[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 157 (Wednesday, September 28, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5135-S5140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       CIVIL RIGHTS COLD CASE INVESTIGATIONS SUPPORT ACT OF 2022

  Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in pursuit of 
justice for the Black men and Black women abducted, beaten, and killed 
during the segregation era in the American South and in retaliation for 
their participation in the civil rights movement.
  I rise today to ask that the Senate pass the Civil Rights Cold Case 
Investigations Support Act to secure justice and pursue truth for the 
victims of those atrocities, for the victims of civil rights cold 
cases, and for their families--justice for folks like Alphonso Harris, 
a member of the SCLC who was murdered in Albany, GA, in 1966; justice 
for Ernest Hunter, who was killed in a physical altercation at the 
Camden County jail in St. Marys, GA, in 1958; justice for Caleb Hill, 
Jr., who was dragged at night from a Wilkinson County jail in Middle, 
GA, in 1949 and shot to death by a lynch mob.
  Decades may have passed, but the pursuit of justice cannot and will 
not end. I sat down in Wilkinson County a few months ago with Caleb 
Hill, Jr.'s descendants, and in his name, they demand justice. By 
passing the Civil Rights Cold Case Investigations Support Act and by 
doing it with the support of Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. 
Senate, we will demonstrate that the United States will never rest in 
the pursuit of truth and justice for those who were lynched, abducted, 
beaten, killed, and assaulted in the segregation-era South and during 
the civil rights movement.
  I thank Senator Cruz for his original cosponsorship of this 
bipartisan legislation, and all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, for bringing us now to a point where, after much work, I hope 
that we can pass this legislation with bipartisan support.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 451, S. 3655.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3655) to amend the Civil Rights Cold Case 
     Records Collection Act of 2018 to extend the termination date 
     of the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported from the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. OSSOFF. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 3655) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 
was read the third time, and passed as follows:

                                S. 3655

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Civil Rights Cold Case 
     Investigations Support Act of 2022''.

     SEC. 2. CIVIL RIGHTS COLD CASE RECORDS REVIEW BOARD EXTENSION 
                   OF TENURE.

       Section 5(n)(1) of Civil Rights Cold Case Records 
     Collection Act of 2018 (44 U.S.C. 2107 note; Public Law 115-
     426) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``4 years'' and inserting ``7 years''; and
       (2) by striking ``4-year period'' and inserting ``7-year 
     period''.

  Mr. OSSOFF. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1006

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to tell a story of one 
family's tragedy but also of two wonderful people who turned that 
tragedy into helping others and finding solutions.
  On May 15, 2014, a 19-year-old Wisconsinite named Archie Badura died 
of a fentanyl overdose.
  Two years later, I met his mother Lauri Badura, who testified before 
a field hearing I held in Pewaukee, WI, together with an emergency room 
doctor named Dr. Tim Westlake, who testified about the growing problem 
that he was seeing in his emergency room with overdoses and, in 
particular, overdoses with, I think, a drug that we all heard was 
somewhat new, fentanyl, a schedule II drug; one used in medicine but 
one that had been altered, the molecule changed, and produced in China 
and shipped through our Postal Service and was killing people like 
Archie Badura.
  It was probably the first time I heard of what was happening to 
fentanyl. And so Dr. Westlake, because he was seeing the tragedy 
firsthand, was developing a piece of legislation that he was proposing 
in Wisconsin as well as on a national level.
  The piece of legislation I introduced in 2017 was called the SOFA 
Act. The reason I called it the SOFA Act--and that stands for Stopping 
Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogs--is because Lauri Badura, again, who lost 
her 19-year-old son, turned her tragedy into helping others.
  She was the go-to person for other families who also lost a loved one 
through overdoses, and she started an organization called Saving Others 
for Archie. The acronym was SOFA. So I thought it only appropriate, 
when working with Dr. Tim Westlake on this piece of legislation that 
would recognize the growing problem of these analogs, of these 
fentanyl-related drugs that were killing and poisoning our citizens--I 
thought it only appropriate to come up with a piece of legislation 
named after that organization with that same acronym, SOFA.
  So on July 13, 2017, I introduced SOFA for the first time here in the 
U.S. Senate.

[[Page S5136]]

  On November 9, 2017, because of Tim Westlake and Lauri Badura's 
tireless effort, a State piece of legislation, the SOFA equivalent, was 
signed into law in Wisconsin. And basically what this law does--it is a 
pretty simple law--it just allows law enforcement, the DEA, to view 
these fentanyl-related substances as a class under schedule I of the 
Controlled Substances Act.
  Prior to this bill, prior to these regulations, law enforcement had 
to view each new molecule, each new analog as a separate drug, and they 
could not arrest, they couldn't prosecute, they couldn't put people in 
jail for selling these and poisoning our cities.
  So Dr. Tim Westlake recognized that problem. I recognized that 
problem, and so we introduced the SOFA Act. And once DEA saw it, they 
thought this was a pretty good idea, and they utilized their regulatory 
authority and passed a regulation on February 6, 2018. They issued a 
temporary scheduling order that placed ``certain fentanyl-related 
substances in schedule 1 for 2 years.''
  The text of that regulation was identical to the text of the SOFA law 
that I had introduced earlier in 2017.
  Now, unfortunately, they could only issue that regulation having an 
effect of 2 years. So as it was about ready to run out, Congress 
extended that regulation in an act of Congress, and we have extended it 
six times. President Biden has signed that extension five times. But 
the problem is, the extension of that regulation runs out on December 
31 of this year.
  Now, the Biden administration--I think it is important to 
understand--in its 2021 budget proposal, called for classwide fentanyl 
scheduling. The DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said:

       The permanent scheduling of all fentanyl-related substances 
     is critical--

  Is critical--

     to the safety and health of our communities.

  She added:

       Class-wide scheduling provides a vital tool--

  A vital tool--

     to combat overdose deaths in the United States.

  Now, why have we extended this regulation six times? There is no need 
for it. We could pass the law, which we have tried to do a number of 
times.
  But the reason we keep extending it is because it has worked. It has 
helped stop the flow of these precursor chemicals coming out of China. 
China has actually cracked down on these analogs within China. So the 
regulation worked. The SOFA Act is vital, according to Anne Milgram.
  Something else I want to point out about the SOFA Act is, in an 
almost unprecedented--this is very rare--in 2018, all 50 States' 
attorneys general, plus the attorney general from the District of 
Columbia, including current HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, who was an 
attorney general for California at the time, signed a letter to 
congressional leadership urging the Congress to act expeditiously and 
pass the SOFA Act.

  This is such a commonsense piece of legislation. It works. It reduces 
the number of types of fentanyl on the streets killing our citizens, 
killing our youth, killing people like Archie Badura.
  Again, the DEA had a regulation for 2 years. Congress has extended 
that regulation six times. All I am asking is for the Senate to pass 
this commonsense, lifesaving piece of legislation by unanimous consent.
  And so, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 1006 and 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the 
bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  I ask this in the name of Archie Badura and on behalf of Dr. Tim 
Westlake and a wonderful woman, a wonderful Wisconsinite named Lauri 
Badura.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I took chemistry in high school. I wasn't 
very good at it, but I think I got a B, and I was glad to get rid of it 
because I didn't understand a lot of it, and that was not where I was 
headed in life.
  The question which the Senator from Wisconsin puts before us today is 
a complicated question. It seems he is--do we have a drug crisis in 
America? Yes. Is fentanyl dangerous? Yes. Is fentanyl deadly? Yes. Is 
fentanyl on schedule I, the highest possible narcotic rating under our 
Criminal Code? Yes.
  So what is this discussion about fentanyl? Why are we at this again?
  I don't know the Senator from Wisconsin's background in chemistry and 
the like, but here is how I understand it and why it is not as simple 
as paying tribute to this young man who lost his life to fentanyl. And 
I can come up with examples that I have run into as well. It is 
heartbreaking what is going on.
  There are certain elements that contain fentanyl that have other 
chemical structures, not simple fentanyl, which is already a prohibited 
narcotic under American law. And these so-called analogs of fentanyl 
have many chemical variations. It turns out that some of them are 
deadly dangerous, but some of them are not. It turns out that some are 
deadly dangerous, and others may have a promise to be the next Narcan 
for the researchers.
  So we have been struggling, literally, for years with a research 
community that says: When it comes to fentanyl analogs, don't sweep 
them all into category I. Some of them may be lifesaving, as odd as 
that sounds. It could happen. And I have been saying it is a reasonable 
argument, but how long is this investigation going to go on? How long 
will this research continue?
  We are told that it is sincere and real--it has happened under 
previous administrations and this administration--and that to sweep all 
these chemical analogs of fentanyl into this category would be, 
frankly, counterproductive. We may be walking away from something that 
is a lifesaver rather than a life-taker.
  And it is because of that that we have been temporarily extending the 
decision to put fentanyl and its analogs on category I so that this 
research can establish whether, in fact, there is a lifesaver, that 
there is something positive in a fentanyl analog.
  I have just given you the sum total of my understanding of this 
issue. As I said, I didn't major in chemistry and barely got through it 
in high school, but I think that is where we are.
  I don't think there is any disagreement between us that fentanyl is 
deadly and dangerous and belongs on that category I.
  When it comes to the analogs, they said to me: Durbin, you are a 
liberal arts lawyer. Don't act like you are a chemist. Give us the time 
to do this right.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Would the Senator from Illinois yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. Sure. Yes.
  Mr. JOHNSON. So I want to just make the point that there is nothing 
in the SOFA Act that would prevent that research from continuing, and 
if a molecule was found that is helpful, it can be scheduled 
separately.
  This is just targeting the deadly drugs that are not helpful. So 
there is nothing in this that would prevent that type of research, 
which is why, you know, we have--Congress has reauthorized this or 
extended this six times, and the Biden administration supports this. 
They say it is vital that we are able to class all these fentanyl-
related molecules together so that we can enforce our laws and prevent 
death.
  So, again, there is nothing in here that prevents the research, which 
I would completely support. Again, molecules are amazing things, and 
changing them can change the characteristics, but we have to recognize 
how deadly fentanyl is.
  We have gone from, you know, slightly more than 50,000 overdose 
deaths in 2015, the year after Archie Badura died, to over 107,000 last 
year, and we are on a path to break that record too.
  So, again, this has been supported on a bipartisan basis. We have 
extended this.
  I just have to say that the research argument just doesn't hold 
water.
  Mr. DURBIN. There is an element that the Senator from Wisconsin may 
not be aware of. When a drug is on schedule I, it is prohibited to do 
research on it. That is the reason why we

[[Page S5137]]

are running into problems with cannabis, now legal in my State and 
maybe in your State as well.
  And I raised the basic question: Are the health claims about cannabis 
true or false?
  And they said: We cannot research it because it is on the list of 
prohibited drugs in the United States.
  The problem is, if we put all of these analogs on the list, it is 
going to stop the research that we need to finish. It is a catch-22.
  What we have tried to do is a temporary extension saying: Give us the 
final word. We have got to make a decision.
  I do not quarrel with you in any way about the danger of fentanyl, 
but the people who do this for a living--and I can't keep up with their 
conversations, by and large--have explained to me: We are trying to 
find a good use of a fentanyl analog. Don't close the door, slam the 
door, by putting it on schedule I because research stops.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Would the Senator yield again?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, of course.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Fentanyl is being used in medicine today, and it is on 
schedule II. So they can do the research off of that drug on schedule 
II. There is nothing preventing that--nothing whatsoever.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would just say that my information is a little 
different. I respect the Senator from Wisconsin and his tribute to this 
poor young man who lost his life, but we are trying to do the sensible 
thing. Fentanyl itself is going to continue to be branded a dangerous 
drug, titled in category 1. But Federal analogs and a variation on that 
theme is what we are discussing, and for reasons--I am trying to bow to 
the experts in science and research--on a temporary basis. Believe me, 
if they have got something, we want to see it. If not, we are going to 
categorize them as schedule I. So for the reasons I have mentioned, I 
am going to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, again, I find that unfortunate. I would 
hope that the Senator from Illinois would not at least object to 
Senator Grassley coming on the floor looking for another extension of 
this.
  Again, the DEA Administrator says this is vital. So I hope that, at a 
minimum, we can extend this for a seventh time, and then maybe we can 
come back when some of these issues are resolved and maybe finally pass 
SOFA possibly in the next Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1216

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, home should be the safest place in the 
world for a child. It used to be that parents could breathe a little 
easier once they locked the front door, knowing that their child was 
safe on the inside.
  For some reason or other, not anymore is that the case. Drug dealers 
have found ways into our homes through social media. Now, more and more 
children are dying alone at night in what should be the safest place 
for them, in their own bedrooms.
  That is where Deric and Kathy Kidd found their son Sebastian, 
unresponsive, on the morning of July 30, 2021. He was slumped on his 
bed, still in his street clothes.
  Sebastian was a high school senior in Des Moines, IA. He took half of 
what he thought was a pain pill. It was actually fentanyl. Sebastian's 
parents should have had the rest of their lives with him. Instead, they 
buried their 17-year-old son.
  Congress has responded in the worst possible way to parents like the 
Kidd family. We have responded with inaction. I am disappointed that my 
Democrat colleagues have tried to block fentanyl analog scheduling. 
Under this Democrat-led Congress, the reauthorization periods of 
fentanyl analog scheduling keeps getting shorter and shorter, and 
bipartisan talks about permanent scheduling have all dropped. And if 
you don't have bipartisan talks, nothing happens in the U.S. Senate. 
That is what it takes to get things done in a body that takes a 
supermajority of 60 to stop debate to get to finality.
  It doesn't matter if you are a rank-and-file Democrat or Republican, 
fentanyl is a problem for all of us. It is time that we start treating 
it like the problem it is. We can't keep ignoring law enforcement's 
requests for fentanyl analog scheduling. Police are the folks 
responding to fentanyl poisoning. Police are the ones putting their 
lives on the line facing off with cartels, and police are asking us to 
extend classification of fentanyl analog as schedule I substances.
  Who are we to deny the police when they say what they need? We all 
agreed that fentanyl analog scheduling was necessary in 2020 when we 
unanimously extended it by 15 months. Even career officials in the 
Biden administration agreed that fentanyl analog scheduling was 
necessary when they asked Congress. The Biden administration asked 
Congress to permanently schedule it.
  But here we are on the brink of fentanyl analog scheduling--the 
expiration of it. Families and law enforcement alike are panicked that 
we let this authority disappear. Temporary fentanyl analog scheduling 
cannot lapse while we hash out more permanent solutions.
  We have all voted this provision into law before. We have been warned 
that more parents will have to bury their children if we do not pass 
it.
  So, I have this motion.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 45, S. 1216; further, that the 
Grassley amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the 
bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Iowa is sincere 
and accurate as he describes the fentanyl challenge we face in the 
United States. He tells the story of losing an Iowan. Sadly, I can tell 
a similar story in my home State of Illinois.
  We currently have a temporary answer to this situation that extends 
until December 31 of this year, and admittedly, it is coming on us, but 
it isn't tomorrow. It will be in just a few months.
  One of my colleagues on the committee, Senator Cory Booker, has a 
particular expertise and interest in this issue, but, unfortunately, he 
could not be here at this moment when the Senator from Iowa made his 
motion. On his behalf, so he has an opportunity to discuss this with 
the Senator from Iowa and perhaps find a path through our differences, 
I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's right to do 
that. I appreciate his position on this whole problem that we are 
trying to deal with. I am just sorry that Senator Booker had to have 
people object for him.
  It is not right. How many people have to die before we do something 
about it? Last year, there were over 107,000 overdose deaths, with 
70,000 due to fentanyl-related substances--200 opioid overdoses in the 
State of Iowa.
  Somebody has got to wake up around here and realize that we can do 
something about it. The Biden administration wants us to do something 
about it, and one person--not Chairman Durbin, but other people--stands 
in the way. It is just not right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The Senator from Ohio.


                             Hurricane Ian

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, before I rise to talk about Ukraine 
tonight, I want to join my colleagues in extending my prayers to all 
those who are currently in Florida, in the area, and those with loved 
ones and family there who are in Hurricane Ian's dangerous path this 
evening.


                                Ukraine

  Madam President, I come to the floor tonight to talk about Ukraine. 
This is

[[Page S5138]]

the 24th week in a row I have come to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues what is happening in this part of the world where Russia has 
attacked a sovereign and democratic country with brutality.
  I come to talk about the latest news of Russia's illegal and 
unprovoked war on Ukraine and to ensure that my colleagues know how 
important it is that we do follow up with our commitment to Ukraine and 
pass the legislation that is on the floor this week to provide 
supplemental funding to the Ukrainian Government, to their military, 
and also for the humanitarian effort.
  I will also highlight tonight the continued Ukrainian 
counteroffensive up here in the northeast part of Ukraine, where there 
has been a good deal of success.
  The light blue is parts of Ukraine that have been liberated just in 
the past few weeks. It is about 3,000 square miles. The red is parts 
that are still occupied by Russia.
  I will talk about the sham ``referendum'' that President Putin 
announced just last Wednesday and then took place over the weekend, the 
reasons for and consequences of Russia's recent decision to draft an 
additional 300,000 troops, as well as Vladimir Putin once again 
threatening a nuclear attack.
  I will also discuss the vote in this body--again, this week--because 
we, in the next couple of days, are going to decide whether to provide 
additional funding for Ukraine. It is so important we continue to 
provide that support at this crucial juncture, just as Ukraine is 
making progress and pushing back against Russia's war of aggression.
  Last week, I touched on the extraordinary success of this 
counteroffensive. As you will recall, Ukraine launched a surprise 
lightning counteroffensive here in the northeastern part of the 
country, which caught Russian forces off guard. In a matter of days, 
Ukraine liberated over 3,000 square miles of territory and sent the 
invaders rushing back to Russia and back to eastern parts of Ukraine.
  To the north, Russian forces have been pushed back to the 
international boundary here and over into Ukraine or some into Belarus.
  Along this front line is a river. It is the Oskil River, which many 
thought would be a natural barrier to block Ukraine from making further 
gains. Yet, as we have seen in the last week, Ukrainian forces have 
actually managed to cross this river and establish major bridgeheads, 
including one here at Kupiansk right here and also one here east of 
Izyum. Izyum is the place where, unfortunately, there were all sorts of 
atrocities discovered when the liberation took place. There has been 
additional Ukrainian success here and progress crossing the river to 
the east of Izyum.
  As you will see from the map, a key city called Lyman will soon be 
surrounded by three sides. When Lyman is surrounded by three sides, it 
will be very difficult for Russia to defend it. The sense is that the 
invaders there will be forced to either surrender or retreat.
  Clearly, Ukraine continues to have the momentum here in the 
northeast; again, therefore, exactly the time for us to continue to 
support Ukraine.
  U.S. funding has made a huge difference. The actions of this body and 
the House of Representatives and the administration in providing this 
help to Ukraine has allowed for successes that were unimaginable 7 
months ago when Russia initiated this latest invasion. They have 
actually stopped and are now pushing back a Russian army that is much 
larger and with a lot more heavy equipment.
  Our support, along with that of over 50 countries around the world--
and let me underline that. Fifty countries around the world or more 
have now provided military assistance to Ukraine. That has helped 
enable the survival of this country as a free and independent Ukraine.
  Yesterday, I had the privilege to host Ukraine's Ambassador to the 
United States, Oksana Markarova, along with Ukraine's Parliament. We 
heard firsthand from them how the weapons we are providing are making a 
huge difference on the battlefield.
  One of the parliamentarians had just returned from the region, the 
northeast region we talked about. She was just in the area of Kharkiv, 
and she said that the soldiers there told her: Please, go back to the 
United States and say thank you because these weapons you are giving 
us--particularly, they focused on the HIMARS--are making such a huge 
difference.
  These HIMARS are long-range missile systems, and they have changed 
the tide of this war.
  Along with more ammunition and equipment, of course, we have to 
continue to insist on total transparency to ensure that the end use is 
being monitored. ``End use monitoring'' is the term that the 101st 
Airborne used when I talked to them in Poland about the U.S. weapons 
that are going into the country.
  This is an example. HIMARS is an example. We know now from public 
information there are 16 of these HIMARS from the United States. There 
are also some from the UK--not exactly the same weapon but a similar 
weapon--and also some from Germany. Those 16 remain undamaged, which is 
extraordinary, and they have been incredibly useful.
  But we need to ensure that all this equipment goes to the right place 
to ensure there is no fraud, no diversion of weapons. In my visits to 
the region, including a month ago, I did speak to U.S. military 
officials both in Poland and in Ukraine, who provided details on how 
they are tracking U.S. and other weapons to ensure they are not 
diverted from the Ukrainians and from the frontlines.
  This end-use monitoring, which as our military explains it is, 
according to them, being implemented in ways never done before; and 
they claim the Ukrainian Government and military are full partners in 
these accountability measures. That is what I heard as well. I heard 
that from the President of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy; and I heard it 
from all the Ukrainian officials, including the Parliamentarians with 
whom we met, that they want to have total transparency. They think it 
is in their interest as well.
  Of course, Russian disinformation is trying to convince media 
otherwise. Let me give you an example of that. Over the weekend, a BBC 
investigation revealed allegations from Russia media sources that were 
picked up, frankly, by some U.S. and European media--which is a 
warning, I think, to our own media to be careful and check your 
sources--but the reports from the Russian media was that U.S.-supplied 
weapons were being sold on the black market in Ukraine. BBC determined 
that was entirely false.
  Russians had posed as Ukrainians on the dark web pretending to sell 
these weapons in order to undermine American and European confidence in 
Ukraine's ability to control these weapons. It turns out it was a 
totally false narrative peddled by the Russian Government in order to 
sow division between Ukraine and its allies. The BBC report again 
affirms what I've heard in the region, that our military aid to Ukraine 
is getting into the right hands and is not being diverted for malign 
purposes.
  A specific example of what we had provided that is making a 
difference are these HIMARS, as we talked about. By all accounts, 
Ukrainian forces have used these really creatively to be able to 
disrupt the logistics of the Russian Armed Forces. They have been 
striking behind enemy lines to destroy Russian ammunition depots, 
logistics hubs, command and control outposts. Prior to the HIMARS, only 
the Russians had long-range artillery, and they could fire on Ukrainian 
civilians and military with impunity. Finally, they have the ability to 
push back. These weapons have enabled this spectacular counteroffensive 
we saw in the northeast to be able to succeed. So when we give the 
Ukrainians weapons they have actually been asking for, they actually 
need, they use them effectively, and it is working.
  In the clearest sign yet that Russia is feeling desperate, last week 
President Putin announced a new draft, a mobilization of at least 
300,000 soldiers to support his troubled war on Ukraine. Remember, 
President Putin promoted his ``special operation'' in Ukraine as a 
special military operation that would not touch the lives of ordinary 
Russians. It would be quick; it would involve minimal casualties; it 
would bring great glory to Russia.
  Now after 7 months, tens of thousands of casualties, a substantial 
part

[[Page S5139]]

of their military equipment being lost on the battlefield, and global 
outrage at what Russia is doing, President Putin is being forced to 
implement Russia's first mass mobilization since World War II to 
bolster his failing war effort. This is an act of desperation, and it 
is deeply unpopular among the people in Russia. According to reports, 
antimobilization protests in 38 Russian cities saw more than 1,300 
people arrested just last week. Here are some of those demonstrations.
  The punishment for many of those detained, by the way, if they are 
males between the ages of, say, 18 and 50, is to be forcibly 
conscripted. Meanwhile, several Russian enlistment offices have been 
burned down by citizens armed with Molotov cocktails who want nothing 
to do with Putin's war in Ukraine.
  In fact, the announcement of the mobilization has caused many 
thousands of military-aged men to flee Russia to avoid being sent to 
war. It is reported that airline tickets out of Moscow have reached 
$5,000 or $10,000 or more, and flights are totally sold out. Car 
traffic at Russia's international borders have caused massive traffic 
jams, as those who can't fly out of Russia try to drive out to get away 
from the conscription. Here is an example with the border with Georgia. 
You can see these cars lined up for miles.
  Russia is so desperate that they are recruiting just about any able-
bodied man just to get bodies in to fill their ranks. These are not 
military-trained individuals. They are letting prisoners out of jail if 
they promise to fight. Despite the official policy that this 
mobilization will only draft men with prior military experience, they 
will take anyone. In the Irkutsk region of Russia, a young man shot and 
killed a military commissar who was attempting to conscript his friend 
who had no prior military experience. President Putin is breaking his 
promises to the Russian people, and they are responding.
  Russia's desperation has shown itself in other ways too. After 
numerous postponements, Moscow-backed occupation officials in Luhansk, 
Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Donetsk Oblast suddenly announced last 
Tuesday they would hold immediate referendum to join Russia, which they 
completed over the weekend. In typical Russian fashion, these so-called 
referenda are not free or fair. The results have been preordained in 
Moscow, and the actual conduct of the voting is just theater. There are 
a lot of videos circulating--and you have probably seen them--of online 
videos of armed Russian soldiers going door-to-door to conduct these 
illegal referendum. So you have an armed soldier with an automatic 
weapon next to an election official asking someone how they are going 
to vote. Here is an example of one of the photographs that somebody 
bravely took of a Russian soldier literally looking over the shoulder 
of a Ukrainian citizen. How can any Ukrainian vote against the 
referendum in the face of an automatic rifle? The European Union, the 
United Nations, the United States, and others, of course, have called 
these sham elections. It appears that Russia thinks by claiming these 
territories as theirs, it can justify now their use of chemical, 
biological, or even nuclear weapons in order to defend what Putin would 
call his own sovereign territory. Of course, no matter what Russia 
says, this--all of this--is Ukrainian territory. It is sovereign 
Ukrainian territory. And a sham referendum is only a Russian escalation 
of their illegal and unprovoked war on Ukraine.

  So the results this week are predictable. You can look for them. It 
will be 95 percent. It will be 98 percent. The process won't be fair. 
It will be done with flagrant disregard for Ukrainian law and for 
international law. Russia's actions reveal their weak hand, and the 
world is not fooled. UK defense secretary Ben Wallace said that the 
partial mobilization and the annexation of parts of Ukraine are an 
admission, as he said, of Mr. Putin's invasion failing. Ambassador to 
Ukraine Bridget Brink called the announced measures ``signs of 
weakness.''
  We must make it clear that the United States will never recognize 
Russia's claims to these annexed territories. President Putin's veiled 
threats last week and again this week, some say, to use nuclear weapons 
to defend illegally annexed territory have received a good deal of 
media attention. First, it should be noted, he has made similar 
threatening statements in the past. But he also knows that the use of 
nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for his own country. As the 
Washington Post said over the weekend:

       There are no military gains to be had from a nuclear attack 
     that indiscriminately incinerates everything in its path and 
     leaves the land uninhabitable.

  The nuclear fallout of attacking neighboring Ukraine, of course, will 
also affect Russia and its citizens. Meanwhile, if he were to act on 
such a threat, President Putin would immediately turn his country into 
even more of a pariah than it is now, and there would be a severe 
consequence, as the United States has warned.
  Nuclear weapons have not been used since World War II, almost 80 
years ago. Using them now would plunge us into a far more dangerous 
world, and the world would never forgive President Putin. The countries 
that have taken a neutral stance on this brutal conflict would quickly 
change their tune, and the resolve of the West and so many other 
countries to stand against Russian aggression would only increase. This 
conflict has shown that when push comes to shove, the alliance actually 
comes together to protect Ukraine; it binds together.
  Nuclear blackmail cannot be allowed to work. Responding to Vladimir 
Putin's reckless threats by pulling back would only reward bad behavior 
and create a more dangerous and volatile world. Appeasement does not 
work. In response to these threats, it is crucial that we continue to 
support Ukraine while making clear to Russia that there will be 
enormous costs for use of a nuclear weapon. National Security Advisor 
Jake Sullivan said on Sunday morning that ``any use of nuclear weapons 
will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia.''
  This battle for freedom transcends this Congress; it transcends 
partisanship. We all know who the aggressor is in this fight. The 
people of Ukraine have never asked for anything other than peace and to 
be able to live with their neighbors, including Russia, in peace; the 
right to exist as a sovereign, independent nation. Russia's illegal and 
unprovoked war is an attack on their fundamental right to self-
governance.
  We have all seen the evidence of war crimes: the torture, the rape, 
the killings of innocent Ukrainian civilians and noncombatants, the 
videos of Ukrainian soldiers being tortured with box cutters, and the 
mass gravesites. NATO's response last week to the Russian atrocities in 
Izyum this past week was to reaffirm ``our unwavering support for 
Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity . . . 
and for Ukraine's inherent right to self-defence. NATO allies remain 
resolute in providing political and practical support to Ukraine as it 
continues to defend itself against Russia's aggression.''
  Global support for Ukraine has increased in response to the 
increasing number of atrocities being committed by Russian soldiers. I 
was able to hear about this firsthand last week when I met with 
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Andriy Kostin about the ongoing global 
effort to hold Russia accountable for their war crimes, which are a 
clear violation of international law. We discussed ways the United 
States can aid Ukraine in its effort to investigate and prosecute cases 
of war crimes conducted by Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Last week, I 
talked about the mass graves of people tortured and executed in the 
city of Izyum. Who knows how many more are out there. The evidence of 
this genocide grows every day, and every day the anger against Russia 
grows alongside it. So far, we believe these war crimes have resulted 
in the deaths of at least 7,300 civilians, including 391 children.
  The West and our allies must all recognize that these Russian 
atrocities will not stop until Russia believes the costs are too high, 
until there are more Ukrainian victories on the battlefield, and until 
the sanctions are more effective at cutting off funding to Russia's war 
machine. Russia needs to feel the squeeze. We talked about this in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today. That is the only way 
this Russian brutality, this madness, ends. For the sake of global 
freedom, Ukraine must be allowed to end this war on its terms, not on 
Russia's

[[Page S5140]]

terms. To get to that point requires us to continue supporting Ukraine, 
to keep the momentum going. What would it say if we backed down now?
  In an address before the United Nations last week, President 
Zelenskyy said:

       Ukraine wants peace. Europe wants peace. The world wants 
     peace. And we have seen who is the only one who wants war.

  Secretary of State Blinken summed it up:

       If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Russia stops 
     fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine 
     ends.

  I encourage the Senate to act with a united voice in support of the 
people of Ukraine. By providing additional funding, the battlefield 
gains can continue; the government in Kyiv can continue to operate; 
Ukrainian prosecutors can investigate more war crimes and bring the 
perpetrators to justice.
  As Russia continues their ruthless attack on freedom and democracy, 
it is our duty to stand up for what we believe to be true: that life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will always win in the fight 
against tyranny. And it is working. Ukrainian liberators have taken 
back cities across Ukraine, as we have seen. It is working. And unlike 
Russia, the morale of the Ukrainian people and the troops is strong. 
Their determination is strong.
  We must continue to let the world know we stand with Ukraine. And as 
I have heard from multiple meetings with Ukrainian officials, including 
some of the Parliamentarians we were with yesterday, they said: Freedom 
must be armed.
  And the United States must be there to lead that effort to ensure 
that freedom's flame is not extinguished in Ukraine.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

                          ____________________