[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 20, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4839-S4847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         AMENDMENT TO MONTREAL PROTOCOL (``KIGALI AMENDMENT'')

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the treaty.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Calendar No. 2, Treaty Document No. 117-1, Amendment to 
     Montreal Protocol (``Kigali Amendment'').

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Amendment No. 5503

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5503.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5503 to the resolution of ratification.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 5503) is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To add an effective date)

       At the end add the following:

     SEC. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This resolution of ratification shall take effect on the 
     date that is 1 day after ratification.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the Kigali Amendment 
to the Montreal Protocol.
  I thank the leader for bringing this important legislative initiative 
to the Senate floor, and I want to thank our Republican colleagues who 
have joined in a bipartisan effort to send a very strong message that 
this is about America's competitiveness; this is about America's 
security; this is about challenging China.
  For more than 20 years, U.S. manufacturers have been hard at work 
pioneering new technologies for our refrigerators and air-conditioners. 
They defined the global standard, and they have the competitive 
advantage over companies in China and India which have doubled down on 
yesterday's technology.
  Our companies want and need the Senate to support them so that they 
can continue to lead, to create jobs, and to export their goods to 
global markets.
  So this is why I come to the floor today, to urge my Senate 
colleagues to provide advice and consent to the Kigali Amendment, the 
fifth technical update to the incredibly successful Montreal Protocol, 
a treaty amendment that passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
by bipartisan voice vote--a bipartisan voice vote. That just shows the 
depth and scope of bipartisan support. Each of the four prior updates 
were approved by the full Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same for Kigali.
  The amendment is a success story of business and government working 
together, dating back to the George W. Bush Administration. It is an 
update that will ensure U.S. leadership in exports into the future, and 
it is the only way--the only way--to keep our businesses from being 
locked out of markets across the world.
  American businesses are clear. It is time to phase down antiquated 
chemicals, known as HFCs, which American manufacturers want to leave 
behind. It is time to usher in a new era in which the modern products 
are purchased all over the world.
  Our companies already lead in this space. They have been investing 
billions of dollars to develop new technologies--alternatives to HFCs--
and they have done so in ways that will ultimately decrease costs--
decrease costs--for U.S. consumers. That is why, for the time being, we 
have the competitive advantage over China and others.
  So the choice on this is clear: Ratifying Kigali means ensuring U.S. 
companies dominate the export markets. Failure to ratify means a wasted 
investment and a missed opportunity. Ratifying means we will see 
thousands more domestic manufacturing jobs--33,000, according to 
industry estimates. Failure to ratify means U.S. businesses that employ 
tens of thousands of people across the country will not--will not--be 
able to sell many of their products in key countries. We are talking 
about $4.8 billion annually--annually--

[[Page S4840]]

of increased exports; $12.5 billion of increased economic output per 
year. So do we want billions of dollars a year in more exports and 
economic output or do we want to have lost jobs? Do we want lost 
exports? Do we want our companies suffering needlessly?
  Beginning in 2033, the nations all around the world that have already 
joined Kigali--137 of them and counting that have already done this--
will be required--required--to block the imports of most HFCs from the 
countries that have not joined Kigali. So we would be blocked if we 
don't, in fact, ratify this amendment.
  We don't want U.S. manufacturers to be on the outside looking in. 
They employ thousands of people all over the country. We don't want 
them to be unable to sell products that they had been at the forefront 
of developing. Adopting this treaty amendment is the only way to keep 
our businesses from being locked out of global markets.
  So let's not waste the engagement and encouragement by the Bush 
administration that led U.S. manufacturers to develop alternatives to 
these harmful chemicals. Let's not waste the accomplishments made by 
the AIM Act, which President Trump signed into law. We need to remember 
that the AIM Act provides for the exact same chemical phasedown 
required by Kigali, which means that we have already taken the required 
steps domestically.
  This means that we wouldn't be required to do anything more--anything 
more--if we ratify Kigali, but we will miss out on billions in exports 
and thousands of jobs if we fail to do so.
  That is the essence. That is why manufacturers all over the country 
in States like Wisconsin, Texas, and Kentucky support Senate approval 
of Kigali. That is why there has been an outpouring of support from the 
business community, including major employers like Walmart, Carrier, 
Trane, Lennox, and others.
  That is why the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, and the impacted industries all support this 
practical and bipartisan Senate action.
  So, in closing, I ask my colleagues to fulfill our constitutional 
role in the treaty process by providing advice and consent to the 
Kigali Amendment. That requires 67 votes. I think we are well on our 
way there. Let's support American businesses. Let's continue to be the 
global leader. Let's support American consumers. Let's make sure the 
United States stays ahead of the competition. And let's beat China, 
instead of help China, at the end of the day. We can do all of that and 
so much more by adopting today's amendment.
  And I want to thank so many who have worked on this in a bipartisan 
effort. Senator Kennedy has been working very hard. I want to thank my 
colleague Senator Carper, the chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, who has been so passionate about the Kigali Amendment 
and such a force to bring us to this moment today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, while he is still here on the floor, I 
just want to express to Senator Menendez, my thanks, our thanks, to him 
and others on the Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership and 
for setting us up for great success--American businesses up for 
extraordinary success here today. The path is clear. We need to use 
some common sense and work together, and I think we will benefit from 
that and so will the men and women who have sent us here to serve them 
and to represent them.
  Mr. President, I rise today in support of ratification of the Kigali 
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.
  I have worn many hats throughout my life of public service, including 
naval flight officer, State Treasurer, Congressman, Governor, and a 
U.S. Senator. Today, I rise to speak from my heart as a recovering 
Governor, if you will.
  During my 8 years as Governor of Delaware, I realized quickly that my 
job was not to create jobs. That is not why they elected me. Rather, it 
was to help provide a nurturing environment for job creation--to help 
create a nurturing environment for job creation. More jobs were created 
in the 8 years that I was Governor of Delaware, I am told, than any 
other 8-year period in the history of the State of Delaware. I didn't 
create one of them, but we did work very hard with the legislature and 
with the business community and others to create a nurturing 
environment that made possible extraordinary job creation.
  The most successful economic development policies were the policies 
that provided business with long-term certainty and predictability. As 
it turns out, that is not unique to Delaware or to New Jersey or to 
Connecticut or any other State represented here. It is something that 
we still hear from businesses across the country in all 50 States, and 
I am sure my other colleagues hear that message, too, on a regular 
basis.
  That is why I am so passionate about working with our friend and 
colleague Senator John Neely Kennedy to ratify the Kigali Amendment to 
the Montreal Protocol.
  During the Trump administration, we successfully enacted the American 
Innovation and Manufacturing Act, known as the AIM Act, which phases 
down HFCs in accordance with the Kigali Amendment.
  Ratification of the Kigali Amendment, along with implementation of 
the AIM Act, will provide businesses with certainty and with the 
predictability that they need for future investments.
  Ratification will unleash billions of dollars in U.S. economic 
benefits--billions of dollars in U.S. economic benefits--and create 
some 150,000 American jobs by 2027.
  I am going to repeat that. Ratification will unleash billions of 
dollars in U.S. economic benefits and create some 150,000 American jobs 
by 2027. These jobs are jobs in my State. These are jobs in every other 
State throughout our country. Why would we ever pass up this 
opportunity?
  Let me be clear to my colleagues. I am not the one telling industry 
that ratification of the Kigali Amendment is good for business and 
economic growth. No, I am not telling them that. Industry leaders are 
telling us that Kigali is good for their businesses. Everyone from the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the American Chemistry Council, to the Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, to the Alliance for 
Responsible Atmospheric Policy support ratification for Kigali. In 
fact, it is hard to find anyone in the business community who is 
opposed to ratification.
  I would like to share with my colleagues today one statement that I 
think is particularly noteworthy from the National Association of 
Manufacturers. Here is what they have to say on this score:

       Kigali ratification will protect American workers, grow the 
     economy, and improve our trade balance all while encouraging 
     further innovation to strengthen America's technology 
     leadership. If we work together--if we rise above politics 
     and partisanship and focus on solving problems--we can make 
     our vision of a brighter tomorrow into reality.

  But for my colleagues who are still hesitant to support the Kigali 
ratification and worried that ratification may hurt, not help, global 
competitiveness, here are a few points I would like for you to think 
about before tomorrow's vote.
  First, I have heard concerns that ratification might benefit China 
and hurt the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
While the United States contributes roughly $40 million annually to the 
Montreal Protocol's financial assistance programs, which facilitate the 
transition to next-generation technologies, it is not true that this 
assistance goes solely to China.
  In fact, China only receives a very small fraction of these funds. 
According to the U.S. heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and 
refrigeration industry, financial assistance to China under the 
Montreal Protocol supports less than 2 percent of China's $37 billion 
refrigerant market--less than 2 percent of China's $37 billion 
refrigerant market. Moreover, China's share of these funds is 
decreasing, not increasing. In fact, funding to China under the 
Montreal Protocol has decreased--has decreased--by nearly 70 percent in 
recent years.
  Mr. President, the truth is, the small amount we pay every year under 
the Montreal Protocol is worth the investment and then some. Through 
Kigali

[[Page S4841]]

ratification, American businesses are set to gain nearly $40 billion--
$40 billion--in economic benefits by 2027, according to a 2018 study by 
the University of Maryland. Ratifying Kigali will guarantee that 
American businesses continue to have access to international markets 
for refrigerants long into the future.
  However, without ratification, American companies could lose full 
access to international markets for refrigerants after 2033, closing 
the door to billions in future economic opportunities for U.S. 
companies. Why would we want to allow that to happen?
  Ratification also protects U.S. business investments. While China has 
doubled down on HFCs and the production of HFCs, a dumping of HFCs--and 
to this day illegally dumping HFCs into this country--the United States 
leads the world, I am proud to say--it leads the world in HFC 
alternatives. Ratification would protect against the illegal HFC 
dumping and smuggling. These are protections that U.S. businesses have 
sought.
  I have also heard fears that ratifying the Kigali Amendment will 
somehow raise consumer costs. That is just not true. We are already 
transitioning away from HFCs similar to the way we transitioned away 
from ozone-depleting substances through the 1987 Montreal Protocol 
under President Reagan's leadership.
  With the transition away from HFCs, we expect consumer costs to fall. 
Now, why is that? New refrigerants and related products run more 
efficiently. According to the EPA, use of HFC alternatives will save 
consumers and businesses billions of dollars in costs. Again, 
ratification means lower costs for consumers and for businesses while 
enhancing U.S. competition.
  In closing, I hope our colleagues will join Senator Kennedy and me in 
supporting the ratification of the Kigali Amendment. This is a treaty 
that fosters job creation--a lot of jobs. This is a treaty that 
promotes economic growth. This is a treaty that strengthens American 
leadership. This is a treaty of ``Made in America,'' not ``Made in 
China.''
  With that, Mr. President, 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  NDAA

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there is this old document that no one 
reads anymore called the Constitution, and I think some of my 
colleagues should give it another read today.
  The Constitution tells us what Congress is supposed to be doing here 
in DC, and that is national defense. It is right there at the top. Now, 
some of my colleagues don't agree with it. They don't have that as the 
No. 1 concern. I think the majority do, but there are some who don't.
  I would say this: For 61 years now, for 61 years in a row, Congress 
has fulfilled this duty by passing the National Defense Authorization 
Act to strengthen the common defense and support our troops. That is 61 
years. That is a long track record. And this year will be my 62nd, and 
I am proud to say that I have had the opportunity to vote on over half 
of them in that timeframe. So I think I have a pretty good 
understanding of what it takes to get this bill done and the 
significance of this bill.

  The way this typically works is the House does their bill; then the 
Senate does ours; and then we go into conference and create a 
bipartisan, bicameral conference report. That is commonly, normally 
what takes place. But that takes time. It really takes months. You know 
I have been in a position of being active in this for a long period of 
time. So when I look at the legislative calendar right now, I get 
concerned. The days are ticking down, and, frankly, we are running out 
of time to get this bill done, to do it the right way, and we are 
talking about the most important bill that we consider all year. Now, 
some people don't agree with that, but I certainly do. This tells us 
our ability to defend and help America to survive.
  Senator Reed and I believe deeply in this bill. We held a markup on 
June 15 and reported out a strong bipartisan bill. That was 3 months 
ago. Now, we have got an election in November that will likely eat away 
at the limited time that we have.
  We saw last year what happens when this bill isn't given enough floor 
time. Last year, Majority Leader Schumer waited until the last possible 
moment to try to jam through the NDAA, the National Defense 
Authorization Act, without debate right before Thanksgiving. If he 
delays it again, we don't get an open amendment process where every 
Senator has a chance to improve the bill. Now, we are talking about 
every Senator--not just the members of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee but all the others who are out there who have an interest in 
how to make this a better bill.
  We have a virtually unlimited amendments process that we have enjoyed 
in the past. Now, if he delays, we get jammed in negotiating a 
conferenced bill with the House. The whole process would take longer, 
which leaves our military with more uncertainty and prevents them from 
moving out and getting things done. There are real consequences to 
waiting this long. It is bad for this institution. It is bad for our 
troops. It is bad for our national security.
  Now, I understand some of my colleagues, including the majority 
leader, have different priorities than I do, but I think this is the 
most important bill that we do all year. So this year, that is as true 
as ever. We have threats. We have two countries out there, Russia and 
China; they have capabilities that we never believed they had, and some 
capabilities are better than ours.
  Now, people have this assumption--when I go out to Oklahoma or 
anywhere around the country and I talk about what we are doing here and 
explain to them that we have other countries out there, we have threats 
that are there, most people now agree that we are in the most 
threatened position that we have been in in a long period of time and 
the scope of threats that we have.
  Senator Reed and I deeply believe in this bill because it responds to 
those threats and it takes care of our troops. We finished markup 3 
months ago. We could have gotten started--we could have been finished 
by now.
  I have to admit, Mr. President, that I have a selfish motive. Now, 
how many Members of this body are going to stand up and admit they have 
a selfish motive, other than me? And that motive is that I want to get 
this bill done because it will be the last national defense 
authorization bill of my career. I want to make sure it is done right. 
I would hate to leave here without finishing the NDAA, without 
fulfilling our promises to our troops and the American people. I would 
hate even more to see the bill's six-decade track record broken. For 
the last 4 years as chairman and now ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee, I have fought tirelessly to pass this bill.
  I know the majority leader doesn't want to be responsible for the 
demise of Congress's last remaining annual authorization bill. There is 
really no time to waste. We are out of time now. The Senate is going to 
have to do, now, the NDAA.
  With that, 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. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Ms. SINEMA). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to seek consent to advance the 
nomination of a Virginian and friend, Leopoldo Martinez, to be 
Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank. The IDB is 
the largest source of development financing for Latin America and the 
Caribbean. It is a critical part of the ability of the United States to 
engage diplomatically with our American partners to counter a growing 
influence of Russia and China and Iran and other nations in the 
Americas. And it is very much in the national interest of the United 
States

[[Page S4842]]

to build up economic prosperity of countries in the Western Hemisphere.
  We have seen over and over that when countries have troubled 
economies, it is not a distant or faraway problem. It drives government 
corruption; it drives organized crime; it drives drug abuse and drug 
trafficking. And then it expands migration that could start as a 
country's problems but very quickly become our country's problems as 
well. When we don't step up, we see that other nations--China and 
Russia, in particular--in the Americas fill the vacuum.
  As Latin America and the Caribbean countries continue to face 
challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic--where the region has had the 
highest global per capita infection and death rates in the world and is 
experiencing the largest economic contraction of any region in the 
world--the IDB has a key role to play in improving economic outcomes 
for the region.
  But the problem is the IDB is without an executive director. It is 
without leadership confirmed by the Senate at this critical moment in 
time.
  Leopoldo Martinez brings decades of experience in the public and 
private sectors, as well as academia. He has extensive experience 
advising Fortune 500 companies, private equity funds, international 
businesses, and nongovernmental organizations. He is the CEO for the 
Center for Democracy and Development of the Americas, as well as a 
commissioner for small business in the Commonwealth of Virginia. He is 
on the board of one of our public universities, the University of Mary 
Washington.
  And as I have said, he is not just a constituent; he is also a 
friend. And in all respect, he is outstandingly qualified for this 
position.
  Now, I understand that there are differences of opinion in the Senate 
about the success, or lack thereof, about the Biden administration's 
policies in Latin America. Earlier this week or late last week, some of 
my Republicans challenged the Biden administration as being too soft on 
corruption issues in the Americas.
  I was asked about my Republican colleagues' critiques, and I would 
say: Well, I got a critique, too. I wouldn't say they are too soft, but 
I would say they are too inattentive. I don't think we have, under this 
administration or the previous administration or the previous 
administration--going back nearly to the beginning of this country, I 
don't think we paid the attention to the Americas that we should.
  And when we only pay episodic attention to the Americas, a lot of bad 
things happen in Western Hemisphere countries that end up making things 
worse for us. But if there is a critique to be laid against the Biden 
administration, or any administration in the Americas, we don't solve 
the critique by leaving key positions vacant that could be used to 
strengthen our activities in the hemisphere.
  I understand that some of my colleagues have objected--and this was 
raised in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--to some, frankly, 
partisan tweets--some annoying and nasty tweets--that my friend Leo 
Martinez put on his social media accounts.
  I want to say to pages: You might want to think about this now 
because in 10 or 30 years when you are running for the Senate or you 
are up for a position that is a Senate-confirmed position, anything you 
tweet is going to be held against you.
  But I do think they have to be put into context. My friend Mr. 
Martinez is a Democrat. And no surprise, he is being nominated by a 
Democratic administration. He has let his tongue race ahead of his 
brain on a couple of occasions. But I think all 100 of us have seen 
this pretty often in the last 10 years, and we have learned to apply a 
little bit of a discounting to it.
  I have voted for many Trump administration nominees who had some 
negative tweets and even said negative things about me. I didn't like 
them and I wouldn't have nominated them, but I would acknowledge that 
they are qualified for the job. And I believe that Mr. Martinez is more 
than that.
  Finally, I want to speak, in particular, to my colleague from Texas, 
who is here. My colleague from Texas serves with me on the Foreign 
Relations Committee. I believe I am going to be accurate about this, 
but I will be corrected if I get any details wrong. He asked Mr. 
Martinez in some written questions about working together with faith-
based organizations in his role in the IDB should he be confirmed 
because throughout the region and throughout the world, sometimes 
faith-based organizations are some of the most effective in, for 
example, providing humanitarian aid, working with refugees, et cetera.
  The initial responses from Mr. Martinez, I believe, were not 
satisfactory to my colleague, and maybe other colleagues as well, but I 
do believe that Mr. Martinez has tried to amplify those and meet and 
discuss this issue.
  I worked as a missionary in Honduras. I know very powerfully the role 
that religious organizations do in the region. I know how important it 
is for us, whether it is USAID or State Department or IDP, to work in 
tandem with some of these faith-based organizations who do such a 
powerful job. And everything I know about my friend Mr. Martinez 
suggests that he would see the value of those partnerships as well.

  So with that, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the Committee on Senate Foreign Relations be 
discharged and the Senate proceed to the following nomination: PN1028, 
Leopoldo Martinez Nucete, to be Executive Director of the Inter-
American Development Bank; that the Senate vote on the nomination, with 
no intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table; and that no further motions be 
in order as to this nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  Let me start by expressing agreement with my friend from Virginia on 
two points he just raised: No. 1, his very good advice to the pages 
here and to any Senate staff that might be listening. The best thing to 
do probably is do not tweet. But if you must tweet--and I am guilty of 
that offense myself--remember that your tweets can and will be used 
against you; that the internet is forever. And as the father of 
daughters, I sometimes am terrified of what our children will say and 
to see it come back to haunt them years and decades later.
  And the second thing my friend from Virginia said that I also agree 
with is he said, administrations from both parties have neglected the 
Americas. I think that is a serious problem. I am a strong believer in 
the Monroe Doctrine. I think the United States of America has a pivotal 
leadership responsibility in North America and in South America. And I 
think under both Republican and Democrat administrations, too often the 
executive branch has neglected the vital role of Central America, of 
South America, of our friends throughout the Americas. I think that 
problem has been exacerbated under the Biden administration because 
under the Biden administration, not only have they neglected the 
hemisphere, but what little attention they have given has had the 
effect of elevating the extreme left in Latin America--elevating 
socialists, elevating Marxists, elevating terrorists, and elevating 
enemies of America.
  We see this tragically in the recent election in Colombia, where a 
strong friend and ally of America is now led by someone who had been a 
hard-left active terrorist, and I believe the Biden administration's 
actions, including delisting multiple terrorists from our official 
terrorism list, played a role in elevating an anti-American leftist in 
Colombia.
  Well, how does that relate to this nomination? I rise to express very 
significant concerns with the nomination of Mr. Martinez Nucete.
  For one thing, at the outset, Mr. Martinez Nucete is a man of the 
left--a man of the hard left. Now, the Senator from Virginia suggested 
that he may have sent an ill-advised tweet now and then, and that is 
true, but that is not the basis of my opposition.
  He has been a hard partisan his entire life, and even further than 
that--and this is really quite remarkable--Mr. Martinez Nucete was 
actually a Socialist congressman in Venezuela. Under Hugo Chavez, he 
was a member or his party was a member of Socialist International, and 
he was a man of the hard left, the anti-American hard left.

[[Page S4843]]

Hugo Chavez was an unshakable enemy of America. Nicholas Maduro 
continues to be a brutal dictator, an illegitimate leader, and an enemy 
of America.
  I believe President Biden nominating a fellow traveler, a Socialist 
congressman from Venezuela, for a major role dealing with Latin America 
is astonishingly ill-advised.
  Secondly, Mr. Martinez Nucete has expressed an unusual--an odd--
hostility to and antipathy for people of faith. This is not something 
we have seen in many nominees, but his answers have been peculiar in 
this regard. It is particularly inappropriate for the job to which he 
has been nominated.
  For example, here is what the World Bank says about their role:

       The Bank recognizes--

  This is speaking of faith-based organizations.

     --their distinct strategic value given their unique 
     attributes, including the fact that more than 80 percent of 
     the world's population claims religious affiliations. [Faith-
     based organizations] are found in every country and offer 
     opportunities for partnership and advocacy on a broad range 
     of key development issues.

  It is not just the World Bank. Here is what USAID said:

       Faith-based . . . organizations serve some of the most 
     vulnerable populations in the world. They are often the first 
     in and the last to leave, and [are] uniquely qualified to 
     identify and meet local needs.

  Indeed, here is what a study actually funded by the Inter-American 
Development Bank, where Martinez Nucete would be representing the 
United States, said, the IADB:

       All institutions surveyed partnered with community groups 
     and faith-based organizations to provide information.

  Now, what are Mr. Martinez Nucete's views? Well, I asked him about 
them specifically when he came in front of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee. I asked him the extent to which he believed faith should be 
disentangled from development, because he had previously been quite 
vocal on his passions in that regard.
  Here is his answer:

       There should be no entanglement between government and 
     religion. That is a bedrock constitutional principle for us 
     in America. I don't think any particular culture or religion 
     is superior to others in terms of achieving socioeconomic 
     development.

  Now, that answer was odd, and it was nonresponsive to the question I 
asked, so I asked more precisely for Mr. Martinez Nucete to describe 
the role that faith plays in economic development as a constraint and a 
contributing factor. And I remind you that these organizations 
repeatedly said faith-based organizations are integral to success in 
their mission.
  Here is his answer:

       Education and respect for human rights, promoting social 
     mobility in market economies, is the key to development, not 
     faith.

  That is unusual. That degree of I think myopic hostility to faith and 
those with faith is odd in any nominee but particularly one who would 
be required to deal with faith-based organizations on a daily basis.
  I raised these arguments in committee, and he was defeated in the 
committee. We had an even--a deadlocked vote in the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee precisely because of his answers, and then after 
that, he came back and revised his answers. I would say his revised 
answers were terrific. Clearly, someone wrote them who apparently does 
not have a manifest hostility to people of faith. But there is no 
reason to believe that his first answers were not true and honest and a 
reflection of his views.
  There was a time not too long ago where the U.S. Senate found 
bipartisan consensus on many issues, including a defense of religious 
liberty. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed this body; I 
believe the vote was 97 to 3. Numerous iconic, liberal Democrats voted 
for RFRA. President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act into law. Sadly, we are no longer in that era. Too many 
in the Democratic Party now have embraced a view that is hostile and 
antagonistic to people of faith, whether people of the Christian faith, 
people of the Jewish faith, or people of other faiths. I wish that were 
not the case.
  Nevertheless, I believe it is inappropriate for the U.S. 
representative on a development board that is required to deal with 
faith-based organizations on a regular basis to be both an extreme man 
of the left who was a Socialist congressman under Hugo Chavez and an 
individual who has expressed repeated antipathy to people of faith. 
Accordingly, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, just a brief response. I will not respond 
to Senator Cruz's representation of Mr. Martinez's testimony before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has his opinion about what those 
words mean, and I think he quoted them accurately. But I would just say 
for anyone, you can go and look at that quote and decide for yourself 
whether you think that was a statement that was hostile to faith or 
whether that was a statement by a bank or business guy financier about 
what he thought were the most important issues that an international 
development bank should be focused on.
  I read those same comments as not hostile or antipathetic to faith; I 
view them as comments of an individual who has been in the finance 
industry who knows what the remit of the international development bank 
is and is talking about his own priorities in terms of how that bank 
should program their work.
  But I do want to respond to the first point. Senator Cruz is correct 
about Mr. Martinez's past. He grew up in Venezuela. He was initially in 
a government that apparently had a lot of promise to offer to 
Venezuelans because Mr. Chavez was elected by Venezuelans in a 
democratic election overwhelmingly. But my colleague didn't tell you 
the rest of the story.
  Mr. Martinez is now a political exile from Venezuela who was part of 
the Venezuelan opposition, who has been strong in critiquing the human 
rights' record of both the Chavez and Maduro regimes, and I think that 
is actually one of the reasons that President Biden nominated him for 
this position. If anyone knows the danger of authoritarian governments, 
including authoritarian governments from the left in the Americas, and 
knows what it will take for America to counter that with smart 
strategies, it is somebody who grew up in that culture and came to 
realize the dangerous path that his country was on.
  I think whoever is the IDB President is going to have an awful lot of 
work to do, but the single largest challenge in the Americas right now, 
at least in terms of pushing refugees out of the country, is in 
Venezuela. And who better than someone who knows it firsthand and, 
after seeing it, decided to become a dedicated member of the Venezuelan 
opposition in exile in the United States--who better to counter that 
influence?
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           National Security

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, for each of the past 61 years straight, 
the Senate has passed the National Defense Authorization Act. I still 
remember the Presiding Officer's predecessor, John McCain, who used to 
rail on the Senate to get this done and making the very correct point 
that this should be the No. 1 priority of the U.S. Congress--making 
sure that our men and women in uniform received the training, the 
support, and the weapons they need in order to keep America safe.
  The annual Defense bill is part of Congress's commitment to give our 
men and women in uniform the resources they need to surmount the 
growing threats of today and prepare for the ones that inevitably will 
come tomorrow.
  As we know here in the Senate, the global threat landscape is not 
getting easier. It is getting more and more dangerous. Some of the 
changes happen quickly and can be traced to a single moment in time.
  For example, September 11, 2001, changed everything in our 
conversation and our acts to fight terrorism across the world. That 
single day and that single act forced us to reexamine our longstanding 
military paradigm

[[Page S4844]]

and change course as rapidly as we could.
  But other threats grow over time. Just look at the rise of the 
People's Republic of China. Over the course of roughly four decades, 
China has transformed itself from a poor, isolated country to the 
world's second largest economy. Its wealth is used to finance a 
powerful military, with increasingly aggressive and hostile acts.
  Looking back over the last year or so, it is remarkable to consider 
how much has happened and how quickly the global threat picture has 
shifted.
  Last year at this time, American troops were still on the ground in 
Afghanistan, but President Biden made the decision to retreat ahead of 
the 20th anniversary of September 11, and our servicemembers and 
diplomats were preparing for what we assumed would be an orderly 
withdrawal. There wasn't much optimism about the long-term fate of the 
Afghan Government, but it was expected to hold out for at least 6 
months following our withdrawal.
  At the same time, tensions between Russia and Ukraine were high, but 
nothing really much new. The countries have had a long, tense 
relationship since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but there didn't 
seem to be any reason for immediate alarm. Ukrainian cities were as 
vibrant, lively, and free as ever.
  In a little over a year's time, though, all of that has changed. The 
Taliban took control of Afghanistan before our troops even exited, 
leading to a chaotic exit and the loss of 13 heroic servicemembers and 
other Americans left behind.
  In this period of time, Russia has launched an unprovoked war on 
Ukraine, bringing death and destruction to the Ukrainian people. Over 
the past several months, thousands of Ukrainian civilians have died and 
more than 13 million have been displaced. Europe is now experiencing 
the largest refugee crisis since World War II.
  To finance its ongoing war machine, Russia is developing even closer 
ties to communist China. Meanwhile, North Korea has declared itself a 
nuclear weapons state. Iran appears to be inching even closer to 
acquiring a nuclear weapon, and China's threats against Taiwan have 
only grown more dangerous in this period of time.
  It is striking to consider how much has changed in such a short 
period. Last summer, it would have been nearly impossible for us to 
predict that this is where we would be some 14 months later.
  I am reminded of former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates' words in 
2011. He said:

       When it comes to predicting the nature and location of our 
     next military engagements, since Vietnam, our record has been 
     perfect. We haven't gotten it right once.

  Of course, he is absolutely correct. It is impossible to anticipate 
the challenges that face us and that are on the horizon, but that 
doesn't mean we should sit idly by and hope that we are ready for what 
is coming. There is simply no security in that sort of fantasy. We need 
to start taking actions today to ensure that we are prepared for 
whatever comes knocking at our door.
  Everybody knows that in order to secure our defense and be prepared 
to deter aggression from aggressive actors we need money. We need to 
make sure that we have the weapons that are needed not only to supply 
countries like Ukraine, not only to replenish the supply from our NATO 
allies that have been, in turn, supplying weapons to Ukraine, but we 
need to be ready for whatever comes knocking at our door.
  Our military leaders need to plan and train every single day for the 
unknown, and that is exactly why a strong, on-time National Defense 
Authorization Act is absolutely critical. Now more than ever, we need 
to take stock of evolving threats and start preparing.
  One of the problems that Britain faced in World War II is they did 
not heed Winston Churchill's warning about the growing military 
strength and ambitions of Nazi Germany. Britain, in the end, as a 
result, was hanging on by a thread, and that is where the United States 
got involved in becoming the arsenal of democracy in the Lend-Lease 
Program, which provided the Brits the military equipment they needed, 
the aviation platforms, and the weapons in order to defend themselves 
and to survive until the United States got involved in World War II, 
following the attack at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese.
  Over the last 20 years, we have developed a military that is used to 
fighting unconventional, asymmetrical threats, like insurgent groups in 
the Middle East. We have been focused on the war on terrorism since 9/
11, but things have changed in the interim. Now, a conflict with China 
or Russia seems more likely.
  To prevent or to prevail in such a conflict, we need a more 
conventional, highly technological modern military.
  In addition to determining what capabilities we need, we also have to 
ask ourselves whether our defense industrial base--that arsenal of 
democracy, as Franklin Roosevelt called it in World War II--whether our 
defense industrial base can even support the production of what our 
military will need to prepare for in the future.
  There is clearly a lot of work that needs to be done, but, like a lot 
of things, it can't happen overnight. That is why it is so important 
that we get started today. In order for the military to invest in these 
new programs and capabilities to deter Chinese and Russian aggression 
against American interests and American allies and in order to send the 
demand signal to our industrial base for new and emerging defense 
requirements, we have to pass the National Defense Authorization Act.
  It is not just the long-term threats that we need to address. We need 
to close the near-term security gaps too. If another conflict came 
knocking at our door today, we would be at a tremendous disadvantage; 
and that is, as I said, because the United States has been supplying 
weapons to Ukraine to defend its own sovereignty. But when we do that, 
that means those weapons are not available to us should President Xi 
decide to invade Taiwan or some other military conflict pops up around 
the world.
  We provided Ukraine with unprecedented defense aid, including 
Javelins, Stingers, grenade launchers, small arms, ammunition, and much 
more. This assistance, to be sure, is not a handout. This is not a 
charity project. Like our allies, the United States has made a 
strategic decision to invest in the outcome. It is not just that we 
want Ukraine to win this war; we also need Russia to lose. We cannot 
risk a Russian victory that will embolden the Kremlin to push its fight 
even farther West.
  There is no question that this is the right thing to do, both 
strategically and morally, but we must remain clear-eyed about the 
risks that our assistance carries. Every piece of equipment or weapon 
that we send is one less that we have ourselves in our arsenal. We need 
to ensure that the assistance that we provide does not end up weakening 
our own military readiness. The cards are already stacked against us, 
and we certainly don't need to weaken our own hand.
  That is why Senator Shaheen and I have introduced the Securing 
American ARMS Act, which will help us replenish our defense stockpiles 
more quickly. The Pentagon is already working toward this goal, but 
there are a lot of bureaucratic hurdles and just redtape that stand in 
the way.
  The Defense Department can't place an order for more Javelins and 
have them show up at the Pentagon 5 to 7 business days later. It 
doesn't work like that. The process of purchasing, manufacturing, and 
deploying lethal aid takes a lot of time which, frankly, we don't have.
  That is where the Securing American ARMS Act comes in. This bill will 
remove some of those time-consuming hurdles to allow the Defense 
Department to fast-track the procurement process. It will allow us to 
provide critical support for our partners and allies now and in the 
future without compromising our own national defense.
  I appreciate Senator Shaheen working with me on this bill, which now 
has more than a dozen bipartisan cosponsors. I am offering this 
legislation as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, 
and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting its inclusion in 
the final bill.
  Now more than ever, a well-prepared and well-funded military is an 
imperative. The rapid changes in the threat landscape should serve as a 
wake-up

[[Page S4845]]

call for anyone who thinks we can carry on with the status quo.
  For our forces to continue fighting and defeating evil in every 
corner of the world, we need to provide that funding. They need the 
stability, and they need the unwavering support of the U.S. Congress.
  As new powers rise and old powers fall, our country must be prepared 
for whatever changes are on the horizon. Congress has a critical role 
in that preparation, and we can't ignore our responsibility. We need to 
pass a strong National Defense Authorization Act as soon as possible, 
and I would urge Senator Schumer, the Senate majority leader, to bring 
that bill to the floor as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.


                     Remembering Queen Elizabeth II

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life 
and service of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who was laid to rest in 
Windsor Castle just yesterday.
  Queen Elizabeth conducted herself with dignity and grace and 
represented the best of the United Kingdom to the world. She was 
unwavering in her support for the United States, and the American 
people reciprocated with their admiration and respect for her.
  My sympathies to the royal family and to the people of Great Britain. 
We treasure our unique relationship and America stands with you once 
again as we mourn your loss.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. President, I am here on the floor of the Senate for the 23rd week 
in a row to bring to the attention of the Senate, to my constituents, 
and to the American people the latest news of Russia's illegal, 
unprovoked, and brutal war against Ukraine.
  I will talk about the disturbing news from Ukraine, about more 
Russian war crimes, and I will discuss the upcoming vote on the 
supplemental spending bill for the effort in Ukraine and why it is so 
important right now to continue to support Ukraine as it makes progress 
in pushing back against Russia's war of aggression.
  Last week, I spoke about Ukraine's stunning advances up here in the 
north around Kharkiv. After distracting the Russians with a 
counteroffensive here in the south near Kherson, the Ukrainian Army 
launched a surprise counteroffensive in the north and punched through 
the Russian lines. In just a matter of days--as you see in the light 
blue part of the map here, in just a matter of days, the Ukrainian Army 
was able to liberate roughly 300 settlements across 3,000 square miles 
and liberate over 150,000 Ukrainians from Russian occupation. They also 
managed to capture hundreds of pieces of Russian military equipment and 
vehicles and ammunition. So now, instead of being used to kill and 
subjugate innocent Ukrainian citizens, these vehicles, the equipment, 
and the munitions can be used by Ukrainian forces to liberate their 
fellow citizens from Russian tyranny. There were stories of Russian 
soldiers abandoning their equipment and stealing Ukrainian cars to make 
their escape--even stealing motorbikes and bicycles.
  Last Wednesday, Ukraine's President Zelenskyy visited a town in this 
area. The town is called Izium. Izium is located right here on the map. 
It is a very strategic town for the Russians. Just 4 days before he 
stepped foot there, this town was under Russian occupation, and even 
when he visited, the frontline was only about 6 miles away.
  Izium had been used as an important logistics hub from which the 
Russians attacked south and east into the Donbas region--down into this 
area. This was supposed to be the northern part of the pincer that 
Russia would use to trap Ukrainian forces in the Donbas. The Ukrainian 
forces who were here had to deal with this area that would be used as a 
station ground to build a cut-off to Ukrainian troops. Instead, it is 
now under Ukrainian control.
  There were reportedly 10,000 Russian soldiers in this town of Izium, 
and most thought it would be months before Ukraine would recapture it. 
But after just a couple of days of a lightning strike, this town, which 
had been held by the Russians for 6 months, is now free, its Russian 
occupiers on the run.
  Unfortunately, what the occupiers left behind was not just military 
equipment, but clear evidence of Russian atrocities. Ukrainian 
officials say multiple graves have been found near the city's cemetery. 
President Zelenskyy has said it contained the bodies of civilians--
civilian adults, civilian children--as well as Ukrainian soldiers 
showing signs of violent deaths including evidence of torture.
  Oleksandr Filchakov, the chief prosecutor of the Kharkiv region, has 
confirmed that at least 445 graves were at one site in this town. Here 
is a photo of some of the corpses that had been discovered.
  Some corpses had their hands tied behind their backs. Others had 
ropes around their necks. Some victims are still being identified, but 
as an example, investigators have confirmed that among the dead are the 
entire Stolpakov family--Elena, her husband Dmitry, 6-year-old Olesya, 
8-year-old Sasha, and Elena's parents. They were killed by a Russian 
air strike on their home in this region. Again, another target--a 
civilian target of Russian missiles.
  Nearly 400 civilian graves in Izium were found near a previous 
graveyard; but near there, they also found 17 graves of Ukrainian 
soldiers. Their hands were all tied, and they appeared to be shot at 
close range. They were in a single mass grave, bodies piled upon one 
another.
  They were executed. So those killed in Izium were men, women, 
children, soldiers, and noncombatants alike--more victims of Russia's 
brutal and unprovoked war. CNN described the scene this way:

       Even the heavy rainfall couldn't erase the smell of death 
     in pine forests in Izium.

  President Zelenskyy described it as ``cruelty and terrorism.'' 
Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova said 
yesterday that the scene was one of ``torture, rapes, killings, and war 
crimes of a massive proportion.'' It is indeed inhumane and genocide, 
but it is not the first time we have seen evidence of Russia committing 
such horrible atrocities.
  A commander in the National Guard announced that his team is also 
hunting for additional graves reportedly of people who were abused, 
victims who were abused, at a detention center in Kozacha Lopan, north 
of Kharkiv. It is this area up here. Certainly, we will learn about 
many more graves and many more atrocities in this area as we begin to 
discover more and more of these war crimes being committed by the 
Russians.
  Over the weekend, President Zelenskyy also said that Ukrainian forces 
had found 10 makeshift torture chambers throughout the liberated 
territories in that Kharkiv region. According to him, some of these 
rooms had tools for Russian soldiers to conduct electric torture on 
innocent Ukrainians. This photo is from inside one of these cellars--
one of these makeshift torture chambers--that were found in the Kharkiv 
region. Here you can see where a prisoner actually scratched the Lord's 
Prayer on the wall of the torture chamber.
  The liberating soldiers are also recovering bodies on the 
battlefield, which is where they are aligned too often in farm fields 
or woods, just left to rot in the fields and the woods. This is what 
Russia has done to Ukraine. This is not a one-off event.
  When Senator Klobuchar and I were in Ukraine 3 weeks ago, we visited 
Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv, and we saw the spot where Russian soldiers had 
dug a mass grave for dozens of innocent civilians they had murdered 
during their occupation. Sadly, the murder, the torture, and the rape 
discovered in Bucha was not unique. These horrific events that happen 
behind Russian lines often aren't known to the world until that area is 
liberated by Ukrainian forces. One has to wonder what other Russian 
horrors are currently occurring in occupied areas that we will witness 
when Ukraine finally liberates the rest of its territory.
  This is the grim reality of Russia's war. President Putin claims that 
his

[[Page S4846]]

war is about liberating Ukrainians and reuniting them with the 
Ukrainian ``brothers and sisters,'' but this photo is not what brothers 
and sisters do to each other. This is not a war of freedom or a war of 
liberation. This is a war of conquest and genocide. And over the 
weekend, we also got a glimpse of what happens to the Ukrainian 
children who have lost their parents in this war and fall into Russia's 
hands.
  Russia's Presidential Commissioner for Children's Rights, who by the 
way has been sanctioned by the United States, recently stated that 
Russian authorities are placing 125 Ukrainian orphans with Russian 
families. Of course, the natural solution here would be to put these 
children in the care of their extended family members in Ukraine, allow 
them to stay in their country, but that is not their objective. 
Russia's goal isn't to provide a better future for these children. 
Their goal is to erase their Ukrainian identity and turn them into 
Russians. Under the rules laid down by the United Nations, ``forcibly 
transferring children of one group to another group'' constitutes 
genocide. Another example.
  Frustrated by Ukrainian gains in the northeast and in the south that 
we have seen on these maps, Russians have begun bombing civilian 
infrastructure at increased rates, like powerplants and dams, 
threatening the livelihoods of millions of innocent Ukrainians. 
Unfortunately, we have to expect more missiles being fired into Ukraine 
to terrorize civilians.
  Just this weekend, a Russian missile struck about 300 yards away from 
a nuclear powerplant in southern Ukraine, threatening a nuclear 
disaster. Now this was not the Zaporizhia plant that we have talked 
about a lot on this floor. This is another powerplant. The Zaporizhia 
plant, as you know, is the largest nuclear powerplant in all of Europe. 
It provides 20 percent of electricity--or did--to the country of 
Ukraine. That is a plant that the Russians are using as a shield, much 
as they have used energy as a weapon, including in Europe, cutting off 
energy unless Europe agrees to stop the necessary sanctions. They have 
used food as a weapon, bombing grain bins in the Odesa region, keeping 
food from going to starving people in Africa. Now they are actually 
using nuclear powerplants as weapons in this war. It is all reckless; 
it is all dangerous, but this risks a catastrophe by creating a 
military zone around a nuclear powerplant and firing on Ukrainian 
forces from there and actually exploding parts of the plant that 
connect to Ukraine. This is incredibly dangerous and risks something 
like the tragedy we had at Chernobyl.

  So all of this is precisely why we need to continue to give Ukraine 
the help it so desperately needs. Vladimir Putin will continue his 
reign of terror against the neighbor that just wants to live in peace, 
unless he knows that there are consequences. He is betting that he can 
use terror to intimidate Ukraine and its allies into surrendering.
  Let me be clear, I want this brutal war to end as much as anyone else 
in this Chamber, but the responsible way to end this war is not to stop 
providing our assistance to our allies and watch as Ukraine slowly 
falls to Russian domination. The right way to end this war is to 
actually win it, to continue to provide Ukraine the weapons it needs to 
keep advancing and liberating territory, like it did over these past 
few weeks. For the sake of global freedom, Ukraine must be allowed to 
end this war on its own terms, not Russia's.
  That is why, when this Chamber votes on the continuing resolution to 
keep government open next week, I urge my colleagues to also support 
the expected supplemental request for additional Ukraine funding. Most 
important to me, frankly, is the military support, including needed 
ammunition for the weapons they already have and including refilling 
our own stockpiles of military weapons and ammunition. This is one way 
we can show Vladimir Putin that we will not stand for his war crimes. 
The West and our allies all need to recognize that these Russian 
atrocities will not stop until there are more victories on the 
battlefield and until sanctions are more effective at cutting off 
funding to Russia's war machine. The world is watching, and if 
President Putin's military is not held accountable for these 
atrocities, it sends a signal to other rogue leaders that they will be 
able to get away with the same types of war crimes.
  As Congress considers this latest request for support, I hope my 
colleagues will think about four things.
  One, the mass graves I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. We 
should not turn a blind eye to the indiscriminate violence Russia has 
wrought on Ukraine. Vladimir Putin will continue his reign of terror 
against the neighbor that just wants to live in peace unless he knows, 
again, that there will be consequences. As President Zelenskyy said, 
``Russia leaves death everywhere and must pay for it.''
  Second, despite these atrocities, Ukraine is turning the tide of the 
war, in large measure, because of our help. It is working. This map, to 
me, is very interesting because it shows here on February 24, after the 
invasion of Ukraine on that date, how much territory that the Russians 
controlled, not just the parts that they had already controlled, down 
here in Crimea, here in Luhansk and Donetsk. But look at all the 
territory that they controlled at that time, including right up to the 
city of Kyiv. This is where the famous battle occurred at the airfield 
outside of Kyiv where they had planned to bring in heavy weapons and 
more military and topple the government in the capital of Kyiv. But, 
look, all this in red, all of this in red; and today here we are. So we 
have made progress. The Russians have come along the Donbas area. And 
now, more recently, of course, we have made additional progress, here 
and here, to push the Russians back. This would not have happened 
without the support of this body. And we must think about that as we 
look at this additional request for funding. We are making a 
difference. Specifically, thanks to this Congress, these long-range 
missiles called HIMARS have been extremely effective in enabling 
Ukraine to be able to strike behind enemy lines and disrupt Russia in 
ways no one thought possible. Before the Russians were sitting back and 
firing on Ukrainian positions and Ukrainians couldn't respond because 
they couldn't reach the Russian guns. They were firing with impunity, 
killing civilians, killing Ukrainian soldiers. Now, with these new 
weapons, these HIMARS, these longer range missiles coming from the 
United States, coming from the UK, coming from Germany, Ukrainians are 
able to hold their own and more, as we see with their advances in the 
south and in the northeast.
  We need to keep it up, particularly at a time when Russia is getting 
help from its own partners. As our Republican leader, Senator 
McConnell, pointed out, Iran is equipping the Russian military with 
armed drones like the ones that they used against American forces in 
Syria and Iraq. Additionally, there are reports that North Korea has 
supplied Russia with artillery shells.
  Third, I would ask my colleagues to remember this is not just about 
Ukraine. We have got to remember that Vladimir Putin has said that 
``the borders of Russia never end.''
  Earlier this summer, President Putin said he views Ukraine as 
basically just the first step toward recreating the Russian empire. His 
advisers have made similar statements about their intent with regard to 
this war. It is not just about Ukraine.
  What the United States does matters. What we do in defense of global 
freedom not only shows the world we will stand up for Ukraine against a 
rogue authoritarian attacking an ally, but our actions show our 
adversaries that we are ready to defend democracy around the world. And 
it is not just the United States providing this military support, just 
remember that. Forty-nine other countries are contributing, in one way 
or another, weapons, ammunition, training, and so on. And with regard 
to economic support, more countries than 50 are providing help to 
Ukraine.
  Fourth, I ask my colleagues to remember that there are important 
guardrails to ensure this assistance from the U.S. taxpayers is very 
well accounted for, and there should be. While in Poland recently, 
Senator Klobuchar and I met with the 101st Airborne to discuss their 
unprecedented end-use monitoring of our military equipment that goes 
into Ukraine. This has

[[Page S4847]]

ramped up even further with the addition of our Embassy staff on the 
ground in Kyiv, which we also heard about when we were there, to ensure 
there is no diversion of the military assistance that we are providing. 
Again, this is an unprecedented level of accountability, and it is 
necessary. Transparency is absolutely needed and promised by the 
Ukrainians. I will say that from President Zelenskyy to members of his 
government, to members of Parliament we met with, everyone said the 
same thing; they too want total transparency and accountability. It is 
very important to them. Just as they are continuing their reforms 
against corruption even in the face of this war, they want transparency 
with regard to all the aid. They have an accounting firm in Ukraine 
that is following the budgetary funding that goes from this place, this 
Congress, to Ukraine as well. And they have a need and an interest in 
transparency themselves.

  With regard to the end game in Ukraine--and some have asked me about 
here on this floor--I believe Ukraine's Ambassador to the United 
States, Oksana Markarova, said it well:

       Ukraine will not rest until all our country is free, all 
     our people are back and Russia is brought to justice.

  As Russia's military suffers setbacks in Ukraine, that is actually 
good news for the freedom-loving countries of the world. For decades, 
Russia has used its military to threaten and coerce its neighbors. 
Think of Russia's invasion of Ukraine this year and back in 2014 when 
they invaded Crimea and the Donbas. Russia, under its current 
government, is a threat to all of its neighbors. Think about its 
invasion in Georgia in 2008, and its ongoing occupation of parts of 
Moldova, just to name a couple.
  As Russia's military is weakened, Europe and the United States are 
made safer. So our support matters. Global support matters. I believe 
President Putin responds to strength, and weakness on our part would 
only invite more aggression. Helping Ukraine is just one way to show 
our strength and to show our resolve as a country and as an alliance. I 
noted last week that we are finally seeing the fruits of our labor when 
you look at the progress that has been made. The support now is more 
important than ever. Three thousand--three thousand square miles of 
territory has been liberated just in the past few weeks.
  This is the battle of our generation. This is the fight between 
authoritarianism and democracy on the world stage--the fight between 
evil and good. Freedom is at stake. Ukrainians are fighting for that. 
They are fighting for democracy, for the right to live free, for the 
right to chart their own course; and, as we have seen, they will fight 
like hell for it. We see this every single day in their courage and 
their resolve. They are fighting for their family. They are fighting 
for their homeland. They are fighting for their freedom.
  When Senator Klobuchar and I met with President Zelenskyy last month, 
he started and ended our discussion with expressing gratitude to the 
American people for their willingness to stand with Ukraine. He spoke 
about Russia's war on his country as our joint battle as all freedom-
loving countries strive toward our joint victory. Ukraine is the shield 
of democracy. It is bearing the full brunt of the aggression that 
Russia has threatened against Europe for years and is still standing 
strong.
  It is in our interest that Russia's military aggression ends here. 
The sword of Russian imperialism must be broken in Ukraine by 
Ukrainians, and the United States and our allies need to continue to 
provide those brave Ukrainians with the tools they need to be 
successful.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.

                          ____________________