[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.

                          ____________________