Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I would like to call up my amendment No. 14, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, so I don't know where we are headed in terms of votes tonight, but let me tell you where we are headed in terms of the bill before the Senate. I understand Saddam is gone and the authorization to use military force directed at him in 2002--it makes sense to me, quite frankly, believe it or not, to revisit that, but what we need to make sure we do is not leave our troops exposed that are in the fight today. This is 2023. So Senator Schumer keeps talking about Bush lied, people died. Here is what I would say to my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues: In the last 2 years, we have, I think, a little over 2,000 American forces in Iraq, there to make sure ISIS doesn't come back, keep the place stable. After Obama pulled out of Iraq, the JV team became the varsity. ISIS basically took over most of Syria, destroyed Mosul, wiped out the Yazidi Community, raped, murdered, and pillaged, and we finally regained control of Iraq. We put troops back in--they should never have been taken out--and we need those troops to stay in Iraq, make sure ISIS doesn't come back. When they had a foothold in Raqqa, Syria, as well as Iraq, ISIS directed attacks at the United States and our allies in Europe, and all hell broke loose. So what I would want the body to understand--in 2023, Americans are serving in Iraq, and we owe it to them to make sure that we can use whatever military force necessary to protect them against Shiite militias operating in Iraq at the direction of Iran. Fifty-six attacks against American forces in the last 2 years under President Biden. They are trying to drive us out of Iraq. The Shiite militias are operating all over the country. I appreciate the partnership we have with the Government of Iraq, but we don't have a status of forces agreement. So I have an amendment that is very simple. It would replace the 2002 AUMF with the following: An authorization to use military force to protect Americans stationed in Iraq against attacks by Shiite militias in Iraq. That is an ongoing problem. Let's not expose our troops to being attacked. Let's don't continue the narrative that we are pulling out of the Middle East, because you do so at your own peril. After the debacle in Afghanistan, everybody is wondering about America's resolve. So to all the people who talk about repealing the 2002 AUMF because Saddam is gone, I actually understand that to a point, but what I hope you will understand is that the way you have written this, the people in Iraq today, the Americans serving, we don't have their backs, and we owe it to them to have their backs. We need to let the Iranian militias know, and others: If you attack Americans in Iraq, we are coming after you. And to those who say the AUMF needs to be repealed because it confers too much power on a President, we need to take that authority back as Congress, well, then, here is what I would say to you: Do we owe it to those serving in Iraq to provide authority from Congress that we will have your back if you are attacked by Shiite militias that are operating in Iraq? This is about Iraq. It is not about Iran. And I can't believe this body would not support an authorization to use military force to protect Americans stationed in Iraq who have been attacked over 56 times in the last 2 years by Shiite militias operating in Iraq. If we do that, shame on us. And to those who say: Well, the President has article II authority, he can do this on his own--you can't have it both ways. Is the goal to pull back power from the President, or is the goal to say the President has whatever power he needs in Iraq? What I want to do is be crystal clear. If the 2002 AUMF is repealed, we have a hole in our defense. We do not have congressional response or statement about what to do to protect over 2,000 Americans serving in Iraq who have been attacked 56 times. I have got a solution to that problem. If you repeal the 2002 AUMF, let's replace it with one tailored to the situation involving American forces being attacked by Shiite militias in Iraq, to be unequivocal to the Shiite militias and others: You attack Americans at your own peril. If we do not do that, you have tremendously exposed our troops. In your effort to wind down one war, you have created a threat to those who are fighting the war we are in now. And if you think al-Qaida has been defeated, you think they are not a threat to us and our partners in the Middle East, in Europe, you are really not following the news. General Kurilla, the CENTCOM commander, said last week that ISIS-K, the ISIS organization in Afghanistan, has regenerated to the point, within the next 6 months, they would have the ability to attack the United States without warning. And there are some amendments here to basically do away with the 2001 AUMF that dealt with the attack on our Nation. So whatever political point you are trying to make about repealing the 2002 AUMF, here is what I want you to understand: The way you are doing it is putting American lives at risk in Iraq. If you can't muster the courage--the Congress can't--to say to Shiite militias: You attack our troops at your own peril, we have let those serving down. And I am very, very intent, using my voice in the Senate, to say that those who are in Iraq that have been attacked continuously by Shiite militias, I recognize the threat you face, and I am willing to do something about it. Not to pass this amendment exposes those in theater, in Iraq, to continual attack. It will embolden the Shiite militia because they think we pulled the plug on the place. It will continue a narrative that America is in retreat in the war on terrorism. It will make every problem in Afghanistan worse. And we have a chance to do something about it. Please take that opportunity. If we pass this amendment, we can at least say the following: To those in Iraq, we did not abandon you; we did not forget about you. We said clearly as a Congress that we have your back, and we made an unequivocal statement to the Shiite militias that are roaming around in Iraq: You attack our people, we are coming after you. And if we don't do that, we are sending a terrible message to our enemies and we are letting those who are serving in Iraq down. Iraq is moving toward democracy slowly but surely, inefficient, ugly at times. But 20 years later, there have been elections in Iraq; we have a government working with us that is surrounded in a very dangerous neighborhood. So to those who are wanting to repeal this AUMF, you have ignored a major threat. You are creating a problem to troops in the field. I am here to point it out to you, and I would love to work in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that those who are left in Iraq, that are serving there to make sure ISIS doesn't come back and to protect our interests in Iraq, that they will have the voice of Congress behind them. There will be an authorization to use military force to protect them against Shiite militias, and it is very specific, in Iraq, who have had a pattern of attacking our troops. And if we don't do this, we are sending the worst possible signal to our enemies. We are letting our troops down. And if there are further attacks, I told you so, because I know it is coming. Let's live in the real world. Al-Qaida is not defeated. ISIS is not defeated. They have been dealt a punishing blow in certain places, but if we take our eye off the ball, they are coming back here; and the easiest targets of all are those Americans in Syria and Iraq who are on the frontlines--a virtual wall between us and radical Islam that would kill us all if they could. I think we owe it to those that we send to Iraq--and the administration is right to keep them there. You are right to keep that residual force in Iraq as an insurance policy against the rise of ISIS, but you are wrong not having your voice lent to the cause that an authorization to use military force against Shiite militias-- that needs to be the law of the land. We owe it to those in Iraq. It is not a hypothetical problem--56 attacks in the last 2 years. And if we pull the plug on the AUMF in Iraq without dealing with the Shiite militia threat, we will send a horrible signal at the worst possible time. So I urge a ``yes'' vote for this amendment to replace the 2002 AUMF with a specific authorization to use military force against Shiite militias that are attacking Americans continuously in the last 2 years, to protect those that are on the frontlines of this fight. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Colleagues, this is, to me, very important; I hope to you. There have been 56 attacks against soldiers stationed in Iraq--about 2,000--by Shiite militias in Iraq. I can understand repealing the AUMF because Saddam is dead, but those in Iraq--American soldiers--are being attacked routinely by Shiite militias in Iraq. I am asking the Congress to tell the Shiite militias: You come after our troops, we are coming after you. Article II power exists nebulously. The strongest we can be as a nation is when the Congress and the President speak with a single voice. Speak with this voice to those who will kill Americans in Iraq: Shiite militias, we are coming after you.

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am going to turn this over to Senator Hagerty and my other colleagues here in a minute, but I just, one, want to recognize Senator Hagerty from Tennessee for doing something that needed to be done. The Congressional Review Act allows us, as a body, to look at certain enactments coming from the DC--District of Columbia--City Council for our approval. I am just going to go through the highlights here, but tomorrow, we will be voting on Senator Hagerty's proposal to disapprove legislation that was passed regarding revising the DC criminal code. And Senator Hagerty has done a good service for the people of the District of Columbia and, I think, for the body and the Nation as a whole. So what are we talking about? This is numbers for the District of Columbia, your Nation's Capital: Total DC crime has increased 25 percent from 2022 to 2023 as of March 3. Carjackings are up 111 percent, have increased for the fifth straight year. Homicides are up 40 percent, and DC has already reached 38 homicides. The average homicide suspect has been arrested 11 times before committing a homicide. Sexual assaults are up 123 percent. Property crimes are up 32 percent. There have been 393 robberies in DC during the last 2 months. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, there are 430 fewer officers than they had in 2019. It is the lowest number of officers since the 1970s. I don't know where to end this thing other than to say that the DC City Council, in light of all of this information, passed a law over the objection of the Mayor that would reduce the maximum sentence available for crimes such as carjacking, robbery, home invasion, burglary, firearm offenses, when all of these offenses are at a historic high. So Senator Hagerty saw what they did and said: This is insane. I just read to you a dramatic increase in crime across the board-- personal property, sexual assault, and murder--and the DC City Council passed a law over the objection, the veto, of the Mayor to reduce maximum sentences to eliminate nonenhanced mandatory minimum sentences for all offenses, except first-degree murder; lowers maximum sentences to 45 years; expands judicial sentencing reconsideration to all criminals after 20 years of imprisonment; reduces the scope and maximum penalty for felony murder. The bottom line is, instead of increasing punishments, they decided to dramatically decrease punishments for the crimes that are out of hand. So when Senator Hagerty introduced this legislation that would reject this, things started changing--starting with the President of the United States, who said that he was going to veto any attempt by the Congress to stop the DC law from becoming law. Well, something happened because he has changed his mind. In the House, Democrats and Republicans passed this Congressional Review Act overwhelmingly. The bottom line is President Biden has now indicated he will sign it, and DC City Council is trying to find a way to take it off the books. I doubt if they can. So, Senator Hagerty, sometimes we wonder if we make a difference here. You have made a difference. You have brought this body together because I would anticipate, tomorrow, that we are going to have an overwhelming vote to reject the DC City Council's efforts to revise their criminal code to make it less deterrent. All of us live up here during the week. It is our Nation's Capital. It is one of the most beautiful places I have ever visited. But crime is out of control. And we need to restore law and order to our Nation's Capital, and this effort by Senator Hagerty is now being joined by a legion of Senate Democrats. And I want to thank each and every Democrat for stepping forward and joining Senator Hagerty and all the Republicans for saying no to this bad idea of being soft on crime in a city that is overwhelmed by crime. So if there was an award to be given for bad ideas, I would nominate what the DC City Council did in trying to reduce punishments for crimes against persons and property at a time when the city is on fire in terms of crime. So Senator Hagerty and others have stepped into the breach. Tomorrow, we are going to vote and we are going to end this ill-conceived idea. And I want to thank Senator Hagerty for his leadership, and I look forward to being his wingman tomorrow.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to an incredible legal professional and public servant--Jack L. Rives, who is stepping down from his position as executive director of the American Bar Association after almost 13 years. While Jack's strategic vision and caring leadership will be missed, he leaves behind a legacy of exceptional public service and commitment to protecting the rule of law and increasing access to justice. The ABA is the largest voluntary association of lawyers and legal professionals in the world. Jack began his service as its executive director on Law Day--May 1--2010. He has been responsible for developing and implementing the association's strategic goals and programs and policy initiatives adopted by the ABA's board of governors and house of delegates. Jack has also overseen the ABA's more than 1,050 talented employees working at its headquarters in Illinois, at its Washington, DC, office, and at program sites in California, Texas, and about 60 countries throughout the world. During the pandemic, he took great care of the ABA staff by strategically managing the challenges associated with moving to a fully remote environment and then back into the various offices with a hybrid workforce, all while maintaining high employee morale and avoiding any pandemic-related layoffs. During Jack's tenure, the ABA has significantly expanded its domestic and international grant programs, thereby also expanding the incredible impact they have in helping people and justice systems globally. For example, the ABA's Free Legal Answers platform--launched in 2016 as the first and only national pro bono legal advice portal--has now expanded to 41 jurisdictions, with over 11,000 pro bono attorneys registered to respond to the more than 250,000 civil legal questions posted by low-income Americans, especially in the wake of recent crises caused by the pandemic, natural disasters, and rising inflation. ABA leaders, members, and State bar colleagues meet with their elected officials in Washington, DC, at least annually to advocate for important issues like funding the Legal Services Corporation, enhancing the judicial security for our Federal judges, and preserving the public service loan forgiveness program--a critical program that inspires lawyers to work in eligible public service positions for at least 10 years, often in rural communities, so more Americans have access to the legal help they need, where they need it--especially during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when so many faced unexpected challenges. In the international arena, Jack helped reorganize the ABA's primary international development, human rights, and United Nations entities into one cohesive Center for Global Programs. Under his leadership, the Center has grown its international portfolio to encompass more than 100 democracy, human rights, and governance programs in 60 countries. It has also significantly expanded its impact through high-profile programs like Justice Defenders and Trial Watch, a partnership with the George and Amal Clooney Foundation that focuses on monitoring trials of at-risk human rights defenders. Jack is a role model for legal professionals at all stages of their professional careers, always making time to meet with the many lawyers, law students, and interns who seek his advice. The ABA President recognized Jack's dedication and impact recently by saying that upon his departure, Jack will leave the ABA positioned to provide unparalleled service to lawyers worldwide and to advance the rule of law in the U.S. and globally. Jack's staff tell me they will miss his caring leadership and support, as well as his frequent communications on what was happening in the organization, his accessibility, and his willingness to answer all questions. I am not surprised by the amazing impact Jack has had at the ABA because I had the privilege to serve with him in the U.S. Air Force for decades, and I saw firsthand the extraordinary leadership, management, and people skills he had at the most senior levels of the military. Jack was born in Georgia and received both his bachelor of arts in political science and his law degree from the University of Georgia. To this day, he remains a loyal and avid fan of his Georgia Bulldogs. Following graduation from law school, Jack began his 33-year career in the Air Force as a judge advocate. He served as the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Air Force, the senior U.S. Air Force attorney, and was the first military attorney to attain the three-star rank of lieutenant general. Jack led about 4,600 military and civilian lawyers and legal professionals worldwide. Among his many military awards and decorations are the Distinguished Service Medal with oakleaf cluster and the Defense Superior Service Medal. The American Bar Association and our entire Nation have been lucky to have had a champion for the rule of law like Jack Rives. He has not only been successful throughout his impressive career, but also has had a significant impact on people's lives, many of whom he will never meet. I feel fortunate to have crossed paths with Jack over the decades, both in his civilian and military leadership roles, and I wish him and his wife Marie both happiness and success in this next chapter of their lives. I also thank Jack for his years of service and his selfless commitment to improving the rule of law and our profession.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for this long journey we have been on together. For Congressman Malinowski from the House, this has been a passion. This amendment would allow the Department of Justice, through the Secretary of State, to transfer proceeds from seized oligarch assets or other sanctioned entities to the people of Ukraine. It will be a godsend to the long-suffering people of Ukraine. It will be a relief to the American taxpayer because billions of dollars are subject to being seized and transferred. It will be a bad day for oligarchs. I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes from the bill. So where to start? Well, I thought long and hard about how to explain this to the American people, and the only thing I can tell you is ``insanity'' is defined as doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. So here we are with the same people coming up with a plan to help you. How well did that work out the last time these 50 people were going to save you and your family? You will eventually come to the conclusion, I hope, they generally don't know what they are doing. The best way to stop a drunk driver is to take the keys away before they get in the car. The best way to stop this tax-and-spend and inflationary madness is to fire some of the 50 so they can't keep doing this to your family. In March of 2021, we had a debate. Senator Sanders--very good man. And everybody over there told us that if we pass the American Rescue Plan, your life will be dramatically better. As $1.9 trillion passed with Democratic votes alone in March of 2021, not one Republican voted for it. Since then, we have been able to pass an infrastructure bill in a bipartisan manner. We passed legislation trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people and generally help with that problem. We have come together around Ukraine to help them beat the Russians. We have come together to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. My oligarch friend up there--the guy who hates oligarchs more than anybody--we have come together to try to go after the assets of the Putin cronies. So it is not like we can't work together. But what you are not going to get from our side is buy-in on really bad ideas. So to the American people, the same people telling you what this bill is going to do are the same people who told you the American Rescue Plan would work. Let's go down memory lane here for a second. Here is what the Vice President said about the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan passed in March of 2021 with Democratic votes alone: Help has arrived for the families that have struggled to put food on their table, for the small businesses that have struggled to keep their doors open. Help has arrived, America. This was said in 2021. She promised you help was on the way if you pass the Democratic American Rescue Plan. Here is what Senator Schumer said: We have heard a lot about how the American Rescue Plan will prime the American economy to come roaring back. Economists are already projecting that economic growth could double as a result of the American Rescue Plan. March 16, 2021. I don't know where their economists are today, but I hope they are not in the economy business because they sure as hell didn't know what they were talking about. So what has happened from those statements to now? Instead of help being on the way, helping you put food on the table--see if that makes sense to you. The American Rescue Plan has helped put food on the table. Help is on the way for business. In March of 2021, before the American Rescue Plan, inflation was at 2.6 percent. Today, it is at 9.1. Do you think it is an accident this has happened? If you do, you probably shouldn't be driving. You are a danger to yourself or others. We told you--and by God, God knows the Republicans are by no means perfect--but we told you what was going to happen, that we had a struggling economy because of COVID, and this tax-and-spend, growing the government, throwing money at everything, is going to come back to bite us in the ass, and it did. Take a hundred bucks and go to the grocery store and see what you get for it. You have to get a mortgage on your house to fill up your car. This is no accident. And the same people who told you then they had it figured out for you are telling you something now that I think is throwing gasoline on the fire that you are living with. That is why every Republican will vote no. Senator Sanders is reluctantly going to vote yes. I am going to enthusiastically vote no. I don't mind working with Democrats when it matters and it helps, but this, to me, is insane. So here is where we find ourselves as a nation. We find ourselves as a nation in a recession. If a Republican would be President, I doubt if most of the media would doubt we are in a recession. It is defined as a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by falling GDP in two successive quarters. The first quarter was 1.6 negative growth; the second quarter was 0.9. Over time, unfortunately, it is probably going to get worse because we are going to have to raise interest rates to control rampant inflation, and that is going to make it harder to borrow money and invest in the economy. On top of that, they are about to pass a bill without one Republican vote that will take every problem they created in March and make it dramatically worse. Let's go down sort of what life is like in America right now. They told you that help would be on the way, that the economy would double if we passed their bill in March of 2021. It didn't quite work out that way, did it? Gasoline has gone up 59.9 percent--it will eventually come down because the economy is coming to a halt; 34 percent increase in airfare, if you can get a plane to leave in the same month you schedule it; electricity rates, 13.7; food, 10.4; chicken, 18.6; cereal, 14.2-- this is sort of what I eat; bacon--I love bacon--10.8 percent increase. The bottom line is, the American Rescue Plan did not help your family. It is not helping your business. It has taken every problem we had from COVID and made it worse. And what is their solution? To do the same thing all over again in a different way. What is in this bill that makes me say that? When you ask people: Does the Inflation Reduction Act reduce inflation--I mean, not me; not any of the 50 of us; but just ask somebody who sort of like is supposed to know what they are talking about, and they will tell you it does not. The whole bill is a lie. The American Rescue Plan should be called the American Recession Plan, and this Inflation Reduction Act is a lie. It is not going to reduce inflation in any meaningful way. We have the highest inflation in 40 years. And here is what the Penn Wharton School of Business says: that it has a negligible impact. The Manchin-Schumer bill is going to make inflation worse. Here is what Penn Wharton, University of Pennsylvania Business School, said: ``Low confidence that legislation will have any impact on inflation.'' Bill would actually cause inflation to rise until 2024. These people could give a damn. Nobody is going to convince them to stop taxing and spending as long as they have the ability to do it. Penn Wharton--it was sort of the bible for Senator Manchin when he stopped Build Back Better, and I am glad he did. But they are telling him that what he and others are saying doesn't actually work. CBO--supposed to be the bible, according to Senator Manchin--has a negligible--I can't say that word--very little effect on inflation. They said it would not reduce inflation in 2022 and inflation would go up or down 0.1 percent in 2023. These are the people who wrote the budget bible telling all of you that what you are saying is not true, but you don't care. You could care less. So here is what the bill does. Here is why none of us are going to vote for it. How many of you think now is a good time to create a new gas tax? It is not. So let me tell you what is in this bill. This bill has a 16.4 cents-per-barrel new gas tax on all imported oil and petroleum products and all domestic crude refined in America, which will create billions of dollars of new gas taxes at a time we need to have less gas taxes, in my view. So in the name of climate change, this bill increases gas taxes. It brought back from the dead a 1995 tax that was 9.7 cents per barrel on imported oil, increased it to 16.4 cents at a time of high gas prices, and included domestic crude refined in America. Pennies become dimes, and dimes become dollars. So if you are looking to increase gas taxes, your ship has come in; vote for this bill. If you think it is dumb as dirt to have a new gas tax with this economy, vote for my amendment that comes up later. What else does the bill do? It increases taxes. You have to be shocked about that. It increases taxes by billions--hundreds of billions--and they say it won't affect you. Well, the CBO analysis and Penn Wharton said that the effect of the tax increases on business will be passed down to people who make below $100,000 a year. Just think about--does that make sense to you? You increase taxes on a business. They pass it along to their customers. That is just sort of the way the economy works. The 15-percent minimum tax--how does that work? The tax eliminates expensing for equipment and other items a business may purchase to grow their business, which we created in 2017, in the same year you buy it. So what does CBO say about that? CBO says this bill will deincentivize purchasing equipment and building factories. Think about what I just said. You are about to push on the American people another bill that will raise gas taxes and deincentivize investment in the private sector in the area of equipment and factory expansion at a time we need it the most. What does this bill do on the healthcare front? ObamaCare subsidies under this proposal will go to people making $304,100 as a couple for a family of four. Let me ask you, is now the time to subsidize ObamaCare for people making $304,000 a year? That is what is in this bill. Now, here is my favorite part. This bill has a plan to hire 87,000 new IRS agents--new ones. That is enough to fill up the Rose Bowl. That is bigger than the British Army. They are going to propose hiring 87,000 new IRS agents and they promise you this is only going to go after the rich. You should not believe that. This is an army of IRS agents who are going to go after everybody about everything to fill the insatiable desire of our friends on the other side to take money from you to spend up here. There will be more new IRS agents than the British Army, the German Army, the entire combined military of Canada, the French Air Force and Navy--literally an army of new IRS agents, and you should worry about what these people may do. As I tried to tell people last time, the American Rescue Plan wasn't going to rescue you; it was going to make your life worse. And it did. We have 9.1 percent inflation, the highest in 40 years. Senator Sanders is right. People are hurting out there. Let's work together to help. But you are not helping anybody. At the time you promised us help was on the way, inflation was at 2.6 percent. Because of the help you gave the economy, it is at 9.1 percent. Here is what we are trying to tell you over here. If this bill passes, the problems you face today are going to get worse. And we will remind you in November. Prescription drugs--in this bill, they identify 15 drugs they are going to have price controls on. They talk about the price in Canada. Most new drugs come from this country, not Canada. So let's make Canada pay more for the research and development done in our country to help the world. That makes some sense to me. But price fixing is a socialist idea that has never worked anywhere. Even Richard Nixon tried it. It didn't work. And during COVID, we should have learned one thing: The private sector developed drugs to keep a lot of people alive and out of the hospital, and I am glad they were able to do it. Operation Warp Speed was a tremendous success, and it was done by the American pharmaceutical industry. After this exercise is over, the idea of new drugs coming online is going to go down, and the socialist model that Senator Sanders embraces is going to hurt innovation. He is a fine man, but he is a Democratic socialist. This bill doesn't go far enough for him, but it goes way too far for you. As I am hoping and praying that one of you over there would agree with me, let's don't raise gas taxes now; let's don't raise taxes on business so they can invest in buying new equipment now; let's don't spend a bunch of money subsidizing ObamaCare for people who make over $300,000 now. But that is probably what we are going to do unless we can convince one person over there to reject this madness. I am telling you, ladies and gentlemen throughout the country, this is madness. Our Democratic friends, wherever too big, there is some plan to tax and spend on something. They are nice people, but they consistently have a view about what to do for the economy that is not working. I beg and plead with one Democrat: Listen and learn from what you did last time. Senator Manchin has been strong at times, but he voted for the American Rescue Plan. He is telling us this will reduce inflation when CBO says it will not. He is telling us that this will improve the economy when Penn Wharton says it won't. No matter what anybody says, they are hell-bent on doing this because they can. I hope after this election, they can't do this anymore. Here is what I think it is going to take: one Democrat admitting maybe the American Rescue Plan didn't work and this won't work. Maybe there is one among you. But if there is not, to the American people: In November, I hope you will remember this. Help is not coming by passing this bill. Help was not on the way by passing the American Rescue Plan. Misery came from that massive tax-and-spend bill, and we are about to pile misery on top of misery. We are about to increase gas taxes at a time you can't afford it. To my Republican colleagues: You should enthusiastically vote no. To my Democratic colleagues: Apparently, you haven't learned a damn thing about what you did last time. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, Madam President, we are off to the races, so I am going to make this easy. I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5301 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to the Members of the body, if you think America needs a new gas tax, then your ship has come in. Vote for the Democratic bill because, believe it or not, these people over there want to raise gas taxes right now. The last time they tried to help you was the American rescue act. And here is what the Vice President said: Help has arrived for the families who have struggled to put food on their table, for the small businesses that have struggled to keep their doors open. Help has arrived. She said that in March. Inflation was 2.6 percent. Help has arrived. It is 9.1 percent. This bill will increase gas taxes 16.4 cents on every barrel of imported oil and petroleum, and every barrel of crude oil found in America, to be refined in America, will have an additional 16.4 cents- per-barrel-tax increase. This is insane. This is stupid. If you like high gas prices, vote for them. If you want to lower prices at the pump, vote for my amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much. This gives phony and cynical a bad name. They wouldn't let you do this in professional wrestling. If you think people are this dumb, you are going to be sadly mistaken. What she is doing is trying to strike the provisions that she just voted against, but it requires 60 votes. So she can vote for repealing a gas tax she just voted against so she will look good for the voters. If you really wanted to repeal the gas tax, the new one indexed for inflation, you should have voted for my amendment. What you are doing is deceitful, dishonest, and we are going to call you out.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, yes, I would urge a ``no'' vote simply because we are living in a world where it is hard to get by. Growing the government, I think, will create more inflation. Everything can't be free because we all--it gets to be so free that you can't afford it. So you are the same people that told us if we passed the American Rescue Plan, all would be well. We are at 9.1 percent inflation. You are increasing gas taxes. Now you want to expand Medicare. This is going to hurt the American people. Stop the madness. Vote no. Vote on Amendment 5211, As Modified

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would urge a no. This has been tried before by my colleague Senator Sanders. This would give hundreds of thousands of people enlisting free housing, free food, transportation, educational costs. We have a weak economy. Every time I rise to speak, we ruin the government in a different way. If you really want to help the American people, secure their border. If you want to hire anybody new, hire a Border Patrol agent, not 87,000 IRS agents, not a climate corps. I know these are well-intentioned, but we are living in a very tenuous time for the American people, and their needs are not being met tonight. Every problem they have is being made worse. We don't need a climate corps right now, quite frankly. We need to secure a broken border before terrorists come across and kill a bunch of us. Vote no. Vote on Amendment No. 5209

Mr. GRAHAM. I don't want to get in the middle off you all's fight over here, but am I supposed to read this or not?

Mr. GRAHAM. The pending amendment No. 5262 offered by Senator Warnock contains matters outside the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Therefore, the amendment is extraneous, and I raise a point of order against this amendment pursuant to Section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Motion to Waive

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in the night or day--or whatever we have been doing as the night has turned into day--of extremes, this is the most extreme idea yet, and that is saying a lot. Senator Sanders wants to destroy fossil fuel exploration at a time you have got to get a mortgage on your house to fill up your car. So I want you to understand what is being proposed: Shutting down American fossil fuel exploration will make us more dependent on fossil fuels that are in the hands of the bad guys. Gas is $4.08 a gallon right now. This is the most dangerous idea tonight, today, for the American consumer. If you are tired of paying high gas prices, then vote Republican. Vote on Amendment No. 5281

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe this violates the rules of reconciliation. I make a point of order against page 744, line 7, through page 755, line 4, in the substitute. This language violates 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask consent to make the following four points of order en bloc. The first point of order concerns page 43, lines 3 through 8. This language violates section 313(b)(1)(A). The second point concerns page 1, lines 3 through 5. This language violates 313(b)(1)(A). The third point concerns page 547, line 18, through page 548, line 25. This language violates section 313(b)(1)(A). And the fourth point of order concerns page 689, lines 8 through 16. This language violates section 313(b)(1)(D).

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, one, I want to associate myself with the comments of Senator Collins from Maine. That was a great story about why we should all be happy today with Finland and Sweden and why this makes a lot of sense. There is one person I want to thank whom I don't usually give a big shout-out to: President Putin from Russia. Without you, we wouldn't be here. You have done more to strengthen NATO than any speech I could ever hope to give. John McCain, I wish you were alive today to celebrate because what we have been able to accomplish here through Putin's invasion of Ukraine is to remind everybody in the world, when it comes to bullies, you better stand up to them before it is too late. So our friends in Finland and Sweden have decided to join NATO. That is a good thing. But let me put Ukraine in perspective right quick. Our military leaders and our experts told us: After the invasion, 4 days, they would be in Kyiv. Well, they miscalculated. They overestimated the capabilities of the Russians, and they certainly undercalculated the resolve of the Ukrainian people. We are 160 days into this fight. Ukraine is still standing, bloodied but unbowed; NATO is bigger; crippling sanctions on the Russian economy; the ICC is investigating war crimes committed by Putin and his cronies. You have 100 U.S. Senators--we can't agree on Sunday being a day off--have agreed that Russia should be a State sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law. So 160 days into this fight, I am telling you right now, things are looking pretty good for the good guys. And I say that knowing how much suffering has gone on in the Ukraine. But today, we are here to admit two new members of NATO. NATO has been the strongest force for good, I think, on the planet since 1949. It is a group of countries organized around democratic concepts that have pledged to one another mutual defense--an attack on one is an attack on all. It has deterred war. It has been a stabilizing influence in Europe since the end of World War II. And along comes Putin. So NATO today is going to be bigger than it was before the invasion. NATO today is going to have more military resources than before the invasion by Russia into Ukraine. Again, I want to thank President Putin. You have done something for the democratic world that we have not been able to do for ourselves. To NATO, as an organization, keep your eye on the ball; pay your 2 percent. To my friends who suggest that expanding NATO makes us weaker against China, what movie are you watching? How can you believe for one moment abandoning Ukraine or showing less of a commitment to European stability will make China more afraid of us and less likely to invade Taiwan? The best thing we could do right now as a world--particularly, the democratic world--is to become stronger in the face of aggression, to make NATO bigger. And we are going to accomplish that in a few minutes. To all my colleagues who have come down here and spoken on behalf of the admission of these two countries, God bless you; you are on the right side of history. One regret I do have is my great friend Senator McCain could not see today come about because he would be exceedingly pleased that the democratic world has rallied in the face of the aggression by Putin. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the North Greenville University Crusaders baseball team for winning the 2022 NCAA Baseball Division II National Championship. The Crusaders outscored their four World Series opponents by a combined 34-12. Their victory earned the program its first national championship and marked the second Conference Carolinas baseball team to win the title. Throughout the season, Landon Powell, head coach of the Crusaders, was consistently a role model to the players. When he was hired in 2014, the Crusaders were 8-35 and had three and one-half scholarship players. Coach Powell turned the team around and guided them to a 29-25 winning record in his first year; since then, the Crusaders have consistently averaged more than 41 wins per season. On the field, Jax Cash went three for four at the plate and drove in the final run of the game. Reece Fields pitched 5.0 innings, allowing one run on six hits, three walks, eight strikeouts, and was named the tournament MVP. Nate Roof pitched 3.0 innings, allowing no runs, two hits, and a walk. The entire team should be proud of their hard work and accomplishments. The North Greenville baseball team displayed outstanding dedication and teamwork throughout the season and brought pride to the State of South Carolina. The university, under the leadership of Dr. Gene C. Fant, Jr., and Coach Powell, has much to be proud of, and I look forward to another great season by the Crusaders. I ask that our colleagues join me in congratulating the North Greenville University Crusaders baseball team for winning the 2022 NCAA Baseball Division II National Championship.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will speak for about 5 minutes or so, if that is OK. As we depart for our Memorial Day recess and the unofficial beginning of summer, many of us in political life will go to events honoring America's fallen heroes who have died in service of our Nation. Memorial Day is different from Veterans Day. On Veterans Day, we celebrate all those who serve. On Memorial Day, we have somber remembrance for those who failed to make it home. Hundreds of thousands of Americans, men and women from all different backgrounds, have died on foreign battlefields in the name of freedom and protecting our homeland. This is the one day that we set aside each year to remember them. I will do my best to rededicate myself to being a better American, appreciating the freedoms I have, and trying to find a way forward for our Nation as a whole. So that is what this holiday week is about.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, before we leave Washington, I want to make a few comments about the war in Ukraine. Our allies in Ukraine are fighting like tigers against a Russian invasion that is without foundation, that is illegal under international law and is one of the most brutal acts of war in the 21st century--maybe in any century. I just want to let the Ukrainian people know that the American people are with you in your struggle for freedom. There have been some comments made by folks whom I respect talking about the need to end this war, where Ukraine has to recognize certain parts of their territory as actually Russian territory. I cannot disagree more. Any effort to impose upon Ukraine a ceasefire that leads to a peace agreement where they have to give territory to Russia is not ending a war; it will be starting new wars. Have we learned nothing from the last century? Appeasing Putin in Ukraine makes him want more, not less. We found that to be true in the 1930s with Hitler in Germany. So this idea that Ukraine needs to come to the table and give up Ukrainian land to Putin makes zero sense to me. All the people who have been fighting in Ukraine would have died in vain. And that line of reasoning I reject completely. Here is the state of play: Due to the commitment of the Ukrainian people to fight for their freedom and their homeland, Russia has just been delivered a mighty blow. Their army is in decline. They just changed their laws so that the limitation on service from 18 to 40 now has been lifted. There was a 63-year-old retired general fighter pilot shot down in Ukraine, a Russian general. All I can say is that the Ukrainians have met their end of the bargain. This body, expressing the will of the American people, passed a $40 billion aid package. That is a lot of money, but you either pay now or later when it comes to Putin. I am convinced, along with most of my colleagues here, that if Putin is successful in Ukraine, he only goes further; he never stops. His words, not mine--he wants to reconstruct the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire, whatever you would like to call it. There are other nations in his crosshairs. So the battle in Ukraine will stabilize Europe if it is done right. If the battle in Ukraine ends where Putin feels like he got away with mass war crimes and was able to get territory by force of arms, he will not stop. China will, surely as I am speaking, have a green light to go into Taiwan. So those who argue that we need to end this war by giving Ukrainian territory to Putin, you are starting another war in Asia, most likely. You are going to create a larger appetite for Putin, and I think you have lost the lessons of the last century. We have much to understand about the nature of this war. We have Russian diplomats resigning in protest. We have people at concerts shouting some pretty vulgar things about the war. You have a Russian military that is under siege in terms of manning. The more weapons we provide to the Ukrainians, the more lethal they become on the battlefield, the more likely this war ends on favorable terms. So I just want to remind the American people as we go into this holiday, remember those who sacrificed for our freedom. There is a hot war in Europe. It is 2022. Did anybody really believe after the fall of the Berlin Wall that we would be having a war with Russia in Europe trying to take over a sovereign country called Ukraine? Well, that is where we are, and I guess one thing to learn about mankind is that the calendar may change, but there is a dark side of mankind--powerful people trying to push the less powerful around; people trying to take things through force of arms rather than the rule of law. So I want the Ukrainian people to know that I am with you. I think most Americans are with you. We don't want you to entice Putin to go beyond Ukraine by surrendering your territory. We stand with you. Not 1 inch of Ukrainian territory should be given to Putin because he chose force of arms. The rule of law versus the rule of guns is at stake. I am hoping that we will send you more lethal weapons, not less, that we will increase your capability to inflict pain on the Russian military. I do believe that people in Russia are beginning to understand that, with Putin, they have a very limited future; that if you continue to support Putin, the world will isolate you further; that we are not going to forgive and forget the war crimes. NATO is getting bigger. Finland and Sweden have applied to NATO. I have talked to our friends in Turkey. I hope we can resolve that. So it would be wonderful in the next coming weeks here that the Senate, in fast fashion, could include two more members of NATO; that everything Putin wanted has backfired; that the Ukrainian nation still stands; that NATO is bigger not smaller; that war crimes investigations move forward, they don't stall. In the International Criminal Court, Mr. Khan is doing a good job of gathering evidence against Russian atrocities committed by Russian military leaders and Russian forces, all under the control of Putin, and I just encourage that effort to go further. Ukrainian courts have convicted a Russian soldier of murder, a war crime. So what I would like to see is the Western world, the democratic world, reinforce our commitment to Ukraine, not talk about having to give Putin territory to end this war, because that is not the way to end the war; that is a way to expand the war. If we can end this through diplomatic means, great, but what should be off the table is rewarding Putin for this invasion. What should be on the table is a commitment to Ukraine. As long as they are willing to fight, as long as they are willing to fight for their freedom and die for their territory, we should help them, because Putin won't stop with Ukraine if he is successful. The blood and treasure that we have spent since 9/11 has been tough for our country, but not one American soldier is on the ground in Ukraine. They are not asking for soldiers; they are only asking for the ability to defend themselves--economic assistance, military assistance. I do not want to let the pressure off Putin. Senator Risch and Senator Menendez--the chairman, Senator Menendez, of the Foreign Relations Committee--are considering marking up legislation urging the Biden administration to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. So let's keep the pressure on Putin. Let's let the Russian people know that, as long as Putin is your leader, you will be isolated from the international community, your economy can't grow, and there are going to be more and more young Russians killed in this folly. I would urge the Russian people to change course here. Pick a new leader. The world will embrace Russia. Russia is a land of many talented people, with a long rich history. I am hoping and praying that the freedom-loving world will not make the mistakes in 2022 that we made in 1932, that we made in 1937 and 1938 where we thought the way to end the war was to appease a brutal dictator. That is not the way to end a war; that is the way to continue wars and make them bigger. So, as for me, I will do everything in my power to help the Ukrainian people as a Member of the U.S. Senate. I will do everything in my power to hold Putin accountable. I will do everything in my power, working with my Democratic and Republican colleagues, to isolate Putin's Russia. This is a difficult time for the world. If he fails in Ukraine, if the Russian people rise up and change course, the world will be a lot better off. If he succeeds, God help us all because the worst is yet to come. No problem here at home gets better by turning our back on Ukraine and not holding Putin accountable. Whatever problems we have at the border, with inflation, gas prices, all the domestic violence here at home, none of those problems get better if Putin wins in Ukraine. Here is the good news for the American people: The Ukrainian people are not asking for our young men and women to fight and die in Ukraine; they are only asking for our help. They need arms. They need weapons. They need economic assistance. If we will continue to show our resolve--the Western world--Putin will lose and the people of Ukraine will win. Now is not the time to put on the table capitulation. So to everybody, I hope you have a safe Memorial Day. I look forward to coming back after the break to see if we can find a pathway forward on commonsense gun reforms. Between now and then, let's keep the people of Ukraine in our prayers. I suggest the absence of a quorum.