Josh Hawley

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. To have a vote on the floor?

Mr. HAWLEY. I would be happy to take a vote on the floor on all eight nominations.

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President.

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I find myself here on the floor again as my friend the Senator from Virginia, whose sincerity and urgency on this issue I don't doubt for a second, tries to move a whole slate of nominees to which multiple Republican Senators have objections. And let me give you a sense of why. One of the nominees that my friend is attempting to move here, let's be clear, to do this without a vote--we could be voting on these nominees. The majority leader could schedule votes on them any time, but he hasn't done that. He hasn't done it in some of the cases for months. This is an act--this is a request to suspend the regular order of the Senate and to confirm these nominees without a vote. Well, I, for one, am not going to consent to confirming without a vote people like Ravi Chaudhary. He is being nominated for Assistant Secretary of the Air Force. Mr. Chaudhary, who appeared before the Armed Services Committee, on which I sit, as does my friend from Virginia--Mr. Chaudhary has proposed using AI technology--artificial intelligence--to track members of the military, identify them as extremists, and then have them expelled. He said: The key to disrupting them-- Meaning ``extremists,'' his word, people whose views he doesn't agree with. The key to disrupting them is uncovering and understanding their initial behaviors, elements that are contained in their electronic footprints. What Mr. Chaudhary has proposed to do is to use surveillance on members of the U.S. military to determine whether they might, in the future, commit acts that he might disapprove of and then to take action against these members of the military. In 2015, he wrote this: that the military exhibits a ``culture of xenophobic cronyism.'' And he went on to say that there was a ``xenophobic command climate'' in the U.S. military today. I said to Mr. Chaudhary, at the time when we had our hearing, that I cannot believe that he would propose to use surveillance on members of the U.S. military to track their speech, to track their activity online, to track their movements online, all in an effort to decide if they might, in the future, commit acts that he disagrees with. I submit to you, Madam President, not only is that wrong; it is blatantly unconstitutional--blatantly unconstitutional--and it is frightening. What is further frightening is that he would be nominated for a leadership position in the Department of Defense. I call on the President of the United States to withdraw this nomination today, just as he should withdraw his unconstitutional disinformation board that he is attempting to force on the American people as we speak. This is the most radically anti-free-speech administration in American history. Their actions are an affront to the basic constitutional values of this Nation, including and especially the First Amendment. I am appalled--appalled--at what this administration is doing-- censoring American citizens, surveilling them--and now advocating it in the U.S. military, to the men and women who put their lives on the line? So, no, I will not consent to have this individual, who never should have been nominated for this position, fast-tracked to be confirmed without a vote, without a single, solitary vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. HAWLEY. I think you have the floor, Senator; so, yes, I think----

Mr. HAWLEY. Can I respond to that?

Mr. HAWLEY. Is this a recorded vote on the floor, Senator?

Mr. HAWLEY. Senator, you want to vote on all eight at one time; you don't want to vote on each one?

Mr. HAWLEY. What I propose to do here is--there are multiple Senators on this side of the aisle besides myself who have objections to different multiple of these. What I propose to do is object to this now, but I think we can work something out on this going forward. So I think--do I have the floor now?

Mr. HAWLEY. OK. So I object.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the Motion to Instruct Conferees from Mr. Menendez that moves that the managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4521 be instructed to insist upon the provisions contained in section 73003 of the Senate amendment (relating to establishment of an Inspector General of the Office of the United States Trade Representative).

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, the Senator doesn't want to answer any questions. I see. He denied my request to ask a question a moment ago.

Mr. HAWLEY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HAWLEY. Reserving the right to object, now that I have the floor, will the Senator from Hawaii answer a question? Do you agree with this administration's policy to denying MiGs to the Ukrainians?

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, thank you for finally giving me an option to speak. It is interesting, the Senator will come to the floor but doesn't want to engage in a colloquy or answer questions. Let's talk a little bit about the policy--disastrous policy--that he is supporting. This is the White House's latest talking points that their failure in Ukraine is now due to some logistics problem and the Department of Defense--they, of course, can't be responsible for what they are doing, just like they are not responsible for anything. They are not responsible for what happened in Afghanistan--their policy. They are not responsible for what has happened in Ukraine--their policy. Let's talk about their policy in Ukraine.

Mr. HAWLEY. So what has President Zelenskyy been asking for for weeks, indeed, months on end? He said: ``Send us planes.'' What has this administration done? No. Actually, first they said yes, then they said maybe, then they said no. Today, the Secretary of Defense testified before the Armed Services Committee, under oath, that even though this Congress has appropriated $3 billion in military lethal aid to the people of Ukraine, the Defense Department has so far given them less than one-third of it. Why, because of logistics? No. He was asked that. No, because of policy. His comment was: We are giving them what we think they need. I would just point out that that is not what the Ukrainians think. If you listen to President Zelenskyy, if you listen to the Ukrainian parliamentarians who have been here, if you talked to them, what they will say is they need more military aid; they need more help. This administration won't give it to them, not because of logistics but because of policy. We don't have a logistics problem; we have a Joe Biden problem, and we have had that problem in Ukraine from day one. This administration's policy was to deter a Russian invasion of Ukraine. It failed. Why did it fail? It is not hard to see. President Biden came to office, what did he do?

Mr. HAWLEY. When Ukraine asked for military assistance, he denied it. Can we have order?

Mr. HAWLEY. When Joe Biden came to office, the people of Ukraine asked for military assistance a year ago--a year ago. Did he give it to them? No. He denied them military stance. He denied them lethal aid. What did he do, though, for Vladimir Putin? When he came to office, he green-lighted Vladimir Putin's pipeline. He turned their pipelines on. He turned our pipelines off. What did he do with American energy production? He throttled it down. He turned it off. His first actions in office were to, among other things, cancel the Keystone Pipeline, halt the leasing program in ANWR, issue a halt to new oil and gas leases and drilling permits on Federal lands, impose tougher regulations on oil and gas and methane emissions, and a host of new regulations on other energy production. And that had the desired effect. Russian energy production--up. Russian revenues--up. What has happened since then, since the invasion of Ukraine? It has been one gaffe after another. He won't send them planes. Today, the Secretary of Defense also confirmed that this administration has, in fact, not been sharing intelligence with the Ukrainians. In fact, today the Secretary of Defense had to admit that the administration was going to be forced to change policy--his words-- change policy in Ukraine because of the fact we had not been sharing all the intelligence we might have with Ukrainian soldiers and the Ukrainian military despite their request for that. Whose decision was that? Joe Biden's. It is his policy. The President hasn't been entirely silent. He did have this to say: For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power. Now Joe Biden doesn't appear to know whether we are fighting or struggling to help the Ukrainians defend themselves or whether we are launching a war of regime change in Russia, itself. You know, the bottom line is this: On one issue after another, when it comes to Ukraine, this President has been wrong. On every aspect of policy that has mattered, he has been wrong. Is it any wonder the Ukrainians are saying: Change policies, share your intelligence, send us the aid that we have requested. I say again, we don't have a logistics problem. The White House shouldn't point fingers and shift the blame. We have a Joe Biden problem. That is the nub of the issue here. There was Joe Biden's comment sounding like we are going to send ground troops: You're going to see when you go there-- He said to servicemembers. And you . . . some of you have been there. You're going to see--you're going to see women, young people standing . . . in front of a damn tank, just saying, ``I'm not leaving. I'm holding my ground.'' The President--it is one gaffe after another. It is one switch in policy after another. It is disaster from beginning to end. And let's not forget where these foreign policy disasters really kicked off in a big way. Yeah, I was in Afghanistan. Am I concerned about Afghanistan? You are darn right I am. Thirteen servicemembers were killed at Abbey Gate, including one from my home State. I will never forget talking to his father as soon as we learned of the attack--before, in fact, the official notice of his son's death had been released. His father asked me to do everything in my power to hold this administration accountable, and that is exactly what I am going to do. Has anyone been held accountable yet for Afghanistan? Has somebody been fired? Has somebody been relieved of command? No. Has somebody been shown the door? No. Has there been a change in policy at the Department of Defense? No. We just stumble from one crisis to another. Why? Because we have a Joe Biden problem. This administration is doing exactly what their Commander in Chief wants them to do and it is wrong, again and again and again and again. Until we see some change in policy from this administration, until this Senate gets serious about its oversight responsibilities at the Department of Defense, I am going to ask that for senior defense leaders, we at least observe regular order. I can't block a nomination. I can't halt it, but I can ask that regular order be followed. That is exactly what I am going to ask with regard to this nomination and other senior leaders until there is accountability, until we have a change in policy, and until this administration admits that on issue after issue, in virtually every aspect of its foreign policy, it is just dead wrong. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 863, Erik Kristopher Raven, of the District of Columbia, to be Under Secretary of the Navy.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to take action to crack down on child pornography offenders and to protect our children. This is a growing crisis, and it is one that is near to the heart of every parent in America. I can attest to that as a father of three small children myself. I have got a 9-year-old, a 7-year-old, and a 16-month-old baby at home. But I can also attest to it as a former prosecutor. As the attorney general for the State of Missouri, one of the first things I did was establish a statewide anti-human trafficking initiative and task force because what I saw as attorney general of my State was that human trafficking, including, unfortunately, child sex trafficking, is an exploding epidemic. In my State and around our country, children are exploited, children are trafficked. And those who work in this area and those who prosecute in this area--law enforcement who work day in and day out--will tell you that the explosion of child pornography is helping to drive this exploding epidemic of child sexual exploitation and child sex trafficking. The problem is that child porn itself is exploding. A New York Times investigative reporter found that in 2018, there were 45 million images of children being sexually exploited available on the internet--45 million. Just a few years before, it had been 3 million and in 2018, 45. Then, last year, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children found that that number had grown to 85 million--85 million images on the internet of children being brutally sexually exploited. And as every prosecutor and every law enforcement advocate and every law enforcement agent who works in this area will tell you, that explosion of this material--which, by the way, is harmful in and of itself, is exploitative in and of itself--is driving a crisis of child exploitation and child sex trafficking in this country. Now the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court has helped bring this issue front and center. Her record of leniency to child sex offenders has been much at the center of her hearings, and it has startled the public. A recent Rasmussen survey found that following her hearings, 56 percent of all respondents said that they were troubled by her record on child sex offenders. That included 64 percent of Independents. And they are right to be troubled. Her record is indeed startling. In every case involving child pornography where she had discretion, she sentenced below the Federal sentencing guidelines, below the prosecutor's recommendations, and below the national averages. We now know that the national average for possession of child pornography--the national sentence imposed, on average, is 68 months. Judge Jackson's average is 29.3 months. The national average sentence for distribution of child pornography: 135 months; Judge Jackson's average, 71.9 months. In fact, it is true for criminal sentencing across the board. The national average of all criminal sentences imposed in the United States, 45 months; Judge Jackson's average, 29.9 months. This is a record of leniency. In the words of the Republican leader, leniency to the ``extreme'' to child sex offenders and on criminal matters in general. But--but, but, but--we are told, and have been told for weeks on end now, it is not really her fault. We were told by the White House and Senate Democrats that it is not her fault because those Federal sentencing guidelines that she, in every case where she could went below--those guidelines aren't binding. Thanks to the decision by the Supreme Court, by Justice Breyer and Justice Stevens, those guidelines are only advisory. And so we were told, repeatedly, that if we really want to get tougher sentences for child porn offenders, then we are going to have to change the law. In fact, I see my friend Senator Durbin here today, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He said this to me multiple times during the committee. On March 22, he said to me: I hope we all agree that we want to do everything in our power . . . to lessen the incidence of pornography and exploitation of children. . . . I . . . want to tell you, Congress doesn't have clean hands. . . . We haven't touched this for 15, 16 or 17 years. Senator Durbin went on: We have created a situation because of our inattention and unwillingness to tackle an extremely controversial area in Congress and left it to the judges. And I think we have to accept some responsibility. And he went on: I don't know if you-- Meaning me-- have sponsored a bill to change this. I will be looking for it. . . . If we're going to tackle it, we should. Well, I agree with that 100 percent. I agree we should tackle it. This is the time to tackle it, and I am here to do that today. I am proud to sponsor and introduce legislation along with my fellow Senators Mike Lee and Thom Tillis and Rick Scott and Ted Cruz to get tough on child porn offenders. Now, let's be clear. When Congress wrote the child pornography Federal sentencing guidelines, and it is Congress that wrote them substantially, way back in 2003--when Congress wrote them, they wanted them to be binding. Congress meant for these guidelines to bind Federal judges. The Supreme Court struck those guidelines down. Now it is time to put it back into place. My bill would put a new mandatory--mandatory--sentence of 5 years for every child porn offender who possesses pornography, 5 years. If you do this crime, you ought to go to jail. It would make the guidelines binding for any and all facts found by a jury or found by a judge in a trial, restore the law to what Congress intended back in 2003, take away discretion from judges to be soft on crime, and get tough on child sex offenders. That is what this bill would do. Now, I called this bill the Protect Act of 2022 because it is modeled on the PROTECT Act of 2003, when Congress wrote these guidelines. And I would just note for the record that I believe every Senator voted for it back in 2003, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Durbin, and every member of the Judiciary Committee, Republican and Democratic, who was serving at the time. That act back in 2003 toughened penalties for child porn offenders, made the guidelines mandatory, and explicitly took away discretion from judges to sentence below the guidelines. I think it was a pretty good law, and I think now is the time to act. Our children are at risk. The epidemic of sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and victimization is real. And let's be clear what child pornography is. It is an industry--an industry that feeds on the exploitation of the most vulnerable members of our society, that feeds on the spectator sport of child abuse and child victimization. If you have a lot of images of child pornography, you ought to go to jail for a long time. If you possess child pornography, you ought to go to jail for at least 5 years. And, yes, it is time for every judge in America to get tough on child porn. That is what this bill would do, and I urge the Senate now to take this opportunity to act. So as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 3951, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. HAWLEY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, the Senator asks: ``Why now?'' Why act now? It is because it is a crisis now, because there are 85 million images of children being exploited on the internet now, because child exploitation is exploding in this country now. Today, the Senator lays bare on this floor the bait and switch that he and his colleagues have employed. They say: Oh, Judge Jackson--it is not her fault. You should act on the law to change the law. But when we come to change the law and do what this Congress did in 2003, to do it now in 2022--a measure that Senator Durbin supported in 2003--he says: Oh, no, no, we don't need to act now. Why do it now? It is rushed. It is too hurried. Let's do it later. Let's think about it longer. Then we hear recited again the bizarre claims that somehow child pornography is a conspiracy theory. This is something that Senate Democrats, including the chairman, have repeated over and over and over, led by the White House--the idea that child exploitation is a conspiracy theory. I would just invite you to look any parent in America in the eye and tell them that the exploitation of children is a conspiracy theory--or any law enforcement agent or any prosecutor or anyone who is working on the exploitation, to combat the exploitation of children in this country. No. It is a crisis, and it is real. The fact that the Senate hasn't acted until now is, I think, shameful for the Senate. But why wait another day? Now, I look forward, if the Senator is serious. He does hold the gavel in the Judiciary Committee. We could mark this bill up. We could hold hearings. We could take action. I would invite him to cosponsor this bill. He voted for it in 2003. Let's have hearings, then, if we can't vote on it today, if we can't debate it today. Let's have hearings. Let's mark it up. Let's take it seriously. I will wait. I suspect I will be waiting for an awfully long time. Here is the bottom line: I am not willing to tell the parents of my State that I sat by and did nothing. I am not willing to dismiss child exploitation as just some conspiracy theory. I am not willing to abandon the victims of this crime to their own devices and say: Good luck to you. No, I am not willing to do that--nor am I willing to excuse Judge Jackson's record of leniency that does need to be corrected. She should not have had the discretion to sentence leniently in the extreme, as she did, nor should any judge in America, in my view. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We should fix it for everybody across the board, and we can begin by acting as we did in 2003. So I am disappointed, but I can't say that I am surprised that this measure has been objected to today. All I can say is that I pledge to my constituents--I pledge to the parents of my State and, yes, to the victims of my State--that I will continue to come to this floor and that I will continue to seek passage of this act until we get action from this Senate to protect children and to punish child pornographers. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois says that Congress hasn't acted in two decades; that is true. I haven't been here for two decades; he has. There is no excuse to not take action now. There is no excuse to not act on this problem when we know what the solution is. So, listen, if the Senator is saying today, if he is committing today, to holding hearings and marking up a bill to toughen the child pornography laws, to make mandatory the sentencing guidelines, that is fantastic. I will take him at his word. I look forward to seeing those hearings noticed and to seeing that markup noticed, and I hope it will be forthcoming. I am here to make a prediction. I think we will be waiting a very long time, because let's not forget what his party and the Sentencing Commission, stacked with members of his party, have been recommending. It has not been to make child sentences tougher--child pornography sentences tougher. They have wanted to make them weaker. What the Sentencing Commission has recommended, with its liberal members for years now, is to make them weaker. That is what Judge Jackson has advocated. She also wants to change the guidelines--to make them weaker. I think that is exactly the wrong move, and that is why the Senator was here to block this effort today. He doesn't want there to be tougher sentences. He doesn't want to talk about this issue. He wants to sweep it under the rug. I am here to say I won't let that happen. I will be here as long as it takes. I will be advocating for this in the Senate Judiciary Committee as long as it takes, until we get justice for the victims of child pornography and child exploitation. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.