[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 48 (Thursday, March 17, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1239-S1246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative 
session.
  The Senator from Illinois.


               Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was fortunate early in my political life 
to meet several people who became my heroes and mentors and led me to 
take up public service as my life's calling.
  The first was a Senator from Illinois named Paul Douglas, and I met 
him when I was a college intern in his office. And he introduced me to 
a man named Paul Simon; Simon, who was a Lieutenant Governor in our 
State, State legislator, Congressman, and, ultimately, the Senator who 
preceded me in this Senate seat.
  After Paul Simon passed away, I approached his family and talked 
about a tribute to him, and they basically said: Well, you remember 
Paul. He would have been the last person in the world who ever wanted a 
statue and really didn't care much about having anything with his name 
on it. That just wasn't his approach to politics.
  But I thought to myself there were some things that he valued that 
maybe I can try to help in my own way in his memory. And one of them 
was in 2014, when I introduced a bill called the Paul Simon Water for 
the World Act.
  Simon had written a book that didn't make the New York Times best 
seller list. It was entitled ``Tapped Out.'' He had a theory many years 
ago that the issue with the 21st century was going to be water. And he 
made a pretty convincing case, and, frankly, the events and evidence 
since then have backed him up.
  So this bill, the Paul Simon Water for the World Act, was designed to 
build on the success of an earlier effort called Paul Simon's Water for 
the Poor, which had passed 10 years before and sought to bring clean 
water and sanitation programs to the world's poorest communities.
  Today, as we mark World Water Day, I want to recognize what we have 
accomplished with these two pieces of legislation. They have helped 
provide, for the first time, access to clean drinking water and 
sanitation for more than 60 million additional people around the globe.
  Those successes have also improved global health, economic 
development, and educational attainment. And they have proven how far 
just a little Federal funding invested in the right area can go.
  Both of those laws were passed on a bipartisan basis, and in 
recognizing the compounding benefits of clean water and sanitation, 
Congress has sustained the programs.
  My staff has traveled to countries like Kenya, Ghana, Senegal to see 
these programs in action. They have shared stories and photos with me 
about schools and villages that, for the very first time, have access 
to clean, drinkable water.
  In Ghana, for example, these laws have helped fund something called 
the Digni-Loo Program. It has provided rural villages with clean, 
sustainable toilets and helped eliminate waterborne diseases in entire 
districts of the country.
  This World Water Day, I hope we can reaffirm our commitment in this 
Senate to supporting legislation in the name of my friend and mentor, 
the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act, that will help bring 
global health for years to come.


                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Mr. President, in just a few days, America's eyes will turn to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee as we begin the process of considering Judge 
Ketanji Brown Jackson for her nomination to the Supreme Court.
  It is going to be a historic moment on Monday as Judge Jackson 
appears before the Committee, and gaveling the hearing to order as 
chair of the committee will rank as one of the highest honors of my 
career in Congress.
  Next week, the American people will have a chance to meet Judge 
Jackson, learn about her, her professional record, and her life 
experience. But, for now, let me briefly share a few things that have 
impressed me the most.
  By now, I am sure, many have heard about her experience. Judge 
Jackson has clerked at every level of the Federal judiciary. Most 
lawyers would consider a clerkship in any court as an achievement that 
they could brag about for years. She served as a clerk at every level 
of the Federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court.
  She served in many roles in the courtroom as a public defender, a 
lawyer in private practice, and a district and circuit court judge at 
the Federal level.
  She was confirmed by the Senate unanimously to serve on the U.S. 
Sentencing Commission, and she would be the first Justice since 
Thurgood Marshall with considerable defense experience.
  Her qualifications are exceptional. In every role she has held, she 
has earned a reputation for thoughtfulness, evenhandedness, and 
collegiality.
  Just as impressive as Judge Jackson's record is her character and 
temperament--humble, personable. She has dedicated herself to making 
our legal system more understandable and more accessible for everyone 
who came into her courtroom.
  Finally, of course, there is the perspective that Judge Jackson will 
bring to the High Court. Over the course of its history, 115 Justices 
have served on the Supreme Court. If she is confirmed, Judge Jackson 
will be the 116th, but she would be the first Supreme Court Justice who 
is the daughter of parents who felt the crushing oppression of 
segregation and the first Justice who has

[[Page S1240]]

represented an indigent as a public defender.
  Judge Jackson comes from a law enforcement family and has a deep 
appreciation for the risk of police officers, like her brother and 
uncles. And I believe one served in the Baltimore Police Department.
  Indeed, with Judge Jackson's confirmation, the Supreme Court would 
come closer to fully reflecting the diversity of America.
  When Justice Breyer announced his retirement, I promised that the 
process for confirming his successor would be fair and timely. Well, it 
has been. For instance, the committee sent a bipartisan committee 
questionnaire to Judge Jackson. In response she provided materials 
which shed considerable light on her record, her accomplishments, her 
writings, and her legal reasoning. Notably, this included more than 
12,000 pages of public records from Judge Jackson's time on the 
Sentencing Commission.
  The committee also sent a bipartisan document request to the Obama 
Presidential Library. That request sought documents relating to Judge 
Jackson's nomination to both the Sentencing Commission and the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia. In response to that 
request, the Obama Library produced more than 70,000 pages of material.
  Additionally, Judge Jackson has written hundreds of opinions--almost 
600 now--which provide extensive insight into her legal philosophy.
  In short, the committee has all the information it needs to evaluate 
Judge Jackson's qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court.
  We have sent a lot of followup requests for information, too, and she 
has always responded in a timely way.
  So we are going to proceed with her hearing come Monday. This process 
will provide committee members an opportunity to question Judge Jackson 
to learn more about her approach to judicial decision making, her views 
on precedent, and her record on and off the bench.
  Here is how the hearing is going to work. Each member of the 
committee will be allocated 10 minutes to make opening statements. Each 
member will have a total of 50 minutes to question Judge Jackson. There 
are 22 members on the committee. If you do the math, there is plenty of 
opportunity for questions to be asked and answered. I expect it to be a 
substantive hearing. I expect members on both sides of the aisle to ask 
tough but fair questions and to give her an appropriate time to 
respond, and I expect that the committee will diligently perform our 
role in the Senate's advice and consent function.
  When the hearing is complete, I believe the American public will be 
keenly aware of just what an outstanding nominee Judge Jackson is. I 
will also get to see what I have seen in meeting with her personally. 
She is thoughtful, brilliant, kind, and has a good sense of humor.
  She has already inspired young people across the country--young 
people who are just beginning to discover their passion for law. You 
see, she graduated from Miami's Palmetto Senior High School, a public 
high school in Pinecrest, FL. Right now, the halls of Palmetto High are 
buzzing with pride in anticipation for next week's hearing.
  One school administrator told my office that, even though students 
will be out on spring break next week during beach season in Florida, 
many will be coming together for a virtual watch party as Judge Jackson 
appears before our committee. The administrator said that many of these 
students see themselves in Judge Jackson, particularly the members of 
the speech and debate team, which Judge Jackson was once a member of 
herself. In fact, Judge Jackson has cited her time on the speech and 
debate team as one of the most formative experiences of her life. She 
described it as ``the one activity that best prepared me for future 
success.''
  Well, today, Judge Jackson is more prepared than perhaps anyone to 
serve on the Supreme Court. So to all the students at Palmetto High who 
are following in her footsteps, working long hours to hone their 
rhetorical skills, you are on the right track. While Judge Jackson may 
be the first Palmetto Panther to serve on the Supreme Court, there is 
no reason she should be the last. Years from now, who knows, maybe one 
of you will be preparing for your hearing before the Senate committee. 
Until then, you should all be so proud of Judge Jackson.
  I would like to add another element to this--a personal element. When 
I spoke to Judge Jackson about her family, she was naturally proud of 
her husband, who is a surgeon, but she talked about her two daughters 
and showed me pictures of them. They are teenagers and obviously good 
kids. She is so proud of them. She told the story that when there was a 
vacancy announced on the Supreme Court several years ago, one of her 
daughters picked up a pen and wrote a personal letter to President 
Obama and said: Why don't you pick my mom?
  It is that kind of support every parent lives for, and I am sure it 
means a lot to her. She is a good person, a good mother, a good parent, 
and she will be a great member of the Supreme Court.
  I also want to say that there are elements that obviously the public 
has paid attention to. This being the fourth time before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, many people in America know Judge Jackson or they 
have heard about her or they have read about her. They believe in a 
positive way that she will bring diversity to the Court; that she has 
the experience that is necessary to serve effectively; that she will 
uphold our constitutional values of liberty, equality, and justice; and 
that she will protect the constitutional rights of everybody, not just 
the wealthy and powerful. She has ethics and integrity, and she will 
place justice before politics.
  I am looking forward to this hearing. I am happy that the Republicans 
have said publicly that they want to make it a respectful hearing, and 
I certainly hope they live up to it. I will do everything I can to 
convince the Democratic side to aspire to the same goal. This can be a 
historic moment for America in the selection of this Justice. I hope 
the Senate Judiciary Committee rises to the occasion, and I have 
confidence that it will.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.


              Nominations of Cristina Silva and Anne Traum

  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nominations 
of Judge Cristina Silva and Professor Anne Traum, nominees to serve on 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Both nominees have 
built tremendous careers and legal reputations, and, last night, 
cloture was invoked on both of these nominees with strong bipartisan 
support.
  Judge Silva has spent the bulk of her career as a Federal prosecutor 
in the city of Las Vegas, where she served as chief of the criminal 
division. In this role, Judge Silva oversaw all criminal investigations 
and prosecutions in the Nevada U.S. Attorney's Office. She has gained 
vast experience dealing with Federal criminal trials, including violent 
criminal cases, civil rights violations, and cyber crime.
  Since 2019, Judge Silva has served with distinction as a Nevada State 
court judge, where she has earned the respect and admiration of her 
colleagues, as well as those who have appeared before her in court. 
Colleagues have called her ``intellectually gifted and extremely hard-
working'' and have commended her ``deep commitment to the rule of 
law.''
  These are exactly the kinds of qualities we need in someone nominated 
to serve on the Federal Bench, and they are the qualities that Judge 
Silva exemplifies. I know she will serve with independence and 
integrity.
  For her part, Professor Anne Traum has also developed a distinguished 
legal career, one rich with examples of her commitment to the law and 
to public service. She has litigated civil cases with the U.S. 
Attorney's office, served as a Department of Justice trial attorney, 
and has worked for years on criminal cases as a Federal public 
defender.
  Since 2008, Professor Traum has dedicated her career to helping shape 
the minds of Nevada's future lawyers as a professor at the University 
of Nevada Las Vegas's Boyd School of Law.
  A deeply admired teacher, Professor Traum has gone above and beyond, 
founding a clinic to provide legal services to parties in Las Vegas who 
lack resources and volunteering significant time to pro bono programs 
in Southern Nevada. Professor Anne Traum has

[[Page S1241]]

worked to ensure that all individuals have adequate representation to 
defend their rights and that all individuals have access to our justice 
system.
  And there is no better way to judge a professor than by the opinion 
of her students. In Professor Traum's case, her students regularly 
credit her courses as the most important courses in their legal 
careers.
  The bipartisan judicial selection committee that Senator Catherine 
Cortez Masto and I put together fully vetted both of these nominees, 
and we both worked hand in hand with the White House to ensure that 
they were chosen for their exemplary qualifications, intellect, and 
passion for the law.
  I was glad to see that both Professor Traum's and Judge Silva's 
nominations received bipartisan support--both as they advanced through 
the Senate Judiciary Committee and during last night's cloture vote. 
These highly qualified nominees for the U.S. district court are fully 
deserving of your support now, and I urge each of my colleagues to vote 
for their confirmation next week.
  Nevada's Federal district court has been under enormous strain, with 
delays driving up the costs to businesses and individuals pursuing 
their claims in court. Filling the vacancies with these nominees would 
ensure that Nevadans have fair and reasonable access to the Federal 
courts.
  It is time to confirm these nominees, and I urge all of my colleagues 
to vote in favor of Judge Cristina Silva and Professor Anne Traum.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.


                               Proxy Wars

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, one of the challenges we face in this 
era of great power competition is identifying unique threats before 
they escalate.
  When it comes to Russia and Ukraine, these threats have come into 
full focus. Vladimir Putin took off his statesman costume and declared 
a war of choice on Ukraine. Last week, we received the first public 
allegations of his intent to unleash Syrian proxies on anyone still 
standing between his war machine and the territory he covets.
  I am glad to hear more of my colleagues speaking up about the unique 
dangers of proxy wars. Last week, I laid out in detail how Putin has 
used proxies to install himself in countries that are leadership poor 
but resource rich.
  We know that fighters from the Kremlin-backed Wagner Group have 
slaughtered their way through Africa and the Middle East on behalf of 
Putin's grand Soviet ambition. And now he is going to do the very same 
thing in Ukraine.
  We have also seen Iran unleash proxies and State-sponsored terror 
organizations in Iraq, against American Armed Forces and against 
civilian populations in Lebanon, Yemen, and Gaza.
  In their 2022 threat assessment, the intelligence community stated:

       We assess that Iran will threaten U.S. persons directly and 
     via proxy attacks, particularly in the Middle East.

  This is a public statement. This is the Annual Threat Assessment. It 
is backed by years of evidence, proving that Iran has done this before 
and they are going to try to do it again.
  President Biden should be doing everything in his power to keep this 
threat as far away from American citizens as he can--but no such luck. 
The impending nuclear deal he is trying to hand Tehran unlocks billions 
of dollars for Iranian banks, companies, and other entities that 
finance violence.
  Where does the White House think that money will end up?
  We know there is nothing Tehran loves more than a power vacuum. They 
have invested heavily in Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas--all 
terrorist organizations hunkered down in some of the world's most 
unstable regions. Over the past decade, the Iranians have spent more 
than $16 million on carefully targeted bloodshed. That is right--Iran 
alone, the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
  The landscape is chaos, and, still, the Biden administration is 
pushing the world toward a sanctions relief scheme that would empower 
the Iranians to terrorize and subjugate even more people.
  The regime in Tehran is a menace. This week, incoming CENTCOM 
commander, General Kurilla, said as much in his confirmation hearing 
when we asked him how sanctions relief would affect the Iranian 
influence.
  I am quoting him:

       [T]here is a risk with sanctions relief that Iran would use 
     some of that money to support its proxies and terrorism in 
     the region, and if it did, it could increase risk to our 
     forces in the region.

  In this week's CENTCOM posture review before the Armed Services 
Committee, outgoing commander, General McKenzie, acknowledged these 
concerns about sanctions relief, saying:

       [T]here is a risk that they could use that money in ways 
     that we would not want them to use that money.

  That is right. We certainly don't want them to put one more penny 
toward these proxy wars, for good reasons.
  First, proxies don't just parachute in and declare victory. They 
brutalize entire populations and use weapons that these hostile regimes 
wouldn't normally have access to.
  Second, because proxies operate outside the law, the rogue regimes 
that hire them maintain plausible deniability.
  Third, this plausible deniability creates a false sense of security 
that allows hostile governments to pull up a chair to the negotiating 
table and pretend to fit in with normal countries, all the while 
denying the United States access and placement.
  We have a limited number of ways to deter hostile regimes from waging 
war on the civilized world. The West failed the people of Ukraine in 
this regard, but it is not too late to change course.
  Ronald Reagan once said:

       [W]ar comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but 
     when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted.

  He believed in achieving peace through strength, and so do I.
  It is pretty simple. If you don't stand up for yourself, you will get 
run over, and if you don't stand up for your friends, there may not be 
anyone left to help them when the wolves are actually at the door.
  When I talk to Tennesseans about this, the one thing they want to 
know is why President Biden makes decisions that make this country more 
vulnerable and less safe. Whether through lifting sanctions on Iran, 
slow-walking sanctions on Russia, or keeping our economy entangled with 
China's, Biden has refused to lead. Forget doing what needs to be done; 
he won't even say what needs to be said. He is fearful. He is scared to 
anger the new Axis of Evil. He is scared to anger our more timid allies 
in Europe. He is scared to anger the radical left here at home.
  Is there anything that he is not afraid of?
  He is so weak-kneed in the face of adversity that he can't even bring 
himself to finish building the fence that would secure our southern 
border.
  I want to focus on that border security for just a few minutes 
because, while Russia and Iran might dominate headlines, for 
Tennesseans, our wide-open southern border is a perfect example of what 
can happen when a President concedes national security to score points 
on his political rivals.
  Border encounters were up 2 percent in February. That is almost 
165,000 people trying to enter the country unnoticed; 76 percent of the 
people the Border Patrol caught were single adults; cocaine seizures 
increased 83 percent; meth, 97 percent; heroin, 173 percent.
  We know for a fact that terrorists and members of international 
criminal organizations cross our border with impunity. Over the course 
of 3 days last December, the Border Patrol arrested a guerrilla member 
of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, four MS-13 gang members, 
and an 18th Street gang member--six--six--distinguished representatives 
from the most dangerous gangs in the entire world and they almost 
disappeared into the country undetected. Thank goodness for law 
enforcement because these are not ordinary criminals.

  In January of 2021, the Department of Justice indicted the 14 most 
senior members of MS-13 on charges of conspiracy to support, finance, 
and commit acts of terrorism.
  Is this the Biden doctrine--choosing vulnerability over security and 
annihilation through weakness?
  Who exactly does the President intend to win over with this approach?
  Ukraine will find no peace in the easing of diplomatic tensions on 
some

[[Page S1242]]

U.N. panel. Children in Africa won't have a future if we start writing 
checks to proxy fighters. The people of El Salvador, Guatemala, and 
Honduras won't be better off if we enable the drug dealers and sex 
traffickers who make a living exploiting their families. No matter 
where in the world you look, you can see the costs of Joe Biden's 
willful blindness to danger.
  He has the tools he needs to protect the United States from these 
threats. Now, he needs to use them.
  It is time to stop relying on foreign oil and make the country energy 
independent again: Finish the Keystone Pipeline. Do an Operation Warp 
Speed for energy. Allow oil and gas exploration on Federal land.
  We have to stop leading from behind when it comes to preventing Iran 
from obtaining nuclear weapons.
  President Biden must submit to Congress any deal with Iran; and rest 
assured, we will block the implementation of anything the White House 
tries to sneak under the radar. We must pay attention to the flow of 
money and power in proxy hotbeds and recognize the danger posed by 
these terrorists for hire. We can't neglect security threats close to 
home. It is time to secure the border and give our law enforcement 
officials the resources they need to catch terrorists and gang members 
before they disappear into the country.
  Tennesseans can't identify with the President's refusal to lead. They 
are confused and frightened, but they also have faith in our ability as 
a country to pull out of this skid. They believe in the promise of 
America. All they want is for their President and elected leaders to 
prove that they also believe in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Nebraska.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I want to talk about three things.
  First, Ukraine.
  What do they need? How much aid? What kind, and how urgently can and 
should we get it to them?
  Second, omnis.
  Does the way the Congress spends money make any sense right now?
  And, third, political grandstanding.
  In particular, can politicians resist the short-term political crack 
that is social media?
  First, Ukraine.
  How much aid do they need? What kind and how urgently? The answer is 
they need everything, and they need it yesterday.
  If they can shoot it, we should ship it. Ukrainians are fighting for 
freedom, and we should be doing more to help: Javelins, Stingers, 
lethal drones like Switchblades, surface-to-air missiles like the S-
300s, coastal defense missiles, machine guns, ammo, grenade launchers, 
night vision goggles, and, yes, planes--more and more of them faster.
  I applaud the President for some of what he has done, for sending 
some of this, but I would also note that there are really important 
weapons that are not yet in Ukrainian hands, like the S-300s.
  I would also note that it takes time to cross the border, and we 
should be sending this stuff as fast as possible, not having the 
administration's lawyers debate how many angels can dance on the tip of 
a SAM or debate which weapons should be considered offensive versus 
defensive.
  Look, the Ukrainians are the people who are being victimized; they 
are the people who have been invaded. Every weapon we give them right 
now is a defensive weapon. It is Russia that has invaded Ukraine, and 
these lawyerly distinctions don't really make a bit of difference to a 
Russian invading pilot. If he gets shot down, which weapons system it 
came from is not really the concern he is going to have at that moment.

  So the answer to the question ``What kind of aid does Ukraine need?'' 
is more and faster.
  Second, omnis.
  Does the way the Congress works right now--does the way that we 
manage the power of the purse, does the way the appropriations process 
works--make any sense?
  Can any of us go home and explain it to our constituents as the 
cautious, careful, prudent, adult management of the FISC? Obviously 
not. This process doesn't work.
  I am 50 years old, and in the last 46 years--I think the current 
number is four times in the last 46 years that the Congress has spent 
at least 30 percent of its money under regular order on a regular 
appropriations process--four times in 46 years. This doesn't make 
sense. It is not prudent. It doesn't work.
  For weeks, I have been calling on the President and his 
administration to submit an emergency supplemental to Congress so we 
can send Ukraine all of the aid they need faster.
  Look, I am a fiscal hawk, but I am also a defense hawk, a security 
hawk, and I am A-OK with our spending a bunch of money fighting for the 
defense of freedom as long as the Ukrainians have fight in them. They 
are fighting not just for their kids and their future; they are 
fighting for free peoples. Putin will not be stopped until someone 
stops him. So the Ukrainians are doing a service to us--they are 
willing to fight. We should be willing to fund and to resupply them.
  The reality is that my calls for an emergency supplemental were 
ignored. The administration didn't make any emergency supplemental 
request. The Congress's hands are not guilt-free either. We didn't even 
vote on an aid package for the Ukrainians until more than 2 weeks after 
the invasion.
  Why the wait?
  Washington did what it always does and decided it would just add the 
defense money to the orgy of spending and pet projects and 
bureaucracy--that we spend every year--in the middle of the night in a 
thousands-and-thousands-paged bill that not a single Member who voted 
on it here had actually read.
  So what did we do with the Ukrainian aid?
  The reality is there was some important aid in the omni, but we 
should talk about how much it was. We spent $13 billion on Ukrainian 
aid out of a total appropriations package of $1.5 trillion. For those 
of you doing math at home, that is less than 1 percent of what we 
passed in the middle of the night last week that was actually Ukrainian 
aid.
  Here is a depiction: This is the aid bill, and this tiny, little 
subpiece of 1 percent is the portion that was Ukrainian aid.
  The reality is that the bill we voted on last week wasn't really 
about Ukrainian aid. Ukrainian aid was a little bit of sugar on the 
larger medicine of a $1.5 trillion bill that nobody would actually want 
to go home and defend to the voters and to the taxpayers of America was 
well thought out.
  So why does this happen?
  Well, the American people aren't stupid. A lot of politicians think 
voters are stupid. They think you can jingle a shiny thing over here 
and then make up any claim you want, but the reality is voters aren't 
stupid. Voters are distracted, and they are busy, but they are not 
unaware of what is happening here.
  They know why politicians talk like this--why they say that if you 
didn't vote for a $1.5 trillion bill, you were against puppies; you 
were against food for children; and you were against all of these 
really great ``mom and apple pie'' kinds of things when the reality is 
you probably voted against the bill because there was a whole bunch of 
schlock in it that was unvetted, not because you said: Hey, I don't 
want the Ukrainian freedom fighters to have the military aid that they 
need. People talk like this so that they can bully the other side.

  This is, quite frankly, a boring speech. It is not a speech that I 
want to be giving. But the truth is, if you allow liars to constantly 
lie, and they can get away with it, then they just keep doing it. So it 
is probably useful for us more often to take people's nonsense tweets, 
which they do for a bizarre audience of political weirdoes on Twitter, 
and they should have to defend these statements in public.
  It is transparently obvious that if you vote against a $1.5 trillion 
bill, that doesn't mean you were trying to vote against everything 
particularly in it; that you were against those kinds of funding. It 
might be because you were against lots of things in it that are 
indefensible before the voters. It is transparently stupid, and the 
voters get it.
  So to the question of do omnis make sense? The answer is, no, we 
should do better.

[[Page S1243]]

  But the question that our Republic is partly going to have to resolve 
if we are going to get healthy again as a polity is, Will politicians 
be able to resist the short-term crack of social media?
  It doesn't look like very many of us in this body are interested in 
trying to speak to 70 and 75 and 80 percent of the electorate, but 
rather that lots and lots of politicians are completely happy to speak 
to the very narrow range of fan service that they do on Twitter.
  Many politicians are addicted to Twitter. They want their sick burns 
and their retweets and their likes. It is crack and they have an 
addiction and it is sad.
  The truth is that the folks who do this kind of garbage are 
hopelessly out of touch with the reality of the people's lives that we 
are actually supposed to be serving. It is not useful to drink your own 
bath water.
  Twitter isn't real life, so it is probably useful for us to pause 
more often and try to make sure we have some common facts about the 
connection between political Twitter and reality.
  First, only 20 percent of Americans are on Twitter--19 or 20 percent 
of Americans are on Twitter. Political Twitter is something like the 
ninth most watched portion of Twitter; sports Twitter, a foretaste of 
Heaven, unlike political Twitter, a foretaste of Hell. Sports Twitter 
is much bigger than political Twitter. Hollywood Twitter is bigger than 
political Twitter. K-pop Twitter is much, much bigger than political 
Twitter. So let's just start by recognizing that only 20 percent of 
Americans are on Twitter, and politics isn't a top five subportion of 
Twitter.
  Of those who are on Twitter, only about 40 percent say they ever use 
Twitter for politics. But for the small minority of Americans who do 
pay attention to political Twitter--again, 40 percent of 20 percent--if 
you are doing math at home, we are now in single digits here. So 40 
percent of 20 percent is 8 percent of Americans. For those who do pay 
attention to political Twitter, the political tweets are dominated by a 
very, very, very, very small share of American adults. Something like 
80 percent of all tweets come from 10 percent of Twitter users. But 
this is the audience that politicians are playing for when they 
grandstand on Twitter.
  Let's be clear, this happens all over the political continuum. This 
isn't chiefly on the right or chiefly on the left.
  If you ever wonder why are politicians such weirdoes, it is mostly 
because they are grandstanding for a very, very narrow niche audience 
of weirdoes on Twitter, and so we should actually ask if it is healthy 
to continue doing that.
  So to our core questions, the Ukrainians, do they need aid? Yes, they 
do. We should fund freedom fighters.
  To the question of do omnis work? No, they don't, and everybody knows 
it.
  But to the question of should we continue doing political discourse 
like this? Should we say that someone who had concerns about this was 
trying to kill off babies and puppies? No, we shouldn't lie like this. 
We shouldn't do that.
  We owe the voters better than that. We should tell the truth, and we 
should try to talk to voters like you are actually talking to a room of 
regular people who have jobs and who are actually trying to put bread 
on the table for their kids and probably are pretty grateful for the 
inheritance that is the American Republic and our leadership on the 
global stage for freedom lovers.
  The Ukrainians are that. We should fund the Ukrainians. We should 
have funded them in a more prudent way than an omni.
  But if you voted for an omni when I voted against it, I am not going 
to attack you for voting for the omni. But don't go out there and lie 
and pretend that somebody who voted against the omni was against all 
the stuff in it, some of which is pretty decent.
  We can do better. We should.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                       Remembering Sonny Rundell

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I rise this afternoon here among my 
colleagues and those back home in Kansas to pay tribute to a Kansan, 
Sonny Rundell.
  Sonny passed away this past Friday at the age of 89, and I want to 
take a moment to recognize his life and his service. A moment is 
insufficient, certainly, to pay the tribute that this gentleman and his 
family deserve.
  Sonny was born in Pierceville, KS, a little town in Southwest Kansas. 
In places as rural as Pierceville, people are sparse, and so you 
quickly learn what is important. And Sonny learned that in his life, 
family, church, community were the important things.
  Sonny embodied qualities that fostered his community: hard work and 
generosity. And like so many young men of his generation, he was called 
to service to his country. In 1953, he answered that call and left to 
serve in Korea.
  When he returned home to Kansas in 1956, he finished his degree at 
Kansas State University, earning a degree in agriculture. He went on to 
farm land in Hamilton, Stanton, and Finney Counties for more than 30 
years.
  Sonny was involved in so many ways. He was a churchgoer, and he cared 
about education advocacy throughout our State. He was a member of the 
State board of education and was an advocate for education for all kids 
in our State.
  He had preceded that by being a member of the Syracuse, KS, Board of 
Education, the High Plains Special Education Cooperative. He was a 
founding member of Garden City Community College Board of Trustees, a 
founding member of the Education Equity Advisory Council, the Education 
Commission of the States, the Kansas Commission on Teaching and 
America's Future, and the National Association of State Boards of 
Education, and that is only to name a few.
  Sonny recognized, as I hope we all do, that education is the great 
equalizing opportunity for Americans, for Kansans. It allows us to 
pursue what we call the American dream.
  He received lots of recognitions during his life. He received those 
for his advocacy, and in 2003 Sonny was awarded the Governor's Award 
for Distinguished Service to Secondary Education in Kansas.
  From 2000 to 2003, our country recognized 50 years since the Korean 
war. And during this time, the Republic of Korea issued a service medal 
and awarded those to veterans who had served, coordinating with 
congressional offices like mine. I was pleased to be able to recognize 
Sonny's service to our Nation.
  Particularly in these troubled times, these days in which we see the 
surge for support for freedom, Sonny committed to doing so and served 
his Nation and the world in that cause of freedom.
  In 2002, while I was still a Member of the House of Representatives 
here in the Nation's Capitol, I was pleased to be able to honor Sonny 
for his recognition during the Korean war.
  Then and now, I thank him for his dedication to our State, and I 
thank him for his service to our Nation.
  My prayers are with his wife Verna and to his entire family and loved 
ones.
  Robba joins me in expressing our sincere condolences and wish those 
who remain to look at the life of Sonny Rundell and recommit ourselves 
to service to our community, to our family, and to our church.


                        Remembering Dick Hedges

  Madam President, this afternoon I rise to pay tribute to a Kansan, a 
champion of the Fort Scott community, Dick Hedges.
  In Kansas, we talk often of community and how important it is to the 
fabric of small towns that dot the State.
  There are small towns in Southwest Kansas, and there are small towns 
in Southeast Kansas because in Kansas, those communities matter so 
much. We grew up knowing our neighbors and making the effort to get 
involved with those around us that ensure our smalltown survival.
  Dick Hedges was a man who took that need for a strong community to 
heart and helped build the fabric of Fort Scott in so, so many ways.
  Last night, I was reading the Fort Scott Tribune, and I read an 
article in tribute to Dick. Its headline read: ``Man who shared so much 
is remembered.'' It is a pretty good headline to have upon your death, 
``shared so much.''
  Dick was a coach, a teacher, a vice principal, a principal, a college 
president; he was a member of the community civic clubs and a 
churchgoer; he

[[Page S1244]]

served on local boards; he wrote for local papers; and he championed 
the arts in and around Fort Scott.
  In 2018, he even opened a local book store because the community 
needed one. He was a man who shared so much of himself: his time, his 
love, his experience, his loyalty, and his commitment to others.
  He was an advocate for athletics and sportsmanship and the way it 
could influence young students in a positive way. For 40 years, he 
shared his life with purpose and continually found new ways to do so.
  But to Dick, I expect that was his definition of ``community,'' 
sharing oneself for the betterment of others with the expectation that 
they, too--the people whom you help--may pay it forward.
  Dick has impacted the lives of so many, so many throughout his life, 
and his life gives me hope for others like him in towns across Kansas 
and around the country.
  My prayers are with his wife Jan, the Fort Scott community, and his 
entire family and loved ones.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I got the chance to hear some of Senator 
Sasse's remarks. I noted the floor chart with my name on it, accusing 
me of what he called tribal hackery.
  I am not exactly sure what the rules of the Senate are. I am not sure 
that that is becoming of the U.S. Senate to use those terms about 
fellow Members, but let me come down to the floor to explain why I 
think we should have a legitimate debate in this Chamber about a 
phenomenon in which Republicans very often are not willing to cast 
their vote in a way that is aligned with their voice.
  Yes, I noted this morning--as was displayed on Senator Sasse's 
chart--that this week, of the Republicans who stood up at a press 
conference and eviscerated President Biden's handling of the Ukraine 
crisis, two-thirds of them voted against the budget that included $14 
billion of aid to Ukraine. I see a fundamental inconsistency in 
criticizing an administration for not doing enough but then not being 
willing to cast a vote to get aid to the people of Ukraine.
  Senator Sasse's second chart--the one that didn't accuse me of tribal 
hackery--laid out a very true statement, in which a small percentage of 
the overall budget is dedicated to Ukraine aid. That is, of course, 
true.
  But the reason why I find it concerning that Members of the Senate 
who, I take their word for it, are genuinely interested in getting help 
to the people of Ukraine are then voting against the budget that 
delivers it, is because it speaks to a broader problem in the Senate 
today, which is a lack of interest in compromise, a lack of interest in 
finding a result--a fealty to the perfect and an antagonism to the 
good.
  Mr. SASSE. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. MURPHY. Sure, I would be happy to yield.
  Senator Sasse, I was going to try to respond to your critique, but I 
am happy to yield at this point.
  Mr. SASSE. So let me just see if I understand what you just said.
  Eight-tenths of 1 percent of the bill that was passed in the middle 
of the night last week is about Ukraine aid. Do you believe that the 
people who voted against it voted against it because they were against 
Ukrainian aid?
  Mr. MURPHY. So every one of us approaches a big--
  Mr. SASSE. I am asking a really simple question: Do you think a 
single person that your Twitter self-pleasuring was for--do you think a 
single person that voted against it voted against it because they were 
against Ukrainian aid?
  Mr. MURPHY. Absolutely not.
  Mr. SASSE. So, then, what is the point of the tweet?
  Mr. MURPHY. The point is that the only way that this place passes 
legislation is compromise, is voting on pieces of legislation that have 
in it things that----
  Mr. SASSE. What are the pieces, dude? It is $1.5 trillion.
  Mr. MURPHY. Senator----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I would ask the Senators to direct their 
questioning to the President and give the Senators the decorum to 
respond.
  Mr. MURPHY. So inside every piece of legislation are elements that 
many of us disagree with, right? Inside that budget that you voted 
against are all sorts of things that I disagree with. But, in the end, 
in order to govern the country, you have to be able to find a path to 
compromise.
  And what I have found, over the time that I have been here, is that 
there is a pathway to getting things done. It generally involves 90 to 
100 percent of Democrats and a small slice of Republicans. It is 
increasingly hard to find compromise that involves more than 10 or 15 
Republicans because, as you state, inside these pieces of legislation 
there are things to disagree with, right? There are things that you 
find objectionable.
  So while, in the past, I think people would set aside some of the 
things that they weren't happy about in the interest of the greater 
good, today there seems to be a higher bar, and the result is that it 
is just a lot harder to get things done.
  Now, on the budget, luckily there were enough of us that were willing 
to celebrate the good, as opposed to the perfect, in order to get that 
budget passed and significant aid to the Ukrainian people across the 
finish line.
  My worry is that, as time goes on, there will be an inability to find 
those coalitions and that we will be stuck in a world in which you 
can't get Federal budgets done, you can't get big pieces of legislation 
done because there isn't that interest in compromise that is necessary 
sometimes to get passed a big package like the one that we passed 
earlier this week.
  Mr. SASSE. When you are willing, if I may.
  Mr. MURPHY. Yes, Senator Sasse.
  Mr. SASSE. I think there are three topics. Argue with me if I misread 
the three topics before us.
  One is Ukrainian aid. I don't think we differ. And the reason I came 
to make a speech--and you and I have talked about this offline multiple 
times in the past. Let me name the three: One, there is Ukrainian aid. 
Two, there is the budgeting and appropriations process. And, three, 
there is the grandstanding that happens for audiences that don't have 
anything to do with persuading a single human being that is called to 
work in this space.
  In bucket one, I think you know that not a person who voted against 
it--the omni--voted against it because of the Ukrainian aid. So I think 
it is a dishonest argument.
  In bucket two, which--well, I am jumping in and you have the floor; 
so I will give it back to you. But, in bucket two, you have repeatedly 
used the term ``people won't vote for something because it is not 
perfect.'' I think that, if we could put the appropriations process of 
the U.S. Congress up to the American people for a referendum, the idea 
that you want to give it a B-plus or an A-minus, I submit you should 
take that to the voters of Connecticut and try to persuade them of 
that, because I am going to guess that, whatever the overall approval 
rating is of Congress, it bounces around between like 9 and 15 percent. 
My guess is, the way we spend money, it is lower than that. So I don't 
think you want to give yourself an 86 or a 92 or a 95 percent because 
it is not perfect. It is obviously an F. The way that we spend money 
here is not deliberative; it is not thought out. It is always thousands 
of pages that come out in the middle of the night, and it always votes.
  So to your point, that you said budgets pass around here with 50 of 
50 Democrats and 10 or 12 of 50 Republicans, that is true. We do have a 
philosophical difference about whether or not the appropriations 
process works.
  I think you are the one voting on the side that is misaligned with 
both fiscal reality and the role of the American people. But I didn't 
come to beat you up about voting.
  I am supposed to direct it to the President.
  Madam President, I don't think the Senator from Connecticut is on the 
floor because I came to attack him for voting for the omni. I didn't. 
He misrepresented why some people who voted against the omni were 
dishonest by saying they were for more Ukrainian aid when there was 
Ukrainian aid in this budget.
  But the real thing we are talking about is grandstanding, because 
there is not a person on Earth who is persuaded by that kind of tweet. 
You

[[Page S1245]]

didn't move anybody. You are doing fan service for a subset of people 
who like Chris Murphy. I get why some people would like things that you 
stand for and advocate for. I get it.
  But there is not a person who disagreed with you who is moved because 
of a tweet like that. There is not an uninformed American who became 
informed. But there is a subset of the people who already like you that 
you got to grandstand for. That is all that happened with that tweet. 
The Republic got dumber because of that tweet. Nobody learned anything.
  Mr. MURPHY. Reclaiming my time. Listen, I understand that Republicans 
would love for this inconvenient truth not to be pointed out for them--
right?--the fact that they are eviscerating the President at press 
conferences for the crisis in Ukraine. There were Members at that press 
conference that Senator Sasse attended that said, if not for President 
Biden, this invasion would have never happened; that it was his fault.

  Mr. SASSE. Not my view.
  Mr. MURPHY. That might not have come from Senator Sasse's mouth, but 
there were others at that press conference--right?--who have repeatedly 
blamed this entire crisis not on Vladimir Putin but on Joe Biden's 
policies. And I do think it is convenient for Republicans to 
consistently eviscerate the President for his conduct but then not be 
willing to cast the difficult votes necessary to help the President 
effectuate a policy there.
  The consequence of a ``no'' vote on that budget, whether you like it 
or not, was that assistance money not getting to Ukraine. There wasn't 
another vote in front of us. The only choice that this Senate had was, 
Do we support a piece of legislation that includes necessary money----
  Mr. SASSE. Will the gentleman yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is out of order.
  Mr. MURPHY. I let the Senator finish.
  The choice before this Senate was, Are we going to support a piece of 
legislation that includes the necessary money in order to allow for 
Ukraine to defend itself and for this administration to get emergency 
resources, or are we going to vote it down?
  And I understand that the American public are rightly upset about the 
way in which we budget. But, on that day, there was one choice before 
this body.
  So I do see that there is an inherent contradiction between 
Republicans standing up at press conferences, which, frankly, are 
speaking most often to the same audience that you believe that my 
tweets are speaking to, right? Most often, these press conferences are 
designed to rally the faithful.
  So I think it is a bit sanctimonious to suggest that only one of us 
in this Chamber is involved in preaching to the choir. Much of the 
engagement in press conferences here, around this issue of Ukraine, 
ends up speaking to base audiences, and the message being sent to that 
audience is that President Biden isn't doing enough.
  And then, when we had an opportunity to pass bipartisan legislation 
to give him the tools to do more, the same Republicans that were at 
that press conference criticizing the President decided--and, I submit 
to you, for legitimate reasons having nothing to do with the Ukraine 
money--to cast a vote that had the consequence, if it was the majority 
position in this body, to disapprove of that money, to reject that 
money.
  Mr. SASSE. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator yield his time----
  Mr. MURPHY. I would.
  Mr. SASSE. I would direct a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER.--for a question?
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  And I would ask both Senators to direct their remarks to the 
President, please.
  Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I would ask the Senator from Connecticut 
to explain to me why the only choice was $1.5 trillion or zero. The 
Senate could work its will and have passed the $13.6 billion of aid 
money 10 minutes later.
  Madam President, could the Senator from Connecticut explain to me 
this apparent--to me, false--choice between $1.5 trillion and zero. Why 
were there no other options?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Connecticut wish to 
respond to the question?
  Mr. MURPHY. I will. Thank you, Madam President.
  The Senator is exactly right. Not only was there another option--pass 
the Ukraine supplemental on its own--there were a million other 
options. Right? There are always different ways that we can do things, 
and that is always a reason to vote no.
  I could always choose to vote no on a measure before us because I can 
dream up of a scenario in which the outcome would be better aligned 
with my priorities. I think that is a very convenient reason to defend 
a ``no'' vote: that there is a theoretical outcome that would be more 
in alignment with your beliefs.
  That is not how things work here, right? We are presented with pieces 
of legislation we all have input into. This was not a Democratic bill. 
This was a bill worked out with many Republicans as well. And 
ultimately we had a choice. We had a choice.
  And, again, I think it is a lot easier to just come down here to vote 
no on everything. But when life and death are at stake in a place like 
Ukraine, I think, on the willingness to support a piece of legislation 
that maybe has some things in it you don't like, the bar may be a 
little bit higher.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Connecticut yield his 
time for a question?
  Mr. MURPHY. I don't think I have anybody seeking to yield at this 
point.
  Let me say this. I take Senator Sasse's position seriously, and I 
want him to take my position seriously, as well, because I object to 
the idea of my effort to draw attention to the fact that Republicans 
voted against a bill that includes significant money for Ukraine as 
political hackery. I object to that characterization because I do think 
I am speaking to a broader trend line in this body, in which it is 
seemingly harder than ever to get both sides to the table to agree to 
big things that change people's lives or change realities overseas.

  I think Senator Sasse makes an important point, which is the way we 
are doing things right now with respect to the budget is insanity. I 
agree with that. The lack of transparency, the fact that all of this 
work is shopped to the majority and the minority leaders--that is not 
good for government; that is not good for transparency. I think there 
are legitimate reasons why Members of this body would vote against the 
budget.
  But that is not what my statement was about. It was about trying to 
juxtapose that vote to this criticism of the President. I do think 
those two things are relevant because the American public is being 
given the impression by many Republicans that the President isn't being 
serious enough about this crisis or isn't working hard enough at this 
crisis.
  And I do think it is legitimate to put on the table for a discussion 
the fact that the very people who are criticizing the President's 
conduct are often not willing to support the funding necessary for him 
to carry out that mission--for reasons that have nothing to do with 
Ukraine but have, in the end, the effect of denying the President, if 
this position was the majority--it was not last week--given that the 
consequence of voting down the budget would have been to ultimately 
deny that funding to the President and to the people of Ukraine.
  I think this is a legitimate topic for discussion, and I will 
continue to raise it. I will take the Senator's word seriously and try 
to raise it in a way that is constructive, but I think this is a 
legitimate topic for discussion in the U.S. Senate.
  This is not about rallying the base. This is about trying to promote 
a discussion about how we make this place more functional and how these 
press conferences that Republicans are doing end up having some 
connection to the reality of the votes that happen on the floor of the 
Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. SASSE. Madam President, in the interest of comity, I will 
underscore three points of agreement from Senator Murphy's last few 
minutes there, as well, just as a way to close us out.
  No. 1, I agree with the Senator that there is a lot of grandstanding 
all over

[[Page S1246]]

political theater right now, and that certainly includes people on my 
side of the aisle who have tried to imply that pieces of this are 
President Biden's fault that aren't President Biden's fault; that the 
evildoer here is Vladimir Putin, who is targeting women and children; 
and Americans should be on the same team against that evil.
  So to the degree that the Senator is partly motivated by frustration 
with some grandstanding that he has seen by people who have an ``R'' 
behind their name, I agree.
  Second point: I am for this funding, and my criticism of the Biden 
administration has not been because they wouldn't support funding. In 
the intel space, there are a whole bunch of arguments and fights we 
have been having that we can't talk about in this setting but where I 
just want them to go faster.
  But the idea that the problem with the administration, from my point 
of view, is an unwillingness to fund--that isn't my position, and so 
the Senator and I are united that that would be an unfair criticism of 
the Biden administration.
  And third and finally, he called our budgeting and appropriations 
process ``insanity.'' Let's put a pin in that because what I was voting 
against last week was not done for the purposes of saying the Ukrainian 
aid money shouldn't move, but it is saying that an insane budget 
process shouldn't work this way, where the American people can't get 
access into other monies being spent. And we have 12 or 13 
subcommittees of the appropriations process, and we almost never get to 
vote bill by bill.
  I would gladly have us stay here 24/7 for 2, 3, 4 weeks--however long 
it took. And if we had to cast not just 12 or 13 subcommittee approps 
packages, but if we had to vote on hundreds or thousands of things item 
by item--it is a pretty clunky process but a much better process than 
we have right now, which the Senator from Connecticut rightly described 
is ``insane.'' On that we agree. Thank you for engaging.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________