic State senate president, one of the key power brokers in New Jersey, appears to be on his path to losing to a Republican truckdriver who spent a grand total of $153 on his campaign but someone who said: I am a dad and I am a grandfather, and I think that we are taxed too much and that we need better representation.

If anyone had told Governor Phil Murphy and the Democrats yesterday that this would be a close race, he would have been laughed out of the room. Yet outrage against Democratic policies is rampant even in deep blue New Jersey.

Looking across State lines in New York, there was a similarly shocking outcome, with Republicans apparently sweeping every office in Long Island--every office in Long Island--driven in no small part by the insane, pro-criminal policies of the New York Democrats who want to eliminate cash bail and defund the police and go soft on criminals and let them out of jail early.

Speaking of that, let's turn to deep, deep blue Minneapolis, MN, where the BLM riots got kicked off last summer, where Democratic ``defund the police'' radicals have waged an unrelenting war on their city's police force. In a referendum to replace the police department, 56 percent of voters revolted and voted to keep the police department just the way it is--thank you very much.

This should teach the Democrats an important lesson. If ``defund the police'' can't win in a city that has been run entirely by Democratic mayors for nearly a half-century, it is not going to win anywhere.

Now, if this was a bad night for Democrats, it was an even worse night for the woke, far-left progressives who dominate in the Democratic Party. In Buffalo, NY, voters appear to have rejected this Democratic radicalism. Self-proclaimed socialist mayoral candidate India Walton had actually beaten the incumbent Democratic mayor earlier this year for the nomination, but now India Walton is losing to the current mayor in a write-in campaign--a write-in campaign.

Again, if your far-left policies can't even win when you are your party's nominee and in a city that has been run entirely by Democrats for a half-century, you had better believe they are bad and unpopular policies that will cost you your next election.

Finally, as far away as San Antonio, Republicans have flipped a largely Hispanic district long considered a Democratic bastion in a clear sign that Republican inroads with Hispanic voters last year were not a fluke.

So what is responsible for this astounding red wave unlike anything we have seen in years? Well, if you listen to some in the media this morning, the answer is the same as always: It is Republican racism. Glenn Youngkin is apparently a smiling, fleece-jacket wearing reincarnation of Democratic demagogues. But if you look at the map and you look at the actual results, this laughable attack is exposed for what it is: dishonest propaganda.

As part of this supposedly racist or White supremacist backlash election, more than half of Hispanic voters appear to have pulled the lever for Glenn Youngkin. Not one but two plurality-Black Virginia State House districts flipped to the GOP. Best of all for this supposedly racist or White supremacist backlash election, Virginia voters just elected the State's first Black female Lieutenant Governor. That woman is Winsome Sears, a gun-toting immigrant, Marine veteran, and a proud conservative Republican.

So much for the media spin. Now for the truth. According to exit polls, the top issues on voters' minds were the economy and education. Both spelled disaster for the Democrats.

For months, Americans have watched with alarm as Democrats have shoveled trillions of dollars into liberal priorities while inflation has surged upwards. They have suffered skyrocketing costs at the grocery store and the gas pump.

First, the Democrats said this is merely transitory inflation. Then they laughed it off as a joke, and they said: Sorry. You will have to lower your expectations. It may take you a while to get your treadmill.

Then they demanded trillions of dollars more in their so-called Build Back Better initiative, which should perhaps be called ``build back broke'' if you are a working family.

So when Glenn Youngkin offered to eliminate Virginia's onerous grocery tax and cut the progressive gas tax, normal Virginians listened, and they voted.

American parents have also been ignored and mistreated by the schools that are supposed to be teaching their kids. Remote learning was a disaster for America's children. Some have fallen months behind in their development, and many more have suffered the consequences of social isolation. But if there is a silver lining in this tragedy, it is that parents were finally able to see the nonsense that their kids were being taught: critical race theory, indoctrinated to see everything and everyone first and foremost by the color of their skin and to hate their country. Parents were outraged, and parents were right to be outraged.

Now, the Democrats' response to this controversy reminds me of the old line

that that dog didn't bite you; he is not my dog; he kicked you first. Their first response was that critical race theory is a figment of your imagination. And they said it is not taught in Virginia. And they said: Well, it should be taught anyway because our schools and our institutions are so racist.

Then again, they also said that there was no threat of having teenage boys in girls' bathrooms. We now know that Loudoun County didn't just cover up one rape--one rape--of a teenage girl by a boy dressed as a girl but then transferred that boy to another school, where he committed a second assault. Not surprisingly, parents in Loudoun County didn't take too kindly to the woke Democrats in charge of that school system.

When their arguments failed to persuade, the Democrats tried a different tactic: silencing parents. Terry McAuliffe boldly claimed that parents shouldn't tell schools what they should teach their kids. Attorney General Merrick Garland even tried to sic the FBI on parents who showed up to protest at school board meetings.

So it is no wonder that parents voted for Republicans in Virginia and across the country when the alternative was nothing but contempt and spite for parents raising their children as they see fit.

So, yes, the American people are disappointed, dissatisfied, and, frankly, disgusted with the modern Democratic Party, which sneeringly claims that it knows best always and about everything. Now, if it did, it would have seen this coming.

I would simply caution my Democratic colleagues, especially four future former one-term Senators, that if they don't change their ways, if they proceed with this reckless tax-and-spending bill, which includes over a trillion dollars in wasteful spending and which is littered with woke projects and leftist schemes, next year will be even worse. That chill you feel is the voters walking over your grave.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, last week, President Biden went to the United Nations and he announced his capitulation to the Chinese Communist Party. The message was clear from what he did--and did not-- say.

In Joe Biden's 30-minute-long monologue on the state of the world, he never once even said the name of the world's greatest threat to peace, stability, and democracy: China. He never said it once. He refused to even say the word ``China.'' Nor did he mention Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or practically any of the victims of Chinese communist aggression.

Now, President Biden did mention the ``targeting and oppression'' of minorities in Xinjiang Province in China's northwest, yet he left mysteriously vague who was responsible for all that targeting and oppression. He blithely lumped Xinjiang with other abuses around the world as if it was just one area of deep concern among many.

But the concentration camps in Xinjiang are not just another problem. They are proof of the most systematic genocide and ethnic cleansing campaign occurring in the world today, perpetrated by one of the most advanced and powerful regimes on Earth, personally approved by the Chinese Communist leader Xi Jinping. Leaked documents make it clear that Chairman Xi is responsible for this campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Let me explain how brutal it is. The Chinese Communist Party are sterilizing women in Xinjiang Province so they cannot procreate and create more of their ethnic minority. If they can't do that, then they are being brutally raped by Han Chinese men. That is what is happening in Xinjiang Province, in addition to the internment of millions of religious and ethnic minorities. It is not just your run-of-the-mill targeting and oppression.

President Biden also referred to China implicitly--because he didn't say the word--on another occasion in his speech when he said that the United States is ``not seeking a new Cold War.''

Of course, we are not seeking a war of any kind, cold or hot. That is the last thing that the United States would ever want. But, still, that is an astonishing assertion, because whether we seek it or not, China has been waging a Cold War on America and our workers and our factories and our militaries and our way of life for decades. The only question is whether we will win or lose. Under President Biden, we are losing.

A strong leader--a competent leader--would seek to win this Cold War thrust upon the United States in the manner of those who went before us facing enemies like Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Russia. Instead, in the manner of appeasers the world over, President Biden hopes to make peace with China by indulging its aggression and refusing to even say his name.

Now, if you think this is restoring some norm of longstanding providence, that you don't go to the United Nations General Assembly and speak the name of your adversaries who are committing acts of naked aggression and crimes against humanity, I would point out that Barack Obama repeatedly--repeatedly--called out Russia by name in 2014 for its invasion of Ukraine, and let's just say that President Obama was not exactly a Cold warrior.

Now as a result, Chairman Xi is issuing imperious orders, and the Biden administration is rushing to fill them like a short-order cook at a diner on Saturday morning. Early in his administration, President Biden lifted restrictions on Confucius Institutes, which are little more than spy outposts on our universities. He gutted Trump-era rules protecting our electrical grid from Chinese influence, and he shut down a State Department investigation into the origins of the Wuhan coronavirus.

Then, in July, China's Foreign Minister handed two lists of new demands to Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, stating that the United States must stop so-called wrongdoings in order to get back in Beijing's good graces.

Similarly, when the so-called climate czar, John Kerry, asked for China's help, the Communist Party responded that it would consider polluting a little less if the United States would shut up about China's campaign of genocide and other human rights abuses.

Now any self-respecting administration that believes in American strength, pride, and honor would have told Chairman Xi that he is in no position to be making such demands. Instead, this administration is going down the page, ticking off boxes like an obedient underling.

When a reporter asked John Kerry if the administration would press China on its horrific human rights abuses, Kerry responded that, ``life is always full of tough choices.''

Pathetic.

Around the same time, Biden's Commerce Secretary called for ``robust commercial engagement'' and to ``mitigate any potential tensions'' between United States and China. She even promised to bring delegations of U.S. business leaders to China to pad the Communist bottom line even further.

She calls to mind what is attributed to Lenin: that capitalists will sell Communists the rope they will use to hang us all.

Pathetic.

Over the weekend, in his most recent act of pathetic weakness, the Biden Department of Justice surrendered Huawei's criminal CFO and princess, Meng Wanzhou, without punishing her for evading U.S. sanctions. She received a hero's welcome when her plane

touched down in China. And moments after her release, China released two innocent Canadians it had taken hostage to secure Meng's release. So Beijing's hostage-taking worked exactly as planned. Pathetic.

All of this self-inflicted humiliation was avoidable. The fact is that China is in no position to deliver ultimatums to us. It is America that ought to be making demands to China.

Here's a few things that would actually pave a path to true reconciliation:

First and foremost, we ought to demand that China finally admit what almost everyone knows is certainly true: that the coronavirus pandemic started in a lab in Wuhan. Xi Jinping should then give a groveling televised apology to the world, agree to end all gain-of-function research using deadly pathogens, and pay damages to his victims around the world who have died or suffered because of his regime's incompetence and malevolence.

Second, we ought to demand that China rebid the 2022 Winter Olympics until the Chinese regime ends its ethnic cleansing, slave labor, mass murder, mass sterilization, and systematic rape of ethnic and religious minorities. It is too morally tainted to host such a prestigious event.

Third, we ought to demand that China end its spree of intellectual property theft. Today, China is responsible for up to 80 percent--80 percent--of intellectual property theft committed against the United States, and is the subject of nearly half of all FBI counterintelligence cases for economic espionage. This theft has to stop.

Fourth, we should demand that China renounce its imperial ambitions. It must agree to stop the Belt and Road Initiative, disclaim its ambition of conquering Taiwan, abide by its treaty obligations regarding Hong Kong, and end its sinister and provocative military buildup.

If these conditions are met, China will be on the path of making amends for its many crimes. It is up to America to hold China accountable for these crimes. After all, we are the global leader, not China. We don't require China's forgiveness or favor. Our conscience is clean.

Our Nation is great. We are the Nation that threw off the shackles of an empire, settled a continent, saved the world, and then saved it again and again. The United States has been the greatest enemy of tyranny the world over. We do not cower before tyrants. We look them in the eye and call them by their true name and tell them what they really are: evil.

President Biden ought to remember that the next time he speaks to the world on behalf of the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the United States has suffered a grave humiliation in Afghanistan. President Biden's disastrous withdrawal has brought shame to a nation that fought, bled, and sacrificed for two long decades after September 11.

Defeat can be imposed by an enemy, but humiliation is self-inflicted. In this case, it was inflicted on America by the President of the United States.

To the thousands of Americans who fought bravely in Afghanistan, I share your dismay, and I want to tell you this was not your fault. This failure was not caused by our exceptional troops, who fought with courage and skill against a determined and ruthless enemy. Our warriors lost no battles and surrendered to no enemy. They fought from the highest summits of American armed conflict and descended under the darkest pits of evil. Our men and women in uniform made us proud and filled us with awe. This loss is not their loss.

The debacle in Afghanistan was also not the fault of our people. The American people contributed hundreds of billions of dollars to a just cause and endured a prolonged conflict for almost a generation.

No, our people and our warriors did not fail. Our leaders did, and none failed more conspicuously than a Commander in Chief who could not command events.

Joe Biden has been paving the path to ruin for over a decade. Many have been wrong about the war in Afghanistan, but few have been more wrong, more consistently than this President.

During the Obama administration, Joe Biden wrongly argued that America could strike terrorists from over the horizon, wrongly set a public timeline for withdrawing our troops, and wrongly opposed a secret mission to kill Osama Bin Laden. Then he stood by when President Obama released several high-value Taliban officials from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for an American traitor, Bowe Bergdahl.

Joe Biden extended his perfect record of terrible judgment. He was wrong about evacuating Bagram Air Base, wrong about the likelihood that the Taliban would take over Afghanistan, and wrong that the Taliban cared about its international reputation.

He also believed wrongly--incredibly--that we could trust the Taliban to secure the Kabul airport and help us evacuate our people.

The President's inexhaustible ineptitude has created this fiasco. According to official estimates, over 100 Americans and thousands of green card holders are currently stranded in a country run by terrorists. The much-vaunted airlift that the President pretends is an ``extraordinary success''--in his words--evacuated fewer than half of approved special immigrant visa holders. That includes thousands of Afghans who fought loyally alongside our troops and have now been abandoned to torture and execution at the hands of the Taliban.

The allies of al-Qaida now rule in Kabul; the Taliban is armed with billions of dollars of U.S. military equipment; and those Guantanamo Bay detainees released under the Obama administration now serve in the highest levels of the Afghan Government.

My office has received many firsthand reports of Taliban insurgents going house to house, hunting for American allies. Former Afghan pilots are especially high-risk targets who are being tracked down and brutally murdered; and, of course, we have all seen the disturbing videos of desperate Afghans clinging to an American transport plane and plummeting to their deaths on the tarmac below.

I will admit I had low expectations for Joe Biden's Presidency, yet he still failed to meet them.

When I served in Afghanistan, I saw the Taliban's grim handiwork up close. I witnessed the sacrifices of brave Americans and Afghans to prevent them from regaining power. So when this disaster unfolded, I was determined to do whatever I could to get our people to safety.

Soon after the fall of Kabul, my office established an email hotline for evacuation requests, created a war room to help those in need, and established contact with assets on the ground.

Members of my team did everything from providing required forms and up-to-date information to helping orchestrate daring midnight evacuations. We facilitated the escape of high-ranking members of the Afghan Government and military, along with wounded children and pregnant mothers, several of whom were being actively hunted by Taliban death squads.

We also helped dozens of students from a Christian missionary school reach safety before they suffered the cruel treatment that Islamic terrorists reserve for so-called apostates, or followers, of the gospel.

My staff worked around the clock, volunteering their time and energy and, on several occasions, their own resources to help those in need. One aide repeatedly drove to Dulles Airport to deliver clothes to needy Afghans. Another sent school supplies to a recently returned second grader.

All of us heard harrowing stories from the ground. A member of my team was on the phone with an American citizen as the Taliban thugs attacked her and brutally assaulted her driver on their way to the airport. The same woman was on the phone with my office, outside the Kabul airport, when Taliban guards started shooting in the air, causing a stampede. Luckily, thanks to the cooperation of my staff, military personnel at the gate were able to pull her to safety before she was potentially crushed by the stampeding mob.

I would remind the Senate that Joe Biden and Tony Blinken empowered the men who beat and then almost killed an American citizen while a member of my office was literally on the phone with her.

The extraordinary efforts of my staffs in Washington and Arkansas produced exceptional results. From the beginning of the crisis to today, we have contacted more than 2,500 individuals seeking assistance, and we have helped more than 300 American citizens and legal permanent residents to safely evacuate, along with over 200 other vulnerable Afghans, many of whom were the immediate family of those Americans and permanent residents.

I want to thank my staff for their incredible and selfless work. I sincerely believe that these actions have redeemed, in some measure, the honor and trust that President Biden squandered this past month. I also want to acknowledge the many other aides--Democratic and Republican, House and Senate--who also pitched in to help our fellow citizens.

But, for every tale of sacrifice, daring, and courage that ended in a plane ride to safety, there were also tales of tragedy, heartbreak, and failure. Unfortunately, many of the wounds that we suffered during the Afghan withdrawal were, once again, self-inflicted. Those of us involved in the rescue effort had a front-row seat to the Biden administration's ineptitude. I think it is worth recounting some of those stories as well.

On one notable occasion, my office was contacted by a group of three American women who had traveled to a site that was reportedly being used to shuttle people to the airport for evacuation. When they arrived, a group of Taliban fighters pointed guns in their faces and refused to let them pass. The women called a member of my staff for help, who promptly called the State Department for guidance.

The State Department's initial response to Americans held at gunpoint was to ask whether they had filled out an online form to request evacuation. When my aide pressed the matter further, the State Department told them: ``Our best advice is not to give advice.''

This casual indifference to the plight of American citizens was, regrettably, not an isolated incident.

On a separate occasion, my staff learned that a State Department employee told an American citizen who refused to leave Afghanistan without her family that she was ``being really annoying right now.''

I suppose she was just one more inconvenient American spoiling Joe Biden's extraordinary success.

On another occasion, I received a phone call from the Ambassador of a country in the region. His government wanted to know what to do about dozens of American-trained Afghan soldiers and their families who had fled to his country in order to escape the Taliban. The only problem was the Ambassador's government couldn't get any senior official from the White House or the State Department to return their calls, not so much as a ``thank you''; ``please hold what you have got''; ``we will be back to help you soon.'' It was radio silence from America while the Taliban continued to demand the return of those troops.

Thankfully, I was able to work with Senator Coons to get the message to the administration. After much confusion and delay, the State Department official finally returned the Ambassador's call. I want to thank Senator Coons for his assistance. The episode is a reminder that this body still works and bipartisanship is possible even when the stakes are high.

Even some members of the executive branch have acknowledged that the administration's policies have been a catastrophe. On more than one occasion, my staff has received calls from officials in the government asking for our help to evacuate people from Afghanistan. In other words, members of the executive branch of the most powerful Nation on Earth were going to a lone, freelancing Senate office for help instead of to their own State Department or their own White House.

President Biden has refused to lead and refused to protect those he took an oath to protect, so it fell to the rest of us to shoulder the load and get these Americans to safety. Thankfully, Americans remain a generous and courageous people. We stepped up to meet this moment.

Over the past few weeks, countless normal citizens volunteered to help people they had never met. Veterans reunited for one last mission to help their old battle buddies get to safety, and, of course, thousands of American troops risked their lives to help others in a distant land far from home. Thirteen of them made the ultimate sacrifice on the noble mission to rescue their countrymen, who will never forget their sacrifice, nor will we. They performed bravely a job that they never should have had to perform.

Joe Biden's Afghanistan crisis will live in infamy as one of the worst strategic blunders in our Nation's history, but the response of so many Americans to save their fellow citizens and their allies showed the very best of our country. I am proud that my office was able to play some small part in that redemptive story.

Poor leadership comes and goes, but our national character endures. Americans have shown that we are still capable of noble and heroic deeds even--and maybe especially--when politicians in Washington fail in their duty. Our Nation is still exceptional even if our President is a mediocrity.

I yield the floor.