[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 17, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2526-S2532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
ADDITIONAL UKRAINE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2022--MOTION TO
PROCEED--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of a motion to proceed to H.R. 7691, which the
clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 368, H.R. 7691, a bill
making emergency supplemental appropriations for assistance
for the situation in Ukraine for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2022, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
H.R. 7691
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, today the Senate is considering a bill to
give $40 billion to Ukraine. This bill brings up the questions of both
constitutionality and also affordability.
There was an essay written in 1867 that was published in Harper's
Magazine. It was called ``Not Yours To Give.'' It is the story of Davy
Crockett as a Congressman in the late 1820s. Like most stories of that
vintage, some will argue that the story is an accurate rendition while
others may say it is apocryphal. The moral of the story, however, is
incontestable.
Davy Crockett only served two terms in Congress, but on one day in
Congress he was confronted with a bill to give money to the widow of a
military officer. Davy Crockett arose and gave this speech.
Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the
deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the
living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but
we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy
for a part of the living to lead us into an act of
injustice to the balance of the living.
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of
our own money as we please in charity; but as members of
Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the
public money.
Davy Crockett continued:
I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this
bill, but I will give one week's pay--
I will give my check for 1 week, and if every member of
Congress were to do this, it will amount to more than this
bill asks for.
When Crockett finished, there was silence, and, remarkably, the bill
failed. When later asked for an explanation, Davy Crockett explained.
He said:
Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps
of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when [we
saw] a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a
large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as
we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses
were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides,
some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The
weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and
children suffering, I felt that something
[[Page S2527]]
ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was
introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put
aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it
could be done.
Later in the year, when Davy Crockett was back in Tennessee, he ran
into a constituent by the name of Horacio Bunce. Crockett asked him for
his vote, and Horacio Bunce responded thusly. He said:
You had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not
vote for you again.
Your vote last winter shows that either you have not the
capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are
wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it
because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held
sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man
who wields power and misinterprets the Constitution is more
dangerous the more honest he is.
Horacio Bunce continued. He said:
No, Colonel, there's no mistake.
The newspapers say that last winter you voted for this bill
to give $20,000 to some who suffered from a fire in
Georgetown. Is that true?
Congressman Crockett answered him:
Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me
there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and
rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of
$20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children.
Horacio Bunce replied to Congressman Crockett. He said:
The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is
the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man. . . .
[W]hile you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing
it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had
the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of
discretion with you, and you had as much right to give
$20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one,
you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution
neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at
liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe,
or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you
may think proper.
No, Colonel [Crockett], Congress has no right to give
charity. Individual members may give as much of their own
money as they please, but they have no right to touch a
dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many
houses had been burned in this county [in Tennessee] as in
Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress
would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief.
Bunce informed Crockett that if each Congressman had shown their
sympathy for the fire victims by giving 1 week's pay, it would have
nearly covered the cost, but it was easier simply to give other
people's money.
Bunce continued:
The people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for
relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what
was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress,
by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do
these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for
nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a
violation of the Constitution.
``So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution
in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught
with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to
stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution,
there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.''
Today, we are faced with a vastly greater sum of money than $20,000.
We are faced with $40 billion to be gifted to Ukraine--a noble cause,
no doubt; a cause for which I have great sympathy and support but a
cause for which the Constitution does not sanction or approve of.
Now, we could ask, as Davy Crockett did, if each Member of the Senate
would like to contribute individually to Ukraine, but, of course, that
would simply serve to demonstrate the enormity of the gift. To come up
with $40 billion, each Senator would need to give $400 million--not a
likely scenario. It is much easier to spend such exorbitant amounts if
you are spending someone else's money.
But even if the Senators won't agree to contribute their own money,
surely we are a rich country and can afford it. Well, not exactly. The
U.S. debt now approaches $30 trillion. In the past 2 years alone, we
have added nearly $6 trillion in new debt. Inflation roars throughout
the land. Grocery bills are punishing the working class and poor, and
gas prices exceed $5. Even before the pandemic bailouts, our country
was running a trillion-dollar annual deficit just to pay for its
routine commitments.
Putting aside the constitutionality of the $40 billion to Ukraine,
isn't there a more fiscally responsible way this could be done? What
about taking the $40 billion from elsewhere in the budget?
The United States spends more on our military than the next eight
countries combined. Couldn't Congress simply shift over the $40 billion
and not add to the debt? If the defense of Ukraine is really in our
national security interests, shouldn't the gift come from our military
budget?
What about cutting wasteful spending? My office catalogued over $50
billion in waste. I don't know about you, but couldn't we cut programs
like the million-dollar study to see if taking selfies of yourself
while smiling and then looking at these selfies later on--if that makes
you feel good? Couldn't we cut the budget of the National Science
Foundation that spends billions of dollars studying such burning
questions as ``Do Panamanian city frogs have a different mating call
than country frogs?'' Couldn't we maybe cut the $2 million the NIH
spent studying cafeterias to see, if someone in front of you sneezes on
the food, whether you are more or less likely to eat that food?
Couldn't we maybe cut the money spent on Japanese quail, studying
whether or not they are more sexually promiscuous or not when you give
them cocaine?
If we are not willing to cut the budget at all, couldn't we ask the
American people to step up and pay a war tax? If this is really for our
national security, it should be very popular with the people. Why don't
we offer to tax them in exchange for this?
Guess what. The American people don't want to cut spending anywhere
in the budget--at least their representatives don't. They don't want to
pay any taxes for this. They just say ``Put it on my tab.'' But we have
been doing that for decades, and that is why we have a $30 trillion
debt, and that is why we have roaring inflation.
If you want to pay for this with a tax, you could triple the gas tax.
I am guessing that is going to be really popular and people really want
to send this money so badly that they would be willing to triple the
gas tax. If we were honest, that is what the people who are for this
would propose. That would guarantee $5 gas for the foreseeable future.
Alternatively, Congress could raise the income tax about $500 for
every American taxpayer. I am sure that would be popular. And for the
people who think it is a great idea to send $40 billion overseas, why
don't they just be honest with people and tax them? Here is your bill,
Mr. and Mrs. America, $500 a taxpayer. Then it would be paid for. No,
it is like everything else: Put it on our tab. Well, Uncle Sam's tab is
full. It is complete.
To be clear, I am not for raising taxes to finance Ukraine's defense,
but it is irresponsible to simply borrow more money. To borrow the
money from China simply to send it to Ukraine makes no sense and makes
us weaker, not stronger.
But let's be honest--most of Congress doesn't seem to care about the
debt, doesn't seem to care how much money we shovel out the door and
out of the country. Why? Because it is not their money. Every day,
Milton Friedman's statement has proven correct--that nobody spends
somebody else's money as wisely as their own.
I doubt the big spenders in Congress will ever consider spending any
of their own money. But Americans across the land should sit up and
notice and attach blame to these profligate spenders.
In the past 3 months, bipartisan majorities, Republicans and
Democrats, have added over $100 billion to the debt. Now these same big
spenders are proposing another $50 billion next week to bail out
restaurants--restaurants that have been primarily injured by
overzealous Democratic Governors and their edicts.
There are ramifications to this mountain of debt. Make no mistake,
inflation is here, and it is rip-roaring and on the rise. Just as
aiding the victims of fire in Georgetown during the days of Davy
Crockett ignored the misfortune of the suffering people in lands too
distant from Washington to be noticed, so, too, does today's deficit
spending to be sent overseas ignore the pain and suffering and the
inflation that is caused by that debt on everyday American families.
[[Page S2528]]
Inflation is simply an increase in the money supply. It comes from
the Federal Reserve buying U.S. debt. M2 is a measure of the money
supply. For the last 3 years, it has been going up at about a 15-
percent rate. So we shouldn't really be surprised that there is
inflation because inflation is an increase in the money supply. In
January of last year, the annualized rate of the M2 expansion, the
monetary expansion, was 27 percent.
No one should be shocked we have inflation. We have rising prices in
the grocery store. We have rising prices at the pump because we
borrowed too much money. We went heavily in debt, and the Federal
Reserve is buying the debt. All this so-called free money floods the
market and chases prices higher. Adding to our debt will only make the
problem worse.
Yes, our national security is threatened--not by Russia's war on
Ukraine but by Congress's war on the American taxpayer. The vast
majority of Americans sympathize with Ukraine and want them to repel
the Russian invaders. But if Congress were honest, they would take the
money from elsewhere in the budget or ask Americans to pay higher taxes
or, Heaven forbid, loan the money to Ukraine instead of giving it to
Ukraine. But Congress will do what Congress does best: spend other
people's money. I, for one, will not. I will vote no. Somehow,
somewhere, a voice of fiscal sanity must remain vigilant, must remain
stalwart and steady in a sea of fiscal madness.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Inflation
Mr. REED. Madam President, soaring fuel prices are impacting every
corner of the globe and hitting the pocketbooks of American families
and businesses. Today, a gallon of gas costs $4.52--nearly $1.50 more
than a year ago. From food to clothing to rent, growing transportation
expenses are pushing already rising prices even higher.
Yet, while the American people are taking a hit, while the local mom-
and-pop stores pay more for energy and goods, big oil companies are
announcing giant profits. They have hit the jackpot.
Over the first 3 months of the year, ExxonMobil reported $5.5 billion
in profits, Chevron recorded $6.3 billion, and Shell raked in $9.1
billion--its largest quarterly profit ever. In just 3 months, these
three companies made nearly $21 billion in profits.
Now, robust profits are usually a signal for companies to invest in
capital and labor and build the foundation for future growth, but Big
Oil has different priorities. Rather than increasing business
investment or production, these companies have almost uniformly pumped
profits directly to their executives and wealthy shareholders.
In February, even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine sent gas
prices skyrocketing, the Financial Times reported that seven of the
largest oil companies--including Exxon, Chevron, BP, and Shell--were
expected to return $38 billion to shareholders through buybacks this
year, plus another $50 billion in dividends. Big Oil hasn't hidden its
strategy: Hold back production, and rake in the profits.
In a March 2022 survey, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas asked oil
executives for the primary reason that publicly traded oil companies
were restraining production despite high oil prices. The No. 1 answer
they gave, reflecting the view of nearly 60 percent of those surveyed,
was that it was ``investor pressure to maintain capital discipline.''
To put it another way, they were saying that they don't want to produce
more oil because more production will hasten the end of high oil prices
and exorbitant investor profits.
Some oil company executives have been even clearer. Just last month,
Chevron's chief financial officer confirmed that the company's top
priority is its dividends, not investing in its business, and BP's CFO
made similar comments during his company's first quarter earnings
call--so much for BP's advertising campaign that it is investing in
green energy.
Instead of resuming the production they cut in 2020, oil companies
have kept output constrained, turning a 50-percent increase in prices
at the pump over the past year into record-setting profits.
Make no mistake, our domestic producers have the capacity to produce
more. Indeed, domestic crude oil output is below 2019 levels--that is
right, domestic crude oil output is below 2019 levels--and over 12
million acres of leased Federal lands remain untapped.
My Republican colleagues are quick to try to weakly blame President
Biden and ``regulation'' for lagging production, but that is not what
the oil executives say. Look back at that Dallas Fed survey I mentioned
earlier. Only 6 percent of the oil executives surveyed said that
``government regulation'' was the reason they weren't producing more.
Sixty percent said it was higher profits. Six percent said it was
regulation.
Now, I understand private companies are going to pursue high profits.
That is business, that is free enterprise, and that is a competitive
market. But when Putin and OPEC have outsized influence on the market,
can we really call it a competitive market?
Look, the major oil companies can't control what Putin or OPEC does,
but there is no doubt that Putin's war is taking their profits into the
stratosphere.
And oil companies clearly think this is a great time for more
dividends and more buybacks, not more production, lower prices, and
giving the American people a break. In fact, just last month, Exxon
announced it would triple its stock buybacks this year and next to $30
billion. Thirty billion dollars is an astonishing number.
One of the things about buybacks is that they essentially raise the
price of the company's stock. If you are an executive whose major
compensation is stock options, you are giving yourself a huge raise,
and that is part of this too. It is self-aggrandizement. It is
something that does not square, I think, with the feelings of the
American people and also the needs of the American people.
It is clear that the oil companies are not interested in helping
Americans on their own, so the Federal Government needs to step in. We
need responsible solutions that bring down prices and help families pay
for the basics.
We must use every tool at our disposal. I fully support the
President's pledge to release a million barrels of oil per day from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help stabilize volatile prices. One can
imagine the price at the pump if the President was not doing this. It
would be even further in excess of what is, I think, appropriate.
I have introduced the Food and Fuel Family Savings Act, which would
provide most households with $600 per person, specifically to cover
higher gas and grocery costs this year. My bill would be fully paid
for, targeted to those families making under $80,000, and would also
ease medium- and long-term inflation by crafting a fairer tax code.
Instead of waiting for inflation to disappear, it would provide
immediate and real help to Americans.
I have also joined my colleague Senator Whitehouse in introducing
legislation to return some of those windfall profits that oil companies
are handing out as dividends and buybacks back to consumers.
These are important short-term efforts that will help Americans
struggling with higher costs. But to truly lower costs in the long
term, we must make the transition to clean energy and break our
reliance on Big Oil and hostile foreign actors. I am proud that in
Rhode Island, we are leading the way on offshore wind, a good renewable
resource that when deployed will lower costs for consumers.
The bipartisan infrastructure law is also making key investments to
advance this transition, including over $60 billion primarily for new
major clean energy demonstration and deployment programs.
The President has been calling for additional funding to enable this
clean energy future. We need a package that includes tax credits and
grants that would make clean energy, clean vehicles, and other clean
technologies more affordable and competitive.
If we do these things, we will make ourselves less vulnerable to the
whims of oil companies and cartels that depend on Americans paying more
than they should. We will make our world cleaner, lower costs, and
finally achieve the energy independence that we have wanted all along.
One of the many lessons of the past 2 years is that we cannot rely on
oil for
[[Page S2529]]
plentiful, affordable energy. It is clear that allowing our energy
needs to be held hostage by leaders like Vladimir Putin and
organizations like OPEC is dangerous, but placing our faith in Big Oil
is equally foolhardy given their preoccupation with profits over
people.
As we battle inflation, it is the American people, not executives and
wealthy shareholders, who should be the focal point of our energy and
economic policy.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting policies that
will help families now and in the future.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The majority leader is recognized.
Buffalo, New York, Shooting
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, it has been a sorrowful, painful few
days for the people of Buffalo, NY. Earlier today, I joined with
President Biden, the First Lady, Governor Hochul, Senator Gillibrand,
Buffalo's Mayor Brown, Attorney General Tish James, and other local
officials to meet with families of those killed on Saturday, to visit
the Tops supermarket where the shooting happened and to grieve with the
community that has been ripped apart by unspeakable violence.
There is no single word to encapsulate what it was like to visit the
Tops supermarket, to lay down flowers in honor of the dead, and to meet
the families whose lives have been forever--forever--torn apart.
It was equal parts sorrow for the innocent victims we have lost. It
was grief for the families who must carry on. Today, I met a young boy,
only 3 years old, who lost his dad on Saturday because his dad was at
the store buying his kid a birthday cake, just heartbreaking.
It was also with anger that somebody could act with such horrible
evil. And yet, despite all that, it was hope. Hope that somehow, some
way, this beloved community will find the will and the grace and the
courage to cohere. I know, I know in my heart of hearts, that they
will.
To the people in Buffalo I met today, I say this: All of New York and
all of America stands with you in this hour of deep darkness. We love
you; we hold you in our hearts; and we pray for each and every one of
you. We will be with you in spirit at every prayer service and every
march and in every moment of silence.
Today, we are all Buffalonians. I just don't know what could possess
someone to bring violence to a place like the East Side. I just don't.
But what we do know is that in each passing day, new and frightening
details emerge about the lengths to which the shooter planned his
attack. We know that the shooter chose Tops supermarket in order to
target as many Black Americans as possible.
It is a supermarket I know well. I helped bring it to the East Side
decades ago because they were a food desert and needed a supermarket,
and I persuaded the owners of Tops to open one. And as the years grew,
that supermarket became not just a supermarket but a community
convening place. And when this awful man went to Tops to do his
terrible shooting, it was like putting a dagger in the heart of the
community because the supermarket had really been much more than a
supermarket.
And we know through online posts that the terrorist--that is what he
could be called--likely visited the Tops market months ago in a
reconnaissance mission to map out the store, to observe the security
guards, and even to find a parking spot. We know all that.
We know that had he gotten away, he intended to carry out more
shootings at another store.
And one other thing we know, we know that his reprehensible views--
his racist, White supremacist views--belong to an extreme ideology of
hate that is increasingly finding home in the American mainstream.
In Buffalo, the President was right to strongly condemn these views
with the whole Nation watching. All elected officials--all elected
officials--should do the same.
The ``great replacement'' or ``replacement theory'' used to be
something that was found only in the darkest corners of deranged minds
and in the deepest trenches of the internet. But today, sadly,
indisputably, you don't need to go online anymore to find White
``replacement theory'' rhetoric. You can find it on cable TV from the
comfort of your own couch.
And perhaps no network has had more impact in propagating and
normalizing the rhetoric of ``replacement theory'' than FOX News.
To follow up from my remarks yesterday, this morning I sent a letter
to Rupert Murdoch, to FOX News executives, and to Tucker Carlson,
imploring the network and Mr. Carlson to cease their amplification of
``replacement theory'' on their network.
According to one study, Mr. Carlson has used rhetoric echoing
``replacement theory'' on at least 400 episodes of his show--400
episodes--which has an average nightly audience of 3 million people.
It is dangerous and un-American for one of the biggest news networks
in the world to amplify conspiracy theories that are eerily similar to
those cited by the Buffalo shooter.
And to those who think this is an exaggeration, to those who refuse
to acknowledge that fringe White supremacist views are now increasingly
out in the open, I would simply ask them: Where were you on the night
that thousands of White supremacists marched openly on the streets of
Charlottesville, bearing torches and chanting, ``You will not replace
us''? That is what they said, ``You will not replace us.''
Where were you when thousands of insurrectionists stormed into the
Halls of this Capitol, waving Confederate flags and donning sweatshirts
about the Holocaust?
Where have you been during any Trump rally, where the Republican
standard-bearer goes on and on about undocumented immigrants stealing
the 2020 election--a message parroted by countless MAGA Republican
candidates across the country.
And where were you when White supremacists shot up a Walmart in El
Paso, a synagogue in Pittsburgh, spas in Atlanta and a Black church in
Charleston--or at a grocery store in Buffalo, NY?
It would be the easiest thing in the world to denounce something as
evil and vile and un-American as ``replacement theory.''
To its credit, this week, the Wall Street Journal editorial board
acknowledged that ``politicians and media figures have an obligation to
condemn . . . such conspiratorial notions as `white replacement
theory.' ''
But while that is necessary, it is hardly sufficient, and too many
MAGA Republicans refuse to do even just that.
And last night, Tucker Carlson did not do that either. He deflected
and refused to acknowledge that a clear connection exists between the
messages on his shows and some of the views championed by these mass
shooters.
He dismissed the shooter's 180-page rant as the product of a
``diseased and disorganized mind,'' while omitting that the shooter's
mind was diseased and warped precisely--precisely--by online conspiracy
theories that are echoed regularly on his show.
The plain fact is that the shooter responsible for the violent murder
of 10 innocent lives espoused the same false and racist conspiracy
theories that Tucker Carlson has pushed to his audience 400 times and
which far too many MAGA Republicans, including former President Trump,
are happy to amplify.
Tucker Carlson and, indeed, all voices of influence in this country
should come out and not just condemn racial violence, not just condemn
racial theory but refuse to give these false and racist conspiracy
theories a platform.
Let me say it again: Anchors like Tucker Carlson, and, in fact, all
MAGA Republicans and all voices of influence across the political
spectrum, should not just condemn racial violence, not just denounce
White supremacist views like ``replacement theory'' but further refuse
to give these false and racist conspiracy theories a platform
whatsoever.
[[Page S2530]]
It is horrific to see that most on the hard right haven't done that
to date.
Until we unite to stomp views like ``replacement theory'' out of
existence, until we band together to call these vile conspiracy
theories for what they are--White supremacist propaganda--we cannot
find closure to the attacks like the one we saw this weekend in
Buffalo, NY.
And communities across the country, especially communities of color,
will continue to live in fear that at any moment they may be targeted
by violence just because of who they are.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
South Dakota Storms
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, before I begin, I want to mention the
severe storms that hit eastern South Dakota last Thursday.
I visited Castlewood on Saturday, which is among the communities that
was hardest hit, to get a look at the damage, and it is extensive.
Homes and a school have been damaged, destroyed. Many of our farmers
were hit hard and lost critical equipment and buildings.
I just want our thoughts and prayers to go out to those South
Dakotans who were affected and, in particular, the family and friends
of the two women who were killed in the storm.
My office will be doing everything possible to help those affected
get the assistance that they need to recover.
National Police Week
Madam President, this week is National Police Week--a time set aside
to honor the service of our Nation's law enforcement officers and pay
tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of
duty.
While there are a number of tough jobs out there, being a law
enforcement officer is in a different league. I can think of only one
other career path where willingness to lay down your life for your
fellow citizens is part of the job description.
Law enforcement officers don't know what they will face when they get
up every day. They don't know what they face when they respond to a
call, but they go out anyway. We call, and they come, day or night, no
matter the danger.
In addition to the physical dangers that they face, police officers
also bear a heavy mental burden. Most of us don't have to confront evil
in our lives every day, thanks in large part to the sacrifices of our
Nation's law enforcement officers. But police officers have to get up
close and personal with evil on a daily basis. They get a front-row
seat when it comes to seeing fallen humanity, and they pay a price.
Being a police officer has always been a tough job, but over the past
couple of years, it has gotten even harder. The ``defund the police''
movement and the anti-law enforcement sentiment have taken a tremendous
toll on police departments and police officers.
Morale has sunk, which has resulted in increased resignations and
retirements. Police departments are understaffed, which has stretched
officers to the limit and limited their ability to respond to crimes.
And, unsurprisingly, police departments are struggling to recruit
officers.
Being a police officer is a difficult enough job as it is. It is not
surprising that people would be reluctant to go into this field,
knowing that the reward for their sacrifice will be constant criticism
and vilification.
``Defund the police'' rhetoric has also put officers in increased
danger. I find it hard to believe that the 59-percent increase in
murders of police officers in 2021 had nothing to do with the fanning
of anti-police sentiment.
And ``defund the police'' rhetoric and soft-on-crime policies
associated with it are taking a toll on public safety and contributing
to the surge in violent crime that we have been seeing.
The ``defund the police'' movement is a movement that should have
never gotten off the ground. It is based on a lie that America's law
enforcement officers are evil and racist.
It is also based on the absurd premise that society can exist without
the police or that police officers can be replaced by social workers
and psychologists.
There may well be individuals who fall into a life of crime as a
result of tough circumstances, but there are also a lot of criminals
who choose evil deliberately, not because of a difficult past but
simply for their own personal gain, whether that looks like money or
power or revenge or violence.
And as long as we live in a world where people deliberately choose
evil, we are going to need men and women who are willing to step up and
confront that evil and do their best to ensure that the perpetrators
face justice.
When the ``defund the police'' movement arose 2 years ago, the
Democratic Party should have stepped up and denounced it. Instead, they
equivocated, and some Democrats openly embraced ``defund the police''
rhetoric.
Now the President and other Democrats, perhaps motivated by poll
numbers showing that Americans are seriously concerned about crime, are
trying to distance themselves from anti-law enforcement rhetoric. But
it is pretty difficult to take the President seriously on this when he
has filled key administration posts with individuals who have spoken
supportively about ``defund the police'' efforts.
Even the Vice President is on the record praising efforts to divert
money from police departments.
``Defund the police'' rhetoric needs to disappear from our public
discourse. We need to be making it clear as a society that policing is
an essential job and that police officers perform an essential public
service.
I am proud to support legislation like the Back the Blue Act, which
would increase penalties for deliberately targeting a law enforcement
officer and give officers new tools to protect themselves.
Police officers face the possibility of serious injury or death on a
daily basis. The least we can do is to make sure that we are doing
everything we can to discourage attacks on our law enforcement
officers.
In addition to supporting legislation like the Back the Blue Act and
the Protect and Serve Act, I will continue to urge the President to
take action to secure the border.
Border security is not just something that affects border
communities. Lax border security has consequences for the entire
country. South Dakota law enforcement leaders and officials tell me
that they are seizing drugs that they can trace directly back to the
cartels that smuggle these drugs across the border.
We currently have a very serious fentanyl problem in this country. In
fact, right now, fentanyl overdose is the leading cause of death for
U.S. adults between the ages of 18 and 45.
And where is all this fentanyl coming from?
Mostly, it is being trafficked across our southern border. And there
is no question that the worse the situation at the border gets, the
easier it is for drug smugglers to evade detection and capture, which
means more drugs flowing into our country and more of our law
enforcement officers having to deal with the consequences.
In my job, I have the privilege of interacting with law enforcement
regularly, whether it is members of the Capitol Police who protect
Congress or local law enforcement in my home State of South Dakota. As
a Senator, I have been in more than one situation where I have gotten
to see up close what happens when danger threatens and law enforcement
officers step into the breach to protect those in peril.
I am more grateful than I can say for all the men and women in South
Dakota, in Washington, DC, and around the country who have made the
choice to serve.
I am also tremendously grateful for their families. It is no small
thing to say goodbye to a husband or wife or a mom or dad every morning
knowing that there is a chance that he or she may not come home that
night. No mention of the sacrifices made by our law enforcement
officers would be complete without mentioning the sacrifices made by
their families.
The mission statement of the police department in Rapid City, SD, is
``Community First, Service Above Self, Integrity-Driven. One
Interaction at a Time.'' Well, that definitely describes our Rapid City
officers, and it is a pretty good description, I might add, of law
[[Page S2531]]
enforcement officers across South Dakota and around the country--
community first, service above self. We are lucky to have men and women
around the country who put their communities first and choose service
above self, and I pray that we will always remember that.
Again, this Police Week and every week, I want to express my deep
gratitude to the men and women of our Nation's law enforcement
community.
Thank you. Thank you for putting your lives on the line every day to
keep our homes, our families, and our communities safe. Thank you for
your sacrifice, and may God bless you all.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 15 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
NATO
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, well, as has since been reported in the
news despite our efforts to keep word of our travel somewhat under
wraps before it was accomplished, this last weekend, Senators Collins,
Barrasso, and I had the honor of traveling to Ukraine with Senator
McConnell on a trip where we visited not only President Zelenskyy in
the Presidential palace but also visited two of what we hope will be
the next members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, namely,
Sweden and Finland.
As we all know, it has been nearly 3 months now since Russia invaded
Ukraine. There is no telling what President Putin expected. Perhaps he
expected to be able to occupy Ukraine without firing a shot. But the
fact is that the Ukrainians' spirit and will to defend their country
remain unbroken and undaunted, and Putin's plans have failed and failed
miserably.
We saw this firsthand when we had a chance to visit Kyiv this
weekend. Before the invasion, Kyiv was a cultural, religious, and
economic hub for the great country of Ukraine. Despite being damaged by
Russia's failed attempt to seize the city and occupy Ukraine, Kyiv
still embodies the Ukrainian will to survive against all odds.
When we were there, we met, of course, with President Zelenskyy and
his advisers. They have done what I think we all hope we would do in
the face of an unprovoked invasion, and that is to remain steadfast in
dedication to your people and your country.
President Zelenskyy's leadership has inspired free nations and free
people around the world. His unwavering commitment to Ukraine and its
sovereignty has helped rally the rest of the freedom-loving world to
come to the aid of Ukraine in a number of different ways. President
Zelenskyy, of course, is a product of Ukrainian culture that values
strength, resilience, a love of homeland, and we know that the people
of Ukraine are the same and certainly no different.
The Ukrainian people are determined not just to defend their country
but to win in this fight against Russia, and that is what they have
been doing. What they have asked of us is to give them the tools they
need to fight their own fight.
Since the earliest days of this invasion, the United States has
provided billions of dollars in military and humanitarian assistance,
and we continue looking to President Zelenskyy so we can understand
what more is needed.
This is not only a security crisis, this is a humanitarian crisis as
well since Ukraine is known generally as the bread basket of Europe. He
and his advisers warned us about the possibility of global food
shortages caused by a Russian blockade of Ukrainian ports. This will
lead to widespread famine not just in Europe but throughout Africa and
spread the pain far afield from Europe.
When it comes to military aid, President Zelenskyy emphasized a
message he has consistently shared with us: We need more, and we need
it faster--more Stingers, more Javelins, more air defenses, more lethal
aid.
Last week, President Biden signed a bill that I introduced along with
Senators Wicker, Cardin, and Shaheen, which was called the Ukraine
Democracy Lend-Lease Act.
This legislation is rooted in the same lend-lease legislation that
President Roosevelt signed into law in 1941 which allowed the United
States to supply Great Britain and other allies with military
equipment. At that time, President Roosevelt vowed to transform the
United States into what he called the ``arsenal of democracy,'' and the
Lend-Lease Act helped accomplish that.
This legislation, the Ukrainian Democracy Lend-Lease Act, which has
now been signed into law by President Biden, cuts redtape so we can
quickly give Ukraine what it needs to win the war against Russia.
During our visit, President Zelenskyy shared with us the importance
of this historic lend-lease program. We also discussed our commitment
to helping Ukraine until they are victorious and encourage our allies
and partners around the world to work with us--to continue to work with
us to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself.
Of course, we are now, as I said, just shy of 3 months into this war,
and we know that we will be called upon to do more, but we all have a
part to play in ensuring that Putin ultimately abandons as futile this
mission to recreate the Soviet Union.
This week, as we know, the Senate will consider a supplemental
funding bill to provide Ukraine with even more security and
humanitarian assistance. I know there are some who disagree with more
funding for Ukraine. To them I would say, this funding, this support,
this military and humanitarian support is not strictly an act of
altruism on our part. We are doing this also because allowing Ukraine
to defend itself is in our best interest. We can't kid ourselves by
thinking that Putin would simply end with his brutal conquest of
Ukraine or if he did, that he wouldn't start it up again in the near
future. If Putin took Ukraine or a sizable portion of its geography,
this would be just the next domino to fall in Putin's mad drive to try
to cobble together whatever he can of the old Russian Empire, which
would have extreme consequences for America and the rest of the world.
Even though Ukraine is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, the outcome of this war will without a doubt have an
impact on the United States and our NATO allies. An invasion of a NATO
country would trigger article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance,
which would require us to come to the aid and defense of a fellow
member of that alliance.
Already Putin has made threats against Moldova, Romania, and now
Sweden and Finland. His actions are an attack on the entire West and
threaten peace and security around the world. It is literally a threat
on the idea of freedom itself. Today, the frontline is Ukraine. Where
that frontline will shift tomorrow is largely up to us and the
Ukrainians.
Peace on the European continent is a peace fought for and won by the
sacrifices of many who came before us. Obviously, we have experienced
an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity around the world
following the Second World War. Having experienced two world wars on
the same continent over a period of 40 or 50 years, anybody in their
right mind would look for ways to try to resist and reduce the
likelihood of another war in Europe during our lifetime.
It was because of the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents that
we have had this, what Bob Gates, the former Secretary of Defense, has
called a holiday from history. Most of us have grown up knowing nothing
but the peace and prosperity bought with the contributions and
sacrifices of our parents and grandparents. But we now have our own
responsibility, not only to our communities, to our families, and to
our Nation to act in the face of this aggression, we have to contribute
our part to the preservation of freedom and democracy around the world
by helping Ukraine defend its freedom and its democracy.
Of course our support for Ukraine has costs, but every position will
entail a cost. Of course, in this situation, the cost of the United
States doing nothing, of simply turning over this democracy and our
security and our economy to Putin, well, that is greater than any cost
that could come by a supplemental appropriation that the U.S. Congress
might make to assist
[[Page S2532]]
Ukraine. We know that world wars have been started by lesser action,
and we must do everything we can to prevent this contagion from
spreading beyond its current boundaries.
So what is at stake here is greater than the future of any one
nation. The security of Europe is in question. The reach of Russia's
aspirations to reestablish its former empire are as well. And we know
that there are global repercussions however we choose to respond.
Of course, other adversaries of the United States are watching to see
what we do. China, Iran, and North Korea are looking for any sign of
weakness that would permit them to take advantage of that weakness to
do something similar to what Putin is doing. We cannot show these
authoritarian governments or their leaders any weakness that might
encourage them to replicate Putin's unprovoked aggression.
While abroad, as I said, we visited with the leadership of Finland
and Sweden at a pivotal and historic time for them. Both countries have
historically been nonaligned with any warring power, but they realize
the imminent threat of this invasion of Ukraine, what that means to
them and their safety and their security. Both countries are now in the
process of applying for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, and I am pleased to see that they will move forward with
that decision and are as I speak.
Adding them to this alliance which has produced the longest unbroken
period of peace and security of any treaty that the United States has
been a part of, their participation will give the United States crucial
partners in Scandinavia and in the High North and in the Arctic region,
and it will nearly double the land border Russia shares with NATO
countries.
You know, it is ironic that Putin said that one reason he invaded
Ukraine is he did not want Ukraine to become part of NATO. He didn't
want NATO on his border. Well, thanks to his missteps and
miscalculation, now he will find Finland, with an 830-mile border, a
member of NATO and on the Russian border--exactly what he said he hoped
to avoid.
Now, I applaud the parliaments of both Sweden and Finland for
breaking with their longstanding provisions of neutrality in order to
serve the best interests of their people and to contribute to the
collective security of Europe. Sweden and Finland will be much safer
thanks to this bold decision by their governments, and they will
certainly add value to NATO and enhance the deterrence of this
collective defense agreement known as the North Atlantic Treaty
alliance.
During our meetings, I told our colleagues, our parliamentarians from
Sweden and Finland, that I backed their accessions unequivocally. Both
of these countries have seen and acted on a major lesson from Putin's
invasion of Ukraine: Putin does not honor internationally agreed-upon
borders no matter what the cost. Sweden and Finland both have robust,
well-resourced militaries, and I look forward as one Senator to
welcoming them into NATO, and I hope all of our colleagues will agree
with that when the time comes.
I am grateful to Leader McConnell for putting together this past
weekend's trip. I found it enormously educational, and I think it sent
a great message, not only to President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian
people that we will continue to support them, whether it is with lethal
aid or humanitarian assistance, but, likewise, I think it sent a
message to our impending additions to NATO--Sweden and Finland--that we
will support their addition to NATO when the time comes here in the
U.S. Senate.
Lastly, I want to share a message from Ukraine. President Zelenskyy
asked us, as Representatives of our various States and the American
people, to convey to the American people his personal thanks and
gratitude for supporting them during this existential fight with
Russia. We, in turn, thanked President Zelenskyy for showing the world
what one country and what one inspired leader can do to rally the cause
of freedom and democracy and nonaggression around the world.
President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians have changed the course of
history for the better, and we unequivocally are with the Ukrainian
people in their fight to remain a sovereign democracy.
I yield the floor.
Vote on Motion to Proceed
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Under the previous order, all
post-cloture time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van
Hollen) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 11, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]
YEAS--88
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--11
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Crapo
Hagerty
Hawley
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Paul
Tuberville
NOT VOTING--1
Van Hollen
The motion was agreed to.
____________________