Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I come to the floor tonight as we are hearing media reports that President Zelenskyy of Ukraine will be coming to Washington tomorrow to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress. I hope that is an accurate report. I think it is important that he come. This would be, by the way, the first time that he has left Ukraine in 300 days--not since the start of the invasion, which is now 300 days from today. Against all odds, Ukraine has held out against the Russian assault. Many thought that it would only be able to hold out for a week or so. Instead, it has been 300 days. They have pushed Russia back in so many places. I am glad he is coming because I know what he will do is talk about his deep appreciation for what the American people have provided. Every time I have been with him--and I have traveled to Ukraine about 10 times since 2014--he talks about that. But, particularly, over the last few months, I have been to Ukraine twice, and he focused on the fact that they couldn't do it without us and the deep appreciation that he feels. Second, I know he will give us a firsthand report of what is going on. Just this morning, he was in Bakhmut, which is in eastern Ukraine. This is what it looks like in Bakhmut today. So he is going from a ravaged battle zone--it looks a little bit like a World War I battle zone when you see all the damage that has been occurring in this area. He will be able to tell us specifically what is happening on the battlefield and talk about the continued Russian atrocities that are being committed in the country of Ukraine. I am here for the 29th consecutive week on the floor of the Senate to talk about this attack on Ukraine, a brutal, illegal, and totally unprovoked war on a democratic ally of ours who just wants to live in peace with its neighbors, including Russia. In each of these previous 28 speeches, I have talked about the progress that has been made and some of the issues that the Ukrainian people still need to address, particularly with regard to more technology and more weapon systems from the West and from the United States. Today, I thought it might be useful to step back and take a look at how we got here and how far Ukraine has come over these 300 days. Let's consider what the Ukrainian military has accomplished since that initial Russian invasion of sovereign Ukrainian territory now over 8 years ago. This first picture shows Ukrainian soldiers taking up positions in Kramatorsk back in 2014. This was, again, right after the so-called Revolution of Dignity when Ukraine decided to turn to the West--the United States and Europe, democracy, free markets--and the Russian- backed, corrupt government was thrown out. Russia responded by attacking Ukraine, taking Crimea and parts of the Donbas. These are the Ukrainian soldiers at that time. You can look at this very basic kit: old, rusted weapons; boots that don't look very sturdy; helmets that look like they are from the Soviet era, and they probably are; small anti-armor weapons that really did not have any ability to stop the Russian armor. They couldn't puncture the armor in these Russian tanks and other armored vehicles. These were the soldiers who were tasked with stopping Russia's initial invasion in 2014. Again, they look more like soldiers from the 1980s. In those days, the Ukrainian military was underfunded, faced a lot of allegations of fraud, had a lot of corruption, and was shockingly small. And that was on purpose because the Russian-backed government didn't want an effective military. In 2014, with the help of an assortment of militias, they were able to slow Russia's advance just because the Ukrainians were taking the high moral ground, but they were unable to push the Russian forces out of the country or to keep them from taking Crimea and large parts of the Donbas, which remained in Russian hands. Let's fast-forward now to 2022, today, and see what our help has resulted in. This is a photograph of what soldiers look like on the frontlines today. This is in a trench in Bakhmut where you can see modern firearms and helmets, body armor, additional gear and equipment on their uniforms for extended operations in the field, and weapons that can actually make the difference--for instance, the American-made Javelin anti-armor missiles that were provided to them, which are so effective against the Russian tanks and other armored vehicles. There is an additional thing you can't see in this photograph or any photograph, but it is really important, and that is training. These soldiers in 2022 are far better trained than their predecessors, and they are schooled in Western tactics. They are competent, disciplined, and able to operate independently in uncertain circumstances. This stands in sharp contrast to how Russia's military has conducted itself in this conflict: overly centralized command and control, poor discipline, and an unwillingness or inability to learn from their mistakes. This is the modern military that has shattered the sword of Russia's war machine, and it was all made possible through the combined efforts of the United States, American taxpayers, but also our allies across the world--particularly the UK--did a lot of training. Our European allies and the EU did a lot of training, particularly the Eastern European countries in the region; also Canada. We stepped up, and we helped to train the next generation of the Ukrainian military, and through that, we have helped professionalize, arm, and train Ukraine's military since 2014 to prepare for the exact contingency that occurred earlier this year, which is a full-scale invasion by Russia. Our efforts are paying off, as Russia's invasion has floundered and its military has been truly denigrated. If you need more proof of how successful our aid to Ukraine has been over the years, let's look at this map. When the invasion came in February of this year, all of this area in blue was occupied by Russia. Ukraine has now taken back about 55 percent of its own territory, liberated these areas, and they continue to make progress, as you know, here in Kherson and here in the Kharkiv region and throughout eastern and southeastern and northeastern Ukraine. Russia had thought it had an easy battle on their hands. They thought that within a matter of days or weeks, this entire map would be red, that all of Ukraine would be theirs. Instead, since February, Ukraine has liberated over 74,000 square kilometers of sovereign territory and thousands and thousands--millions, in fact--of Ukrainian citizens who have embraced these troops as liberators. Ukraine's fighters have strong morale, but they will be the first to tell you that none of this would have been possible without help from this body, from the U.S. House, from the U.S. taxpayers, to give them the tools they needed to protect their freedom. We have sent Ukraine now billions of dollars' worth of military, economic, and humanitarian aid since that attack in February--humanitarian aid that has saved lives, economic aid that helps keep the Ukrainian Government and economy afloat, and military aid that has enabled Ukraine's brave defense of their homeland. Javelin missile launchers helped stop the mechanized advance toward Kyiv back in February and again in March of this year. But since the summer, the most important weapon has been these high-mobility artillery rocket systems, known as HIMARS. We have provided about 20 of these units. Not a single one, by the way, has been taken out by the Russian military. It is extraordinary. They shoot and they scoot, and they are very effective. These same weapons have been provided, by the way, to the Ukrainians by Germany and by the UK. So we are not alone, nor should we be. Our allies should be there for Ukraine. As I have said on this floor many times, these 20 launchers have been game changers in the battlefield. By the way, I see my colleague Senator Klobuchar is on the floor today. When we were in Ukraine a few months ago, we were talking to the U.S. Embassy personnel--a small, dedicated group who are there--about what was happening. They said the day before that they had ordered food in Kyiv, and when the food arrived in bags-- hamburgers, by the way--on the outside of the bag was written: Thank you for the HIMARS. Thank you for the HIMARS. We are told that newborns in Ukraine are often taking the name ``Himar'' now. That is the degree to which they know and appreciate what we have provided for them to be able to save their homeland, their families, and their freedom. It is the long range and high precision of these weapons that have enabled Ukraine to be so successful, particularly going after Russian logistics--command and control, cutting off the troops as they did in Kherson, forcing the Russians to leave that city, the first major city that Russia occupied. It is also critical that we send more air defense equipment, particularly counterdrone weapons, to Ukraine right now. We have to continue to provide Ukrainians with these air defense systems-- including cost-effective electronic warfare systems--that will enable them to control the skies over the long term without exhausting their stockpiles of anti-air missiles. We know what is happening. As Ukraine is making progress on the battlefield, Russia, out of desperation, is turning to civilian attacks. Targeted civilian attacks--that is what is happening every day, every night in Ukraine. I was pleased to see recent reports that the administration may soon be sending Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine to defend against Russia's critical bombardment on these civilian targets, particularly on critical energy infrastructure. In my view, this is long overdue. Patriots are defensive. Of course, we should have sent those as soon as we could and trained the Ukrainians on them, and we could have avoided so much death and destruction, but it is good the administration is now considering doing it. I would hope that we will hear something positive on that soon. Russia's Foreign Ministry predictably warned last Thursday that if the United States delivers these air defense systems to Ukraine, it would be ``another provocative move by the United States.'' They have said this would result in a swift response from Moscow. Ladies and gentlemen, this is clear propaganda. Patriot missiles are defensive by their nature. They are not the same kind of missiles you would fire into another country offensively. They are smaller missiles, meant to kill missiles in the air and drones in the air and airplanes in the air. Any reasonable person can clearly see that the provocateur here is not the United States or any other country; it is Russia, of course. Ukraine has every right to defend its citizens, and I believe America is well within its rights to help them do that. This is more evidence that Russia's claims of American provocations are baseless. They always have been. Javelins, Stingers, HIMARS, and now Patriots--and every time, they have said that this is provocative. They will continue to claim that anything we give Ukraine to disrupt this genocidal invasion is provocative. So why do we keep letting these illogical claims stifle our aid to Ukraine? Let's not let it happen here with the Patriots. For the past 10 months, I have seen news story after news story about the United States refusing to provide this or that weapon to Ukraine for fear of provoking Russia. They have been asking for weapons since the very start that we have yet to provide: fourth-generation aircraft, F-16s that are in other countries that are willing to provide them, but they need our licenses--we need to approve it for those planes to go-- main battle tanks. They want to make this a conflict where they have a chance, tank to tank, to be able to have Abrams tanks. Long-range missiles like the ATACMS missiles that Ukraine has asked for since the beginning of this conflict would have enabled larger Ukrainian advances than the ones you see on this map. They would be doing even better. The same fear of provoking Russia is exactly what drove the Obama administration, back in the day, to refuse to provide any lethal assistance at all to Ukraine in 2014 and 2015. That certainly did not stop the Russians from holding onto Crimea and parts of the Donbas. It just emboldened them because they knew the United States was not going to respond and, therefore, our allies, without our leadership, were not going to help. Likewise, refusing to give Ukraine the weapons it needs now will not stop Russia's onslaught. No one can believe that. Russia will only leave Ukrainian territory if it is pushed out by force of arms. It will not suddenly decide to leave if we just give in to their unreasonable demands and agree with them that, because it is provocative, we can't provide it. We have to continue to provide more aid to Ukraine and do it as soon as possible. We can't allow a stalemate to set in or, worse, allow Russia to regain the initiative during this critical time. Every day this war drags on, there are more impacts on our economy and on the global economy, and every day this war drags on, there are more war crimes being committed by Russia. Throughout my several trips to the region since the invasion began 10 months ago, I have spoken with women and children who have seen death and destruction that few of us would ever imagine. Our military aid can propel the forces of Ukraine to victory, but the mental and emotional toll of this war will be felt for decades to come. As Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure continued to knock out power around the country, last Wednesday and Thursday, 7 civilians were killed and a further 19 were wounded, according to a report from President Zelenskyy's office. Yesterday, only 20 percent of Kyiv, this modern city in Ukraine--only 20 percent of it--had lights. And the war crimes do not end there. In the recently liberated city of Kherson, Ukrainian officials discovered a room that Russian soldiers had used specifically for the detention and torture of children. According to the Ukrainian Parliament's Commissioner for Human Rights, ``we saw the rock bottom in Kherson''. The children were given little water and almost no food. According to locals, the children were also subjected to psychological abuse. One 14-year-old boy was arrested and tortured just for taking a picture of broken Russian equipment. Who can hear these words and truly think that the Ukrainians or the West are the true provocateurs here? And that is just the war crimes we know about. And we know about a lot of them now. We don't know what horrors are still being conducted here behind the lines in occupied areas of Ukraine. Unfortunately, Russia is making it abundantly clear that it will do nothing to hold its soldiers accountable for these crimes in Ukraine. A new bill making its way in the Russian legislature would effectively legalize any and all war crimes committed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine if those crimes are ``aimed to protect the interests of the Russian Federation.'' As many of us have said for months, the pain and suffering inflicted on the innocent people of Ukraine is the point, and now Russian soldiers will have official legal cover to commit those atrocities. This is a terror campaign--knocking out power and putting people in the dark, in the cold, during the Ukrainian winter. We can't allow this suffering to continue. I will be leaving the Senate soon and ending my time in this great Chamber. This is my last speech on the Senate floor about Ukraine, but, before I go, a couple of thoughts about the future. Ukraine can win this war. They have shown that. That ending has been clear to many of us for a long time, if we provide assistance. Compare Ukraine's military competence, bravery, discipline, and creativity on the one hand; and, on the other hand, Russia's stunning incompetence and lack of ability to control or even supply its troops. There was a New York Times story over the weekend that you may have seen in the Sunday Times about Russia's inability to provide troops with their basic needs. Russia has fumbled every opportunity it has had in this war, from its failed attacking on Kyiv at the beginning of the invasion to its poor defenses of Kharkiv Oblast and the west bank of the Dnipro River. Even their supposed victories in the Donetsk area have come after long, grinding advances that come at the cost of thousands of casualties. At best, these are pyrrhic victories that reflect a serious inability to think or learn creatively on the part of the Russian forces. Ukraine, on the other hand, has had the moral high ground and the morale and the spirit in this war since the first Russian soldiers crossed the border with Belarus in the north and the lines of contact here in the east. Ukrainian soldiers have either outright defeated Russia's offensives, as they did in the north in the spring, or slowed them to a crawl, as they have done in the east. Right now, Russian forces near the city of Bakhmut are advancing no more than 100 to 200 meters a day, at a cost, we are told, of at least 50 Russian soldiers a day. And on the attack, Ukrainians have been brave, bold, and relentless. Their liberation of the Kharkiv Oblast in September was a matter of carefully testing Russia's defenses there. Once a weakness was spotted, Ukrainian soldiers surged through the hole in the line. One week later, all of the province was liberated. It was a beautifully executed operation, which will likely be studied in military academies for a long time to come. And it was American and European and Canadian training that allowed that to happen. In the south, near Kherson, it was a very different kind of offensive. There, Ukrainian forces--provided with these HIMARS from the United States, which we talked about earlier--gradually whittled away at Russian forces to the point where the situation became untenable. They couldn't be resupplied, and so they left, again, the one major city that they had occupied. One of the counteroffensives in Kharkiv required quick thinking and an ability to rapidly exploit success. The other, in Kherson, required meticulous planning and patience. They were two very different operations. Yet Ukrainian soldiers pulled them both off. That is why Ukraine can win this war. Its defenders are bold, creative, smart. They have proven it to us. Every Russian missile fired at the Ukrainian infrastructure to destroy the Ukrainian people's will is a wasted missile. Why do I say that? Because the intention is to make the Ukrainian people want to back off, to lose their resolve and this morale and the spirit I talked about it. It has just the opposite effect every time it happens, which is that it makes the Ukrainian people even more resolved and even more intent to win this war. The Ukrainian people are unbreakable, as we have seen, and once Ukraine wins this war, I believe it will join the European Union, and eventually it will join NATO. The EU granted candidate status to Ukraine in June, which sent them down the path toward eventual membership. That was a good sign. Since then, according to the chairman of Ukraine's Parliament, Ukraine has already passed seven pieces of legislation to adopt reforms that are necessary to join the European Union. According to the Deputy Prime Minister, Ukraine expects to become a full-fledged member of the EU within 5 years. That is the future. Regarding NATO, by the way, I have long supported Ukraine's intention to join this alliance--the most successful military alliance, of course, in the history of the world. None of this would be happening were they in NATO already. And it is in line with NATO's longstanding open-door policy. The alliance has always welcomed the application of any and all eligible countries. And once Ukraine pushes Russia out of all of its sovereign territory, I believe it can take this step. It certainly would provide incredible military power to NATO. Russia launched its initial invasion in 2014 and this larger one in 2022 precisely to keep Ukraine out of NATO, but all sovereign countries, including Ukraine, have the right to decide their own path, their own destiny, their own alliances, their own foreign policies. We cannot legitimize the Kremlin's ridiculous demands by giving up now. Plus, it is hard to think of a more qualified country to join NATO than Ukraine. Russia has been the greatest threat to the alliance for at least a decade. What better country to induct into NATO than one that has extensive experience defeating that threat on the battlefield? So it is in our interests, but not just in our strategic interests, to aid Ukraine. It is also in our moral interests. If we falter in support of Ukraine, we condemn millions of innocent Ukrainians to a future of repression, a future of summary executions like we saw in Bucha and Izyum. I have been there. I have seen the damage they did. I have seen the place where they had a mass grave burying Ukrainian citizens--a future of torture chambers both for adults and children alike, a future in which the very idea of being proudly Ukrainian is outlawed and punishable by torture or death. If we falter, we allow President Putin to continue to threaten the rest of Europe and potentially start a war with NATO that will draw in the United States. We cannot do that. This aggression must stop here. Ukraine and its Western allies are fighting to preserve freedom in Europe and globally. How this war ends will have far-reaching consequence, both on the rest of the continent and around the world. If we can stop Russian aggression here, then we can deter other adversaries. They are watching. China is watching. Iran is watching. They are watching and thinking about whether they should start similarly horrific wars of conquests. We must send a message to the rest of the world that America will not back down when rogue nations threaten free countries. This has always been America's role. Today, I was at the National Mall seeing the prayer that Franklin Roosevelt said on D-Day. This plaque has just been placed on the National Mall based on legislation we passed here in this body. In that prayer, Franklin Roosevelt says that American troops were not going to Europe for conquest. It was not for the love of conquest. It was not for the lust of conquest. Rather, it was to combat the Germans and to stop conquests that American troops were there to liberate. That is what we do. In this case, it is not our troops. They aren't asking for our troops, but they are asking for the tools to be able to be successful in liberating the people of Ukraine. So I urge my colleagues to support the funding bill that was released yesterday that includes $47 billion in assistance for Ukraine. We talked about this before, but it will also support the military, the civilians, and the government in Ukraine as that country continues to fight off the invasion. I know these are significant investments, and we must be good stewards of taxpayer money. And I am very supportive of the accountability measures that are in that legislation that are very important--the end-use monitoring for our military equipment, the fact that an American accounting firm, Deloitte, is there to ensure that the money is properly spent, and that the World Bank gives us regular reports and audits the funding. This is significant. Ukraine, by the way, is for this transparency, and we should be too. But as we are good stewards of American taxpayer money, let's also remember that Ukraine is fighting for all of us. Ukraine is fighting for all of us and fighting for freedom, and freedom is a worthy investment. I yield back my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor for the 28th consecutive week since the Senate has been in session to once again discuss the war in Ukraine and why it is so important that all of us-- the United States and our allies--stand up for Ukraine at this point and provide them the military, economic, and humanitarian aid they need. Over the weekend, I spoke at the annual holiday lunch of the Cleveland area's Nationalities Movement. As my colleague from Ohio knows, this was started during the Cold War to advocate for freedom for the former Soviet states. The group, today, includes people whose families have come from all over Eastern and Central Europe: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, of course Ukraine, and many other countries. All strongly support Ukrainian freedom and the right of Ukraine to chart its own course. At the luncheon, I talked to some of my friends who were there, many of whom have family or friends in Ukraine. We talked about some of the hardships that their relatives and their friends in Ukraine are facing today and how, as we approach the holiday season here in America, we are thinking about Christmas shopping and putting up decorations and spending time with our families and friends over the holidays. They are thinking about something else. They are thinking about how they can survive. They are thinking about how to stay warm, whether they are going to have running water or electricity. They are living with fear and uncertainty in not knowing when the next Russian missile might strike. The brutal, unprovoked, and illegal invasion of Ukraine has now turned into an outright attack on civilians and noncombatants. This photo is something that we are seeing in communities all over Ukraine. This is some civilian infrastructure. You can see the power grid here and the power lines. This was the result of a Russian missile strike. All over, this is happening: drones, missiles, attacking infrastructure--killing civilians, by the way--and forcing people to live in the dark and in the cold as Ukraine's severe winter weather approaches. Although these merciless Russian attacks are meant to weaken the resolve of the Ukrainians, it is not having that effect, actually. I have seen this from my recent trips to Ukraine. It is actually hardening people's resolve. The Ukrainians know that these are desperate missile attacks to the interior of the country. Why? Because Russia is losing on the actual battlefield. As this map shows, the Ukrainians have shown courage and effectiveness in actually pushing out Russia from all of these red areas of Ukraine. This is where Russia was after February 24. Fifty percent or more of the country has now been liberated by Ukrainian troops. We forget about that. About 55 percent of Ukraine has now been liberated--again, thanks to the resolve and the courage and the military skill of the Ukrainians. Ukrainian soldiers continue to advance more slowly, but they continue to advance, giving the Russians no time to relax or to recover. Here is where we are today. Remember, before, there was red all over the country of Ukraine. This is where the Russians are now. This striped red line is the part that Russia invaded back in 2014. The red part here is where they invaded on February 24 and are still occupying parts of Ukraine. In the east, near Bakhmut, which is right here, Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries, who are fighting on behalf of Russia, are fighting a war of attrition. It is a grinding war of attrition with marginal gains to show for their massive losses in terms of manpower and equipment. In its attempt to capture this town of Bakhmut, Russia has turned what used to be a quaint, tree-lined city that I visited back in 2018 into a bloodbath. This is what Bakhmut looks like today. It looks like something you would see out of a World War I film. Ukrainian officials say Moscow is now losing 50 soldiers a day to maintain this slow, bruising advance to reach the city's eastern gates--all of this death and destruction over a city that has marginal strategic advantage for Russia. It appears to observers that Russia is willing to put their soldiers and mercenaries in harm's way in Bakhmut because it is the only place that Russian forces are genuinely advancing at all, and Vladimir Putin is eager--even desperate--to claim some sort of victory to try to salvage this failed military campaign that they are on. I did go to Bakhmut back in 2018. It was then called the line of contact. I met with Ukrainian troops who were there holding the line, including the 54th Mechanized Brigade, which is still fighting there in that region. I saw men who were willing to die for their country, for their freedom, for their families. So I was not surprised by the bravery and resolve that the Ukrainian troops had shown since February 24. I was expecting it based on what I had seen in Bakhmut. Those soldiers I met gave me this plaque when I was there. It is signed by a number of the soldiers whom I met. It says at the bottom here: Glory to Ukraine. Glory to the heroes. ``Slava Ukraini.'' ``Heroyam Slava.'' That is the rallying cry. Of these troops who signed this flag to me, I am told, many of them are likely to be dead or injured now because the fighting in Bakhmut has been so intense. So Godspeed to those troops who are holding the line against this Russian assault tonight as we talk on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The Ukrainians are making progress elsewhere. You see here in Kherson--this was the city that the Russians took on February 24. It was the only provincial capital that they took, the biggest city they took early on. They have now abandoned Kherson, and Ukrainian troops have taken Kherson and liberated it. The liberation has been extraordinary. You see people coming out of their homes and hugging the troops, and you see the war crimes that the Russians were committing. The withdrawal from Kherson that went through the west side of the river here has been a great victory for the Ukrainian troops. The relentless counteroffensive is actually working. With this situation on the battlefield, the military outlook here for Russia looks bleak. It is precisely because they are not winning on the battlefield, though, that they are instead attacking civilian targets, these cowardly attacks we have seen all over Ukraine--electricity, natural gas, water--knocking out everything they can in order to try to break the will and the resolve of the people of Ukraine. This past weekend, 1.5 million people were left without power after Russian airstrikes damaged the local energy infrastructure in Odessa. So 1.5 million people here were without electricity. Most of those people now have electricity again because the Ukrainians are moving quickly to try to restore it, but then it is bombed again and again. Across the country, according to Ukrainian Prime Minister Shmyhal, after eight waves of missile attacks on the country, all thermal and hydroelectric powerplants in Ukraine have been damaged. In other words, every single powerplant--coal, natural gas, hydroelectric--has been bombed. Again, many have now been repaired again and again and again, but the bombings continue. Last Friday, according to the deputy head of President Zelenskyy's office, 68 strikes in the Kherson region occurred--68 strikes across the line here in Ukrainian territory. This included a strike on a hospital in Kherson that damaged the children's ward. It included an attack on a morgue in this area. In the northeastern part of Ukraine, up here near Kharkiv, there has also been great progress recently as you see where the Ukrainians have pushed the Russians toward the east. These Russian cross-border attacks on the city of Vovchansk, in that area, left thousands of people without heat in the midst of winter earlier this week. I saw the effects of these missile attacks firsthand the last time I was in Ukraine. I visited Kyiv about a month ago with my colleague Senator Chris Coons from Delaware. We saw the destruction that these missiles were causing. In this case, it was at the headquarters of Ukraine's utility company. We then, after that, actually had a dinner meeting with the Parliamentarians from Ukraine at a restaurant where the power had been taken out through these attacks. We had to conduct business with flashlights. It was incredible, later that night, to look at the city of Kyiv from an office building--a modern, 21st-century city completely dark. Thanks to the dated air defense systems that they do have, the Ukrainians have been able to intercept and destroy a lot of these Russian missiles. They are intercepting, actually, most of them-- somewhere between 60 and 70 percent, probably, based on the information I have--but enough of them get through to cause this incredible damage to Ukraine's civilian infrastructure and to kill Ukrainians on the ground as these temperatures drop. The temperature in Kyiv tonight, as we talk here, is about 23 degrees Fahrenheit. Ukraine isn't just trying to shoot down Russian-made missiles and Iranian-made drones--we know there are Iranian-made drones and these Russian missiles coming into Ukraine--but they also have to shoot down Ukrainian-made missiles. Why do I say that? Because according to Ukraine's Deputy Intelligence Chief, some of these missiles that Russia has fired recently have actually been missiles that Ukraine voluntarily gave to Russia as part of the 1994 Budapest agreement, the so-called Budapest Memorandum. Recall that the Budapest Memorandum was a document that was signed by the United States, the UK, and Russia with Ukraine. This was after the fall of the Soviet Union. In the agreement, all parties, including Russia, promised to respect the independence and sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine's giving up its nuclear weapons but also providing missiles and strategic bombers to Russia. So now these very same missiles and very same bombers are being used by Russia in its ruthless campaign against innocent civilians in Ukraine. There can be no clearer display of Russia's contempt for its international obligations and its total disregard for the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine gave up its weapons in exchange for peace, and instead they have war. There can be no more urgent or important request from Ukraine today, of course, than that of a better air defense system. That is what they need more than anything else. Every day, vital infrastructure is being destroyed, and civilians are being killed. The news from the Biden administration yesterday that they now may be thinking seriously about sending Patriot missile systems to Ukraine, which is our most advanced anti-missile air defense weapon, is very encouraging to me. Here is the patriot missile system. This one is actually in Poland. We have provided this to the Polish Government. We now need to provide it to the Ukrainian Government. I have called for this for months, as have others, and I hope this comes to fruition. We need to get these weapons into the hands of the Ukrainians quickly before there are more civilian deaths recorded, before there is more destruction of key infrastructure. If the administration does not do this, I fear that as winter sets in, more and more Ukrainians will be forced to leave their communities, compounding the humanitarian crisis that is already there. As you know, there are 6\1/2\ million people displaced internally in Ukraine already and over 7 million people--probably close to 8 million--who are outside of Ukraine as displaced individuals in places like Poland, throughout the EU, and even the United States. I continue to urge the Biden administration to take a more assertive approach on military assistance in general. There are about 50 countries helping Ukraine on the military side. All the free world is stepping up to help, but America leads, and we need to provide Ukraine with more of the weapons that Ukraine says they actually need, like the Patriot missiles. But, also, they have asked for fourth-generation fighter jets, like the F-16 or similar European models. They are in Europe already. We have provided them to European countries, but we have to sign off for the European countries or other countries to provide them to Ukraine. They want modern main battle tanks, like the Abrams tank that is made in my home State of Ohio. They want more long- range missiles, like the ATACMS missiles that can be fired through these what are called HIMARS launchers and would give Russian soldiers few places to hide in the illegally occupied territory. When I visited the region in March and again in May and August and in November, I got to meet a lot of these displaced people in Ukraine and hear their harrowing stories. We were at a World Food U.N. site in Kyiv on our last trip, and there were a lot of refugees there, displaced people, internally displaced people from Ukraine who were getting the basics just to be able to survive. Many of them sat down with us and talked. Two women told me one of these harrowing stories. It was about a young man who was tortured by his Russian occupiers--this was near the city of Kharkiv--and taken to the main square and tied up on the main square. Then, when he wouldn't answer whatever questions they were asking him, he was taken down below into a dungeon, basically, a basement. They found these basement chambers all over Ukraine where there was occupied territory. The young man actually survived, miraculously, but he was in terrible shape when he came out. But his mother didn't survive. The angst and the anxiety and the despair that she felt about her son resulted in her death. These women were telling this with tears streaming down their cheeks, and, of course, we were crying, too. But that is happening all over Ukraine. These war crimes behind enemy lines in occupied territories are revealed every time there is a liberation. It is positive there is a liberation, but then you get this negative, which is, this is what happened to these people. So we really don't know the extent of the atrocities and the war crimes because there is still so much territory that is occupied by Russia. Anyway, these people have seen death and destruction that no person should have to experience. Some of my constituents in Ohio have been very helpful. They know some of these refugees. They have personal connections--again, family or friends--and so they have helped. From Northeast Ohio, where we have a big Ukrainian community, Marta Licsynesky of the United Ukrainian Organizations of Ohio and Andy Futey of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America--they are presidents of those organizations--they have both jumped in with both feet and helped. MedWish, which is a great organization up in Cleveland, provided a lot of medical equipment. They have provided everything--clothes, medicine, any kind of help for these refugees. They have provided armored vests from law enforcement all over Ohio, as an example, to the Territorial Defense Forces. So God bless them. They are doing what they can to help. But unless we intervene with better ways to defend the air, there will be more and more of these displaced people and more and more humanitarian needs. On that front, in addition to the possible news about the Patriot missile system from yesterday, I was also pleased to hear President Biden and President Zelenskyy speak over the weekend about the need for increased support for Ukraine. On Friday, the administration announced another $275 million in military assistance, including more ammunition for those HIMARS missile launchers we talked about and other systems that will counter Russian and Iranian drones. There are dozens of allies who have provided military assistance--we are not doing this alone--but U.S. leadership has been key. By the way, the 20 HIMARS--high mobility artillery rocket systems-- that are in Ukraine have all survived. Not a single one has been taken out by the Russians. It is amazing. The Ukrainians have been quite resourceful to make that happen, and thank God we still have those weapons. Germany and the UK have also provided some of these weapons, and they are making a huge difference on the battlefield. The long range and high precision of these weapons have enabled the Ukrainians to strike deep within the occupied territories to be able to disrupt Russian logistics and command and control centers. That has made the big difference. That is how Kherson was taken, was they cut off the supply chain to Kherson to the point that these Russian soldiers could not continue to hold the city and continue with their atrocities. It is no wonder, by the way, that HIMARS are popular in Ukraine. In fact, when I was there, the Embassy staff sent out for some takeout food. The food came back in a bag--it was hamburgers--and on the bag was scrawled ``Thank you for the HIMARS'' from a restaurant worker. I am also told that ``HIMARS'' is now a popular name for Ukrainian newborns. They are naming their children after the weapons provided by this body because they are making a huge difference in saving lives. In addition to Patriot missiles, we have got to continue to provide Ukrainians with other air defense systems, like the midrange NASAMS system that we are starting to provide, but also cost-effective electronic warfare systems that would enable Ukraine to defend its skies over the long term. Those can be very effective against drones, as you can imagine. We have seen this before. In 1940, the people of Great Britain suffered under a relentless bombardment from Nazi aircraft. Remember, they tried to bomb London into the stone age. At the time, many thought, Well, this is going to be the end of Great Britain. You can't push back against these Nazis. But the Brits were resolute. They were defiant. Eventually, the Royal Air Force defeated Hitler's onslaught against innocent civilians in what is called the Battle of Britain and ensured that the country would survive the war. And, of course, the United States got engaged, and we went on to win that conflict. Today, just as then, there is another indiscriminate bombing campaign going on, this time in Ukraine against civilians and civilian infrastructure. Ukraine is now fighting its own Battle of Britain. We have got to be sure we are there with them to provide them what they need to survive their battle. I was also pleased to learn this week that the European Union proposed a new round of sanctions. If it is agreed to by the member states--and I hope it will be--this package of sanctions would ban exports of drone engines to Russia and also include other prohibitions that would hopefully stifle Russia's ability to supply its military. This is very important. In my view, it should have happened a long time ago, but let's do it now. Let's cut off the ability for Russia to be able to repair and recreate the drones that are getting destroyed by the Ukrainians. Let's be sure that we are not giving the Russians what they need to continue their war machine. Russia's assault, by the way, is not just limited to bombs and missiles, but I am hearing more and more about mines. According to reports, Russian forces have now endangered up to 65,000 square miles of Ukrainian territory with land mines. The United States is partnering with our Ukrainian allies to demine that area. This aid has come in the form of training and equipment, as well as U.S.-funded contractors and demining teams. So in areas where the mines are on the Ukrainian side of the line, we are actively trying to help. This is an important step, in my view. It is kind of the first step toward Ukrainian reconstruction. When Russia resorts to these cowardly missile attacks on civilian targets, Ukraine has responded in kind with precise strikes on Russian military targets. So Russia is attacking civilian targets, and Ukrainians are responding with targeted attacks on Russian military targets. For example, explosions have occurred here. This is Ukraine. This is the occupied area. Explosions have occurred deep in Russian territory here. What are those areas? Well, these are Russian air bases deep inside Russian territory, but they are home to the bombers who have been targeting civilian infrastructure and killing Ukrainian civilians with cruise missiles over the past couple of months. As the UK Ministry of Defense reported last week, these may be ``some of the most strategically significant failures of force protection since [Russia's] invasion of Ukraine.'' Over the weekend, Ukraine launched a series of HIMARS strikes on the Russian occupied city of Melitopol, which is here, including a strike on Russian military barracks that reportedly killed a lot of the Wagner mercenaries. This is in this area here. America has been blessed with big, wide oceans on our east and to our west and friendly neighbors to our north and our south. It is hard for us to grasp what they are going through. It is hard for us to grasp what it is like to have a war ravage your homeland and force you to leave your home. Russia's atrocities and clear human rights violations against civilians are one compelling reason why supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do, and I hope this week in this Chamber we will once again provide support for Ukraine. But another reason is that the death and destruction are not likely to end in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin is on record as saying, ``The borders of Russia have no end.'' He and his senior officials have also talked about recreating the old Soviet empire. They have said that Ukraine is just the first step. I will tell you, other countries in Eastern Europe get that, and they are understandably quite nervous. That is why they stepped up big time to help Ukraine. That is why they have increased their own military spending. That is why they have expanded their military cooperation with the United States. Think of Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia--they are all doing that. Finland and Sweden certainly understand how dangerous Russia has become, which is why they have now decided they are going to join NATO after years of neutrality--Finland, Sweden. In my view, the only way to get Vladimir Putin to back off and to negotiate an end to this ruthless and senseless war is to continue to demonstrate unity among free nations, to tighten the sanctions on the Russian economy, and to continue to help Ukraine win on the battlefield. That is how this thing ends--through success. U.S. leadership and assistance is key to that strategy. I am not advocating a blank check, by the way. I hope nobody is. I believe there needs to be accountability for the assistance that we provide, and there is. There is accountability on the state aid, there is accountability on the humanitarian aid, and there is accountability on the military aid. I have seen it in action in meeting with the 101st Airborne in Poland, how they have end-use monitoring of the equipment we are sending. The Ukrainians themselves want to have transparency. They understand how important that is. That is why they have Deloitte Cincinnati, an American accounting firm, involved in monitoring and providing reports. That is why we are running our assistance through the World Bank, where they are auditing and reporting back to us. That is important to do. But the alternative to helping Ukraine, to me, is unthinkable. What would have happened if the United States had said ``We are not going to help here'' and the rest of the world had said ``Well, if the Americans aren't going to step forward and provide some leadership, we are not going to either''? First of all, it is clear to all of us that this country would be occupied by Russia today. And even if Russia didn't go ahead and move into all these other countries they say they are going to move into-- that Ukraine is just the first step and they want to recreate the empire or the Soviet Union--even if it is just Ukraine and they stopped at the Ukrainian borders, suddenly you would have three NATO countries that have a border with Russia that do not now and really a fourth because all Poland has is a very small outpost of Russia here. So you would suddenly have NATO country the United States, under article V, is committed to protecting with an aggressive Russia on its border. We would be mobilizing thousands of troops. We would have massive amounts of weapons at the borders of these NATO allies at a tremendous cost to the U.S. taxpayer. Is that a better alternative than helping give Ukraine the tools they need to be able to do their own fighting, which has been successful up to now--more successful than anyone could have imagined? Finally, I would say that allowing an authoritarian regime to take over an ally and a democracy with impunity--that sends exactly the wrong message to the rest the world at a time we can least afford to have that happen. Think about China. China is eyeing a potential military assault on Taiwan. Think about our ally Israel as they continue to face threats from Iran and others in the Middle East. Both our adversaries and our allies are watching to see if the United States and our allies will help maintain that post-World War II world order or whether it is each country for itself. And if it is each country for itself because we aren't helping Ukraine, the militarization around the world increases dramatically, as do the nuclear weapons. Ukraine just wants to live in peace with its neighbors, including Russia. But when attacked by Russian missiles and drones, Ukraine has fought to ensure that the flame of freedom here is not going to go out. From visits, I can say with certainty that they will never give up. And we must not give up on them. The Ukrainian people tasted freedom when they embarked on their own Revolution of Dignity, as they call it, back in 2014. They threw off a Russian-backed corrupt government and, instead, embraced the West, the European Union, the United States of America, freedom, democracy, free markets. Ukraine chose to stand with us, with Europe, the United States, and other free nations. This is not the time for the United States and its allies to stand down. So for my current colleagues and the Senators just elected, I urge you: Let's continue our support for Ukraine in this worthy cause of protecting freedom. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am here on the floor to congratulate my friend from North Carolina, the Tar Heel State. We go back a few years. He is from Winston-Salem, where my wife is from. Our spouses actually waitressed together back in Winston-Salem during high school, and they are still buddies. Brooke and Richard are dear friends. More importantly for today, Richard has been a terrific representative of the State of North Carolina--first, in the House of Representatives, where I served with him when I was a Member there from Ohio; and then he snuck over to the Senate, a little bit ahead of me, and kind of laid the groundwork. We have had the opportunity to work on so much together, Richard. I think of every major bipartisan achievement in this place, and you will see Richard's fingerprints on it. So to his staff who are here, I know those are your fingerprints as much as his; so congratulations. They haven't always been easy issues. Sometimes they have put Richard in a difficult political position, but he did what he thought was right for his beloved State of North Carolina and for the country. Today, I have heard a lot about healthcare. I like healthcare. That is great to talk about it, but I want to talk about something else. But first, on healthcare, I must say, on Operation Warp Speed, it was remarkably successful. I think everyone has to acknowledge that now. No one in this Chamber was more responsible for laying the groundwork for that than Richard Burr. I am not sure people understand that. But on all the discussion about Richard's innovation and your work on healthcare, I think that is one that perhaps needs to be emphasized. You have also done a good job in other areas, as we talked about today, and the Intelligence Committee, in particular. I will tell you that Richard and I have traveled the world a little bit together. We will go to some hot spot, and I will be dutifully going to the meetings, you know, with the political leadership of the country, and Richard will disappear, and he will show up a few days--no, a few hours--later. We will have a good conversation about things he is not allowed to tell me about. So he doesn't tell me everything. But the bottom line is, he is in touch with intelligence people not just here in Washington but around the world and expressing our support for them and our encouragement for them for the difficult jobs that they do on behalf of our country and, really, you know, keeping the world a less dangerous and less volatile place. Richard, I have seen you in action on that, but I want to talk about something else, which is his love of the outdoors and his work on conservation. We are cochairs of what is called the International Conservation Caucus. This is a group of Members, two Democrats and two Republicans-- Senator Whitehouse and Senator Coons for the Democrats, Senator Burr and I for the Republicans--who talk about international conservation issues around the world. These are issues that are directly related to economic development, directly related to security, to terrorism. When you think about it, the wildlife trafficking that goes on in places like Africa, where people are trafficking in ivory or rhino horns and so on, so much of that is related to providing funding for terrorist groups over there and causing a lot of insecurity in those areas. It is the same thing in terms of economic development. Many of these natural areas, once destroyed, don't provide the ability for clean water, for food, for ecotourism, which brings in money for these countries. So it is all related. But, ultimately, I think Richard got involved because of his love of nature and the outdoors. And the biodiversity that he has helped to maintain around the world, not just here in this country, has been one of the beneficiaries. There is a piece of this that I think also hasn't gotten enough notice today--that is my job to sort of clean up here--and that is not just his work on what is called the Great American Outdoors Act, and there were a number of provisions in there. One of mine was on the national parks, which Richard helped me with, restoring our national parks. But there is one piece in there that I believe would not have been successful without Richard's advocacy over many years. He really wanted to make sure that we put our money where our mouth was in terms of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, or LWCF. If you don't know what that is, then ask any of your county commissioners or Governors or others who take advantage of it, township trustees, community leaders, and, certainly, conservation groups, because this is funding that helps with matching funding--typically, local, State, sometimes other Federal funding--to ensure that areas are protected, that parks can be built, and so on. Congress is very good about saying: We are all for that. We are going to--what we call around here--authorize the legislation to do that, but then we didn't provide the money. What Richard said over the years was: Well, if this is such a good idea, why don't we fund it like we are supposed to? That was actually falling on deaf ears for quite a while, I think it is fair to say, but Richard was persistent. I recall being at the White House signing ceremony for that larger legislation, the Great American Outdoors Act, knowing that one of the most significant elements of that was full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That was because of one Senator, and that is Richard Burr. So, Richard, it has been a pleasure to serve alongside of you. I wish you and Brooke, William, and Tyler the very best going forward. I suspect if you want to see Richard, you are going to have to go to his beloved North Carolina shore, particularly, the Outer Banks, where you might see him fishing for tuna or doing something else very productive. So Godspeed, my friend.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, we have talked about more important legislative measures, and I just want to say thank you to all of my colleagues and to my colleague from Illinois who spoke and to the others who were overly generous in their comments. I appreciate it. I think my mom would have believed it, and my dad would have liked it. Seriously, you can see why I will miss this place and why I believe that these colleagues, who talked all about the need for us to find that common ground and make a difference for our constituents, are people I have enjoyed working with and look forward to staying in touch with. So this is a bittersweet moment. I am looking forward to getting back to Ohio full time with family and friends, as I have said, and the private sector. I have a deep respect for my colleagues, and I thank them for being on the floor today even though the jet fumes can already be smelled and people are already heading back for their weekends and important meetings back home. So thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. OK. Done. So to my colleagues, I have worked with every one of you in one way or another. Thank you for that privilege, and Godspeed as you continue to serve your constituents and continue to carry that torch of freedom forward. Thank you. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, 12 years ago, I stood on this Senate floor for my maiden speech. I was new to the Senate, but I had a sense of what I thought was possible to achieve for my constituents in Ohio, having served in the House for 12 years and in two Cabinet-level jobs in the Bush 43 administration. In that speech, I talked about my interest in solving problems and working across the aisle to tackle big issues facing our country. That is what we have tried to do. We have had some successes and some disappointments, but through it all, I have always considered it a great honor to have been given the chance to represent my neighbors, the people of Ohio. My team and I have viewed it as a sacred trust to do all we could while we had this temporary privilege. Our commitment was to move the ball forward wherever possible for our great country and for the families we represented. Through our legislative and oversight results, I believe we have honored that pledge. It has been a team effort. I have been blessed with an awesome staff--sitting behind me today-- some amazing Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle, willing to find common ground, friends in every corner of Ohio whose input helped me to represent our diverse State, and most importantly, an understanding family and a partner in all things in Jane Portman. All of us get asked what inspired us to get into public service in the first place. In my family, my mom Joan taught by her example that serving others was our duty. We had no choice. And through their own volunteer work, my brother and my sister have helped change lives, and I respect that and respect all the caring and giving Ohioans who do that. I chose to serve in a different way, which involved the rough and tumble of politics--not for everybody but also a way to help others. Another impetus for getting involved in politics was actually my father, Bill Portman, even though, as a small business guy, he thought I was absolutely crazy to get into this line of business. When I was a kid, he gave up his safe job as a forklift truck salesman for a bigger company to live out his own American dream and start his own business. He took a big risk, gave up healthcare, gave up a retirement plan, and five people--my mom was the bookkeeper--started Portman Equipment Company, with lots of debt. They actually lost money the first few years. But he never gave up on his dream and eventually, through hard work and integrity, found his niche. My brother, my sister, and I all worked at Portman Equipment Company in high school and in college. By the time my dad retired and my brother took over the company, there were almost 300 people working there. Keeping that American dream alive and creating the conditions to allow that next Bill Portman to take that risk, to build his or her dream and in doing so help so many other families and help so many communities, has really been my North Star. That is what has guided me. Dad also played a special role in my decision to run for the U.S. Senate. As you will recall, in the couple years before 2010, we had the Great Recession. Our country went through some tough times. I had stepped away from public service at that time. I was back in the private sector, thinking I would probably not ever run again. Then my friend and mentor Senator George Voinovich surprised all of you here in the Senate, as well as his constituents in Ohio, with his decision to retire, and Jane and I began thinking about it and traveling around, talking to people. Across Ohio, people told me about the real-world ramifications of the policy decisions being made here in Washington and how it affected them. I remember in early 2009 asking my dad if he would do it again. Would he take that risk and start a business from scratch? His answer was troubling. He said, you know, he just wasn't sure. He listed higher taxes that were being talked about, more healthcare costs, more regulations. He said: I just don't know if it would be worth it. That conversation with my dad was part of what drove me to run for the Senate. I believed that the country needed leadership to drive policy in the direction of more economic growth and more opportunity, to help more people achieve their American dream. Not many people these days would say politics is an honorable profession. A recent poll suggested only 20 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. And I guess we all give people reasons to be skeptical, especially when we seem too political and partisan gridlock keeps us from solving problems people care about, like energy prices or what is happening on our southern border. But I know it doesn't have to be that way. Politics at its best can be honorable. It is about finding common ground to help people. We all have our own views, and that is fine, and as elected leaders, we certainly have a responsibility to represent our States and our constituents. But I think sometimes we forget we were also hired to do our best to find that common ground and to achieve results. That is what we were hired to do. When I need to be reminded about that, I think about my political mentor George H. W. Bush, who gave me my first job in politics, first on the campaign trail and then in his White House. To him, public service was absolutely a noble calling, a way to serve, and he helped young people like me see that by his example. In working for his son, George W. Bush, I witnessed that same commitment to public service. In my Senate office, as these folks behind me can recite, we have a mission statement, and we developed it together. It says the following: Our mission is to deliver bipartisan results through effective servant leadership with integrity, selflessness, and excellence so all Ohioans can reach their God-given potential. What is servant leadership? I think it begins with the respect for constituents by listening to them and understanding their concerns and then, whenever possible, delivering those results for them, from case work to legislation. During my time in the Senate, I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish for Ohio and the country by trying to follow that formula. I am told by my staff today that as of this week, over the past 12 years, there are 195 bills that I have authored or coauthored that have been signed into law. By definition, almost all are bipartisan and the product of the back-and-forth that leads to that common ground. Not all of these bills are monumental; I will say that. And my constituents will never hear about the vast majority of them because they aren't controversial and therefore the media doesn't cover it, but they make a difference. As an example, a bill I wrote with Senator Hassan is on the President's desk today, about early hearing detection--not the most pressing issue to many people but to the Ohio family whose child's hearing loss will be diagnosed early, it can be life-changing. These accomplishments are a testament to the willingness of Members and staff on both sides of the aisle to find a way to achieve mutual objectives by listening and respecting different points of view. By doing that even during a time when there is so much distrust and dysfunction, we have been able to achieve a lot together. Today, I want to touch on a few of those areas. Don't worry, it is not going to be 195, but a few of them. Thanks to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez and Ranking Member Risch for working with me on a number of bills, including the establishment of the Global Engagement Center with Senator Murphy that is combatting the growing threat of disinformation and propaganda. Thanks to the leaders of the Finance Committee, Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo, for working with me on so many bills, including working this week with my friend Ben Cardin and me on our retirement bill. Senator Cardin, thanks for being my partner for over 20 years on successfully expanding retirement savings and a bunch of other issues, from hospice to Israel, to IRS reform, to affordable housing. I dragged him into IRS reform; he didn't want to do it. As the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I would like to thank all my committee colleagues and the chairman, Gary Peters. While we may hail from different States--in fact, he hails from that State to the north, and as an Ohio State fan, I have to make that point--we are friends, and we have been able to accomplish a lot in the last couple of years, from helping protect houses of worship, to essential postal reform, to combatting cyber attacks. I have been proud of the work we have done at HSGAC, where I have served for the last 12 years. The bipartisan investigations I spearheaded as chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations with Senator Carper led to the end of websites like backpage.com that allowed the trafficking of women and children online. I also led efforts to ensure our Federal Government doesn't allow human trafficking to occur with the influx of unaccompanied minors crossing our U.S.-Mexican border. Our bipartisan oversight on the safety of unaccompanied children crossing the border demonstrated that Federal Agencies must implement reforms immediately to ensure the safety and security of these vulnerable children. Our 18-month bipartisan PSI investigation that detailed how drug traffickers exploit vulnerabilities in our international mail system to easily ship synthetic, illegal narcotics like fentanyl from China into the United States through the Postal Service led to the successful implementation of the STOP Act. Through a bipartisan investigation, we also found that China has been targeting and stealing U.S. taxpayer-funded scientific research and intellectual property through its talent programs. Essentially, American taxpayers have been unwittingly funding the rise of China's military and economy over the past couple of decades, while Federal Agencies have done little to stop it. With Senator Carper, I introduced the Safeguarding American Innovation Act to require the Federal Government to take decisive action to safeguard our intellectual property, our inventions, our research here in America. It has passed the Senate--thank you. I am disappointed certain House Members have blocked it, and I urge my colleagues to get it enacted in the next Congress. Our investigations this year also revealed China's malign efforts to target, influence, and undermine the U.S. Federal Reserve. We must do more to safeguard our homeland from the threat of foreign adversaries, especially China. I appreciate Senator Heinrich for launching the bipartisan Senate Artificial Intelligence Caucus with me to ensure thoughtful, bipartisan policymaking on AI. Fifteen of our bills to ensure safe and coordinated use of artificial intelligence have now become law. Since 2015, when my bipartisan Federal Permitting Improvement Act was signed into law as title 41 of the FAST Act, I have worked to update our aging infrastructure and create good jobs, while expanding and streamlining the permitting process. Thanks to Senator Sinema and Senator Sullivan for their passion on this issue and their leadership in passing the Federal Permitting Reform and Jobs Act to make these key provisions of FAST-41 and the permitting council permanent, which speeds up the permitting process for some of the largest infrastructure projects, resulting, by the way, on average, with a 45-percent time savings and major cost savings. We should expand that. I also want to thank the bipartisan group of Senators who worked with me on the historic infrastructure bill, with a special thanks to my lead democratic partner, Senator Sinema, along with Senators Collins, Romney, Cassidy, Murkowski, Warner, Shaheen, Tester, and Manchin. Every President and every Congress in modern times has talked about the need to fix our aging infrastructure, but we worked from the middle out to form a bipartisan coalition of 69 Members to go beyond the talk and make some of these needed and historic improvements to our Nation's roads and bridges, ports and rail, upgrade our Nation's broadband system, and so much more. The process to me was almost as important as the substance. We did it by focusing on our key principles of core infrastructure only, no tax hikes, and bipartisan consensus. I was proud to team up with each one of you, and I thank you for your willingness to find that elusive common ground and so do people in my hometown. We have heard politicians talk about fixing the Brent Spence Bridge, which connects Ohio to Senator McConnell's State of Kentucky. For over 30 years, we have been talking about it. It is at the confluence of two major interstate highways and currently carries more than 160,000 vehicles a day, which is twice as many as it was ever designed to carry. It has no shoulders on the bridge because they have been eliminated to carry more traffic, which makes it unsafe, and it is still congested at every rush hour. Local, State, and Federal stakeholders have never been able to come up with a way to solve this problem. The bipartisan infrastructure law finally paves the way to fix the Brent Spence Bridge, which not only makes travel safer and easier for Ohioans but improves the movement of goods throughout the Midwest and actually strengthens our national economy. There are so many people I would like to recognize--and apologies in advance for those I will miss. Senator Blumenthal, thanks for working with me on one of the greatest humanitarian and civil rights causes of the 21st century: human trafficking. We started a caucus, and we have enacted a number of bills to address trafficking, including ensuring justice for victims of sex trafficking and holding internet sites accountable to prevent the facilitation of trafficking, the one time that Congress has been able to successfully eliminate the section 230 immunity. Senator Whitehouse has worked with me to change the way addiction is addressed in this country by offering the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act to provide a broad response to the opioid crisis. It provides individuals with the evidence-based treatment and recovery services they need. I think looking at addiction as a disease is probably the most important thing we did in that legislation, in addition to the significant funding. I want to thank Senator Blunt, whom I see here, for his role on the Appropriations Committee for funding the Federal Government's addiction programs at record levels. Senator Capito has been right there with him. Senator Klobuchar and I worked to pass the STOP Act, effectively keeping China from shipping fentanyl through the U.S. mail, and Senator Capito and Senator Manchin have worked with me to pass important bills on scheduling fentanyl analogs to make sure that it is illegal. I have been deeply and personally engaged on the substance abuse issue for over 25 years, when I started my own antidrug group in Ohio that has become, over time, a model prevention coalition and enacted the Drug-Free Communities Act that has helped spur the establishment of about 2,000 community coalitions around the country. By the way, I worked on that with Senator Chuck Grassley when I was in the House. In fact, Chuck took me to Iowa with him to help set up an antidrug coalition there. That was almost as interesting as going as his guest to the Iowa State Fair when I was U.S. trade representative. Senator Shaheen and I have worked over the years on so many foreign policy issues, as well as energy efficiency. We introduced our first energy efficiency bill in 2011 and gotten most of it signed into law in the years since, helping reduce energy bills for families and businesses and actually reduce emissions by simply using less energy. And I thank my college classmate Senator Hoeven for his leadership on our energy efficiency bill and his all-of-the-above energy approach and, mostly, for helping me improve my Spanish by adding a North Dakota accent. I also want to thank Senator Bennet for our successful efforts on encouraging carbon capture and sequestration. Our legislation is starting the work to do that. I appreciate Senator Stabenow's partnership as my cochair on the Great Lakes Task Force. Working with her and all members of the task force, we have made a lot of progress fighting harmful algal blooms and invasive species, and so many other issues important to our constituents along the world's largest freshwater resource. Thanks to Senator Kaine, as my cochair of the Career and Technical Education Caucus, who worked with me to challenge Congress to do more to address the Nation's skills gap and promote the JOBS Act, providing individuals with the skills they need to get good-paying jobs. Those skills are needed out there. We need to focus more on how we ensure we are not just spending money to send young people to college but also getting them the industry-recognized skills that they need. Senators Coons, Burr, and Whitehouse, as cochairs of the International Conservation Caucus, you have been great partners over the years on our legislation to combat wildlife trafficking, conserve forests, and develop strategies to protect some international treasures, like the Okavango Delta in southern Africa. I appreciate Senators Warner and King and former Senator Alexander for working with me to pass the Restore Our Parks Act, which is finally addressing the massive deferred maintenance backlog at our national parks so that some of our Nation's most treasured landscapes, memorials, and monuments can be enjoyed by visitors and generations to come. Because of the CHIPS and Science Act, a bipartisan legislation I worked on closely with my colleagues Senators Young, Tillis, Sinema, and Schumer, Intel recently broke ground on its semiconductor plant outside of Columbus, the largest investment in the history of Ohio and an investment we believe will grow over time. With the CHIPS Act now law, we can reverse this trend of this critical semiconductor manufacturing capability being sent overseas. It is going to create thousands of high-paying jobs here but, most importantly to me, help strengthen our national security. These remarks would be incomplete without a reference to our work on tax reform. As I mentioned when I decided to run for the Senate in 2009, Ohio was losing jobs and our economy was falling behind. My campaign was based, in part, on a plan for jobs that focused on a number of economic policies, including fixing our Tax Code, making it competitive again for American workers and businesses. In 2017, one of the highlights in the Senate for me was when I was able to work with a small group of lawmakers--Pat Toomey, Tim Scott, John Thune--to help deliver on this promise with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the first time Congress had passed comprehensive tax reform in 31 years. It cut taxes for middle-class families, reformed our Business Tax Code to create more jobs and higher wages for Ohio workers, and it updated our International Code to encourage employers to actually bring jobs and investment back here to America. I wish it could have been more bipartisan, but, frankly, much of what I led on the international side had absolute bipartisan roots, and I believe it worked. Tax reform helped usher in a period of unprecedented economic growth felt broadly. After tax reform and before the pandemic, we had 19 straight months of wage gain of 19 percent or more, well above inflation, and most of the wage gains, by the way, went to lower income and middle-income workers. We also had the lowest poverty rate since we started keeping track of it back in the 1950s and the lowest unemployment rate ever for Blacks, women, Hispanics. It was an opportunity economy. Unfortunately, a lot of those gains have been washed away by the pandemic in an avalanche of stimulus spending over the last 2 years that has fed the demand side of the economy while supply has been constricted by COVID but also by regulations, particularly in energy, contributing to the highest inflation in 40 years. I hope the new Senate will have an opportunity to reset and, working with the House, make pro-growth economic policies a higher priority. I want to thank so many of my colleagues who have worked with me over the years to support Ukraine in its ongoing fight for freedom. This is an issue near and dear to my heart and to Ohio. As some of you know, we are the home of many Ukrainian Americans and other nationality groups that are committed to the goal of a free and independent Europe. I want to thank Dick Durbin, the cofounder and cochair with me of the Ukraine Caucus and my Republican colleagues in the caucus who are so passionate on Ukraine: Senators Graham, Wicker, Cramer, Cotton, Barrasso, Risch, Burr, Murkowski, Sullivan, Cornyn, McConnell, Johnson, Ernst, and others. And I want to thank all those who joined me on 10 trips to Ukraine since 2014, when Ukraine rose up and threw off a corrupt Russian-backed government and turned to us, turned to the West. This includes two recent sobering visits to Ukraine with Senators Klobuchar and Coons. In 2015, I authored a bill called the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which has become the key funding account we have used to train and equip the Ukrainian Armed Forces. We need to continue to fund this account and lead the free world, carrying the torch of freedom. Since Russia's original occupation of Ukraine escalated into a full- scale war on February 24 of this year, I have now spoken on the Senate floor 27 times--every week we have been in session--about the unprovoked, illegal, and brutal invasion of Ukraine. My most recent speech was last night so I won't go on, except to say that we are at a critical juncture right now, and it is more important than ever that we support Ukraine. So I am going to be fighting hard for a continuation of aid to Ukraine before Christmas. We just discussed so many examples of breaking through the partisan gridlock and getting things done. Despite these achievements, I do worry about the divisive political rhetoric in our country. It is important we restore faith in our democratic institutions, both for our own country's sake, and so we can continue to be that beacon of hope and opportunity to the rest of the world. We can rise above the cynicism and the dysfunction. We just talked a lot about how that is happening and has happened over my last 12 years in this body. We certainly did it on infrastructure, as I have outlined, and we have done it in so many other ways. I urge all of us to remember that there is more that unites us than divides us. I hope that one of the things we can agree on is the need to uphold this institution and what it stands for. I strongly believe that means preserving the legislative filibuster that protects the rights of the minority in the Senate and is really the only thing that forces us to work in a bipartisan way. The result, when we find common ground, is better legislation that will stand the test of time and not be changed every time there is a change in the majority in this body. Our country and this body face enormous challenges, whether it is economy, record inflation, the national debt that is robbing future generations, the absence of any real border security in our broken immigration system, or the looming insolvency of our entitlement programs. These issues won't be solved by one party running over the other and imposing its will on the Senate and the country. It will only be solved by us working together in good faith. At the start of my remarks today, I said that serving the people of Ohio is the greatest honor of my life. Over the past 12 years, I have worked well with my colleague and friend from Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown, on issues important to our State. Sherrod, we have canceled each other's votes out many times on the floor of the Senate, but we have also figured out how to work together. And I am proud of the work we have done on issues that are important to Ohio, like the Great Lakes, trade enforcement, addiction, and important judicial nominations like the district court judge we just confirmed this afternoon. Despite our differences, we made progress for Ohio together. I hope you will have the same type of relationship, a good working relationship, with my friend Senator-elect J.D. Vance. J.D. has an impressive background of service in our military and in the private sector. I know he wants to make a difference in the lives of Ohio workers and families, and I look forward to watching him in action here in the Senate. I know what it is like to be in public service with young children so I want to wish J.D., his wife Usha, and their three kids well. Jane and I support you both. Thanks to everyone who has served on Team Portman throughout my career--the first Bush White House, the House of Representatives, the USTR, the OMB, and here in the Senate. We are having an alumni event tonight with a couple hundred of some of the best public servants ever assembled, and Jane and I are looking forward to seeing you all there. I have an amazing Senate staff who stuck with me to the bitter end. Thank you, both in Ohio and in Washington, DC. Many of them are here in the Chamber today. I want to thank them for their hard work and their dedication to getting things done. They worked really hard for the people of Ohio and for our country and have enabled us to be so much more effective. Nothing we accomplished would have been possible without you. I want to thank everyone who works in the Senate and makes it function well, whether it is the cloakroom staff, the doorkeepers, the Capitol Police, the cafeteria workers, the subway drivers, all of them in a very practical way. Democracy functions because of you, so thank you. I hope many of you can join us at our thank-you reception for you on Friday afternoon. Special thanks to Leader McConnell. Mitch, I appreciate your encouragement over the years. Your trust in me to take on a leadership role on important assignments and for your commitment and devotion to this institution and the health of our democracy. None of this works without having a loving and supportive family. All of you know that. So to my wife Jane and the three people in the world I am most proud of--Jed, Will, and Sally--thank you for your unconditional support and the sacrifices you made. I am looking forward to being in Ohio full time, spending more time with family and friends, the Golden Lamb--our family restaurant--and getting back to the private sector. And, somehow, I hope to stay involved in the public policy issues we have been talking about today. Finally, thanks to my Senate colleagues who made coming to work every day enjoyable and productive. Thanks for reaching out to me to work together and accepting my offers to work with you. Relationships matter in this place. I will miss my colleagues. One consolation is that our retiring class consists of good friends who I hope to cross paths with in the real world. Senators Blunt, Burr, Inhofe, Leahy, and Toomey have all made impressive contributions in their tenure here. I am thinking maybe we should start a post-Senate support group. And, come January, this place loses a great intellect and a great friend--Ben Sasse. And I think, Ben, you should hold the meetings at the University of Florida, if it is OK.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor for the 27th consecutive week since the invasion of Ukraine to give another update to the American people on the brutal, illegal, and totally unprovoked attack by Russia on its neighbor Ukraine. This is at a time when brave Ukrainian freedom fighters continue to successfully fend off the third largest army in the world. What Russia thought was going to be a weeklong invasion, successfully occupying Ukraine, is now past the 9-month mark. Against all odds, Ukraine has not only survived, but they have pushed back a much larger Russian army--more than half of the land that Russia occupied in Ukraine. Remember, they were all up here in the area of Kyiv and all down here. More than half of the land has been liberated already. Here in the northeast part of Ukraine, near Kharkiv, in this province, the Kharkiv Oblast, the Ukrainian forces continue to make progress pushing back against the Russian forces. It has been slow--a combination of things. One is, it is mud season. It is very difficult for them to get through the mud with their armored vehicles. The second is, the Russian forces who were pushed back from here in September have now dug in along this line. So it is slower going, but they continue to fight. They are continuing with the momentum that started when they took over Kharkiv. Further south, near Bakhmut--and Bakhmut is in this area, and I was actually in Bakhmut back in 2018 at the so-called line of contact-- there is very intense fighting going on. This is where you have had months and months of fierce combat, lots of artillery. It has turned this area, the Bakhmut area where I was, into a battlefield reminiscent of what you might have seen during World War II--just total destruction, as you can see from this photograph. This is the Bakhmut area today. There you have the Russian forces, mostly the Wagner Group, which is a mercenary group, making steady but very slow progress. Ukraine has made them pay dearly for every meter, but that is, again, kind of in that central part of eastern Ukraine. In the south of Ukraine, near Kherson, they have also made good progress. You can see here in the blue where the Ukrainian forces, in the fall, earlier this fall, were able to liberate parts of occupied Ukraine. This is an interesting area. I think it is relatively quiet right now. We had a briefing today about that. But I don't think it is going to stay quiet for long. This is an area to watch. There are already reports of Ukrainian raids, actually, on a small peninsula there. This is a little closer look at this. Ukrainian raids have now been made on this peninsula which goes out into the Black Sea. Also, we know that Ukrainian forces have crossed the river here, the Dnipro River, and planted Ukrainian flags on the other side of the river, letting the Russians know they are not safe in this region; this is Ukraine. They have also started to evacuate, facilitate the evacuation of some of the Ukrainian civilians from this side, the occupied side of the river. All this indicates to me that the Ukrainians are continuing to send a clear signal to the Russians that they are not done in terms of liberating this part of Ukraine this winter. Unfortunately, while the nation of Ukraine has survived this war, so far not all Ukrainians have. These gains on the battlefield I have talked about have come at a tremendous cost. Casualty reports have been hard to come by, but we know that tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have been killed during this liberation. But it is not just the men and women in uniform that are taking the brunt of Vladimir Putin's aggression. Since the first day of this war, it is innocent Ukrainians themselves who have been dying. They have been intentionally targeted by Russian forces. How many cities and villages have now become infamous for the war crimes committed by Russia? Bucha and Irpin, cities where I was visiting several weeks ago; Mariupol, Izium. Think of 4-year-old Liza. We had her photograph up here on the floor. She was killed in Vinnytsia in July. Think of 2-day-old Serhii, who was killed 2 weeks ago--2 days old, a newborn--at a maternity hospital in Vilniansk. The United Nations reports that at least 6,500 civilians have been killed in this senseless Russian war, then adds that ``the actual figures are considerably higher.'' We just don't know what they are. This is because we know so little about the horrors which are occurring behind enemy lines. So when you think about it, although we know more about the casualties that have occurred in the interior of Ukraine, what we don't know is how many casualties and war crimes and deaths are occurring in this Russian-occupied area, the red area. What we do know is that so many of the atrocities in this war are only brought to light months after they occur. They happen in silence, and then they are discovered when these territories are liberated by Ukrainian forces. That is the bittersweet pattern of this war: You have the Russians occupying a territory, committing heinous war crimes, atrocities. Then the area is liberated, and we discover these horrific crimes. And Russia's crimes are not just limited to the territory it occupies. Russian forces are losing on the battlefield, as we talked about, not making the progress they want, and they are sort of taking their frustration out on the rest of Ukraine. This is with cruise missiles and drones, bombing all of these other parts of Ukraine. They continue to strike noncombatants. A whole new wave of attacks occurred yesterday, as an example, mostly on Ukrainian infrastructure, energy infrastructure, but also on just civilian targets. They have destroyed neighborhoods, schools, hospitals. As this photo shows, they have really targeted civilian infrastructure. This is, again, some of the energy infrastructure that they have targeted. When I was in Kyiv with Senator Coons about 3 weeks ago--we were there several days after one of the powerplants had been attacked-- actually, the national utility--and these were targeted attacks on the infrastructure. But also Ukrainians, civilians, and workers were killed. It is not just collateral damage. These are targeted attacks on civilians--targeted and cruel. Russia's goal, of course, is to try to force a whole new wave of civilians to flee from their homes and head west. This massive displacement, of course, would further devastate Ukraine's economy, which is already expected to contract about 35 percent this year. We have seen this time and time again since the war has started. They can't defeat Ukraine on the battlefield, so they strike behind the battlefield to try to destroy Ukraine as a whole. The actions by the Kremlin to destroy these civilian areas and kill innocent Ukrainians are also, of course, meant to dampen the Ukrainian resolve. But what I have seen on my trips to Ukraine and my trips to the region is that every time there is a Russian atrocity, the resolve of the Ukrainian people doesn't weaken; it gets stronger--and for good reason. And the Ukrainian military certainly isn't backing down in their fierce defense of their homeland. In fact, a Ukrainian military spokesman recently said that Ukraine intends to continue, if not accelerate, its counteroffensive this winter in these areas we talked about--in particular here and here. So stay tuned because I think the Ukrainians are not done yet this winter in many places along the frontline, although the winter is bitterly cold for the infantry. The ground is also frozen solid, which makes mechanized warfare possible again. Additionally, on Monday and again today, there were explosions reported at military bases in Russia. These are military bases hundreds of miles behind the frontlines. So this is in Russian territory. There are military bases that are experiencing explosions. These bases happen to house the Tu-95 bombers, which have regularly taken part in Russia's deadly cruise missile strikes against Ukrainian civilians. According to the British Ministry of Defense, these explosions constitute, as they say, ``some of the most strategically significant failures of Russian force protection since [Russia's] invasion of Ukraine.'' Ukraine is the shield defending freedom in the West. When I visited Ukraine in August and November, I heard from so many Ukrainians who see themselves that way. They are holding Russia at bay, essentially, for the rest of the world. For years--think about it--Russia has threatened Europe and other regions with military action. We have all witnessed their attack of the country of Georgia and their brutal tactics in Syria and Chechnya. In 2014, and then, of course, in February of this year, Ukraine became Russia's next target; and if Ukraine falls, Russia has promised other dominos will fall in Eastern and Central Europe. They have said openly they want to recreate the Soviet Union or the Russian Empire, which would include so many countries in the region. The brave soldiers of Ukraine, men and women in uniform, are holding back the forces of Russian tyranny, and we should honor their sacrifice and their bravery. Fortunately, they are not in this fight alone. Over 50 countries from around the world have stepped up to help Ukraine defend itself. Ukraine's freedom fighters have been trained and equipped not just by the United States but by dozens of other countries that believe in freedom. Ukrainians are well aware of this, and they are eternally grateful. I hear this gratitude every time I am with Ukrainians. Yesterday, I met with a bunch of Ukrainian Parliamentarians from their Rada here in Washington. But when I have been in Ukraine, I have heard it also. When I spoke with President Zelenskyy in Kyiv in August and again in November, the first thing he said to me was, ``Thank you to the American people.'' The aid from the United States and our allies does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. Ukrainian soldiers are bearing the brunt of Russia's wrath, but because of the significant assistance provided by the West, President Zelenskyy speaks about this war against Russian aggression as a joint battle and that we should continue to strive together toward our joint victory. Ukrainians are well aware of the need to provide transparency to taxpayers here in the United States as to how this aid is being used. I think that is very important. During both my visits to Kyiv this year, I spoke with our diplomats at the U.S. Embassy about how they are ensuring proper oversight and accountability for military aid. I have also met twice with the 101st Airborne in Poland, the principal unit responsible for delivery of U.S. and allied military assistance. They have gone into great detail about how they are tracking and monitoring the U.S. military assistance through so-called end-use monitoring to ensure the military equipment actually ends up in the right hands. One thing interesting to me, confirmed again today, is that we have sent these HIMARS, which are these rocket-launching systems, to Ukraine that have been particularly effective and that, at least at this point--we have sent about 20 of them--not a single one, not a single one has been attacked and destroyed or has gotten into the wrong hands. We also believe, from what we know, unbelievably, that with all the weapons we are sending to Ukraine, we don't have any instances that are documented of these weapons getting into the wrong hands. Plenty of Russian weapons have gotten into Ukrainians' hands--I will tell you that--including lots of armored vehicles that they have left behind. So no one is advocating that this Congress or U.S. taxpayers give Ukraine a blank check. This aid is generously provided by taxpayers so it has got to be accountable to taxpayers. Ukraine knows that and, again, has gone to great lengths to provide transparency, even in this time of war. These resources fund not only Ukraine's military; they back the government and help maintain and repair civilian infrastructure. Ukraine's economy has been hit so hard by this conflict that, without help from its allies, the government there would be unable to provide many basic services to its citizens. The Europeans, Japanese, and others, of course, have stepped up here, as they should. This is particularly important this winter. As Russia attacks Ukraine's energy infrastructure to plunge the country into cold darkness, the humanitarian aid from the United States and dozens of other countries has ensured that innocent men, women, and children are able to survive the cold Ukrainian winter amidst these heinous Russian war crimes. Our economic aid, along with that of the European Union and dozens of other countries, has supported Ukraine's Government so that critical services to its citizens can continue. With regard to the economic assistance, by the way, the Ukraine budget support goes through the World Bank from the United States because, in addition to our own oversight, the bank adds a second layer of oversight and accountability, including issuing periodic reports and audits to both parties. Economic assistance is further monitored by a USAID contractor, the U.S. accounting firm Deloitte. They monitor all expenses, which is a good thing, in my view. We also need to ensure our constituents that what we are providing to Ukraine is actually working; it is making a difference. And it certainly is. When Ukraine took back the city of Kherson here, which was the first and only provincial capital taken by Russia, the key element to their success, I am told, was the military equipment provided by the United States--and others, but primarily the United States--and that was the HIMARS launchers we talked about a moment ago. These missile launchers were very effective at tearing down the Russian infrastructure that was providing the supplies to Russia--so the weapons, the food, and so on. By wearing down the Russian forces and forcing them to abandon the city, the American weapons were very effective in debilitating Russia's ability to command and resupply its forces. And the air defense systems provided by the United States and our allies have helped Ukraine shoot down hundreds of missiles and drones launched by Russia that otherwise would have killed innocent civilians. I do continue to believe that we can and should do more, by the way, particularly with regard to military assistance. I continue to urge the Biden administration to provide Ukraine with more of the weapons that the Ukrainians themselves have said they actually want and need and can use. This would include fourth-generation advanced fighter jets--not the latest and greatest but things like F-16s that we are not using that they could use, that other countries have that we could allow them to provide to Ukraine; Abrams tanks that other countries have that they are willing to provide; long-range missiles. If we are serious about helping Ukraine continue to win, as opposed to the possibility that this could just result in a stalemate, we should provide these weapons so that they can respond to the very real Russian threat. Let me pose this question to my colleagues who are skeptical about assistance: If we had not led our allies in supporting Ukraine during this fight for survival, what would have happened? What would have happened if we allowed this authoritarian regime to dominate and subjugate its neighbors by force of arms? Ukraine would have become an occupied state. Many more refugees, by the millions, would have fled to Europe, to the United States, and elsewhere. And even if the threat by Vladimir Putin to occupy all these other independent countries in the neighborhood that were once part of the Soviet Union had not yet become a reality, the United States would have mobilized thousands of troops and massive amounts of weapons at the borders of these NATO allies at a tremendous cost to the American taxpayer. I think we have to think about that, think about what the alternative would have been. It also would have resulted, of course, in the rules- based international order that we have had in place for almost 80 years, since World War II, crumbling in Ukraine. What would have happened then? What message would aggressive adversaries like China and Iran take from that? The world would have become a much more dangerous and volatile place, let's be honest. Countries would have armed up. This is why it is so important that we continue to support Ukraine. Our enemies and our adversaries alike are watching very carefully. We can't pull back now, not during this critical time. We cannot falter. In addition to working with our allies to help Ukraine win on the battlefield, we have got to continue to tighten the global sanctions and export controls on Russia. I believe it is only that combination-- success on the battlefield and making the Russian economy feel the pain--that is going to be successful in getting Russia to the peace table. Export controls already are blocking supplies, including semiconductors, needed to create military equipment in Russia. So that is having an effect. Sanctions must include better success at stopping the energy receipts to Russia that are fueling the war machine. I mentioned what is happening to the Ukrainian economy. The Russian economy has also gone down but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian economy. Why? Largely because the economy depends on the energy receipts that are still coming in from Russia selling its oil and gas around the world. This week, there was some progress on that front. Back in June, the European Union decided to end all seaborne Russian oil imports by December 5. That was Monday. And the EU did, indeed, follow through on this promise. I applaud the European Union for taking that step. However, in June, the EU also committed to end financing and insurance services for all vessels carrying Russian oil, even to non- European countries. This would be devastating to Russian oil exports since Europe dominates a large chunk of the maritime services market. Financing and insurance: Without financing and insurance from Europe, these ships would never embark and Russian oil sales would plummet. Unfortunately, in this case, the EU did not follow through on this promise made in June. Instead, on Friday, the EU, the United States, other G-7 countries, and Australia agreed to what is being called a ``price cap'' scheme. Under this framework, the participating countries will continue to provide financing insurance for vessels selling Russian oil but only below a certain cost per barrel. So instead of ending these sales of seaborne Russian oil exports, we are enabling them at a lower price. What is more, as the Washington Post reports, the price cap, which was agreed to at $60 per barrel, ``is well above Russia's cost of production and close to where its oil is currently trading--meaning it may not have much of a direct impact.'' That is my concern about it. I understand that there is another argument that the Russian oil price would, perhaps, be even higher at lower volumes if they didn't have these ships. But I think the first plan made in June would have been much more effective in helping to tighten these sanctions. Analysts, by the way, said the cap will have little immediate impact on the oil revenues that Moscow is currently earning. In fact, Russia itself said on Monday the cap is not going to hurt the financing of its special military operation, as they call it, in Ukraine--this deadly and unprovoked war. The price cap is ``an unhappy compromise that will do very little to cut Russia's oil revenue'' from current levels, said Ben Cahill, an energy security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. I would ask the suffering people of Ukraine what they would think about it. Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic States--who have consistently been right about the threat of Russian aggression--suggested a price cap of just $30 a barrel if they were going to do a price cap; so half of the $60 that the EU, the G-7, the U.S., and Australia ended up at. The one we agreed to, again, was twice as high. On a more positive note, at a meeting in Romania last week, the NATO's Secretary General reaffirmed that the door to membership remains open to Ukraine. This has been NATO's official policy for Ukraine, by the way, since 2008, but it was important that the alliance reaffirm that commitment last week in the context of Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. I encourage NATO to begin the steps to welcome Ukraine in the future. Despite all the atrocities and hardships now we have talked about tonight, I believe that Ukraine will eventually prevail in this conflict and survive as a country and that Ukraine will someday join NATO and the European Union to add the most important security guarantees they could get. No amount of Russian missiles can stop that, by the way, because the people of Ukraine will always have something that Russia does not: freedom and faith. Faith is what our Founding Fathers had so many years ago when they set out on a risky journey to chart America's own destiny--faith that freedom would work. Faith is what the Ukrainian people grasped onto as they embarked on their own Revolution of Dignity in 2014, abandoning a corrupt Russian-backed regime and choosing freedom, democracy, and free markets. Ukrainians chose to stand with us, with the European Union and the United States and other free nations. Faith is what gave the people of Ukraine the strength and resolve at the beginning of Russia's overwhelming invasion in February--faith that as a country, they would survive, and as a people, they would come out on the other end of this conflict--when the odds were so stacked against them--more unified than ever. Against all odds, again, that faith has been justified time and time again during this bloody war. Now, once again, it is time for us to join our allies in keeping the faith--faith in the proven Ukrainian bravery and perseverance and faith that freedom will win out over tyranny if we stay the course. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. The Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage as a constitutional right way back in 2015, and the overwhelming majority of Americans support that group. According to Gallup, over 70 percent of Americans believe same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid under law, including a majority of Republicans. Despite this strong support, the U.S. Code does not reflect that consensus in America. Current legislation allows States and the Federal Government to refuse to recognize valid same-sex marriages. While it is true the Supreme Court has held this law is not enforceable, it still represents Congress's last word on the subject. The American people rightly expect their elected representatives to bring our laws in line with their beliefs. That is part of what this legislation does. It is time for the Senate to settle the issue. The Respect for Marriage Act, which passed the House with overwhelming partisanship support, including the support of 46 Republicans on the House side, simply allows interracial or same-sex couples who are validly married under the laws of one State to know that their marriage will be recognized by the Federal Government and other States if they move. This is all in accordance with well-established Supreme Court precedence. Settling this issue is well within the constitutional authority of us here in Congress. After all, the full faith and credit clause is part of our Constitution. Since the bipartisan passage of this bill by the House of Representatives earlier this year, in response to concerns over religious liberty, this already narrow bill has been significantly amended in the Senate to include robust religious liberty protections. By working collaboratively on a bipartisan basis with religious liberty scholars; faith organizations; Senate colleagues, including some I see on the floor here today; and other stakeholders, we have developed a substitute amendment that contains important protections for people of faith. It has five key changes to the underlying bill. Remember, this is a bill that already passed the House with 46 Republican supporters, but these are religious liberty provisions that we have added to it. First, it has an express acknowledgement that decent and honorable people hold diverse views about the role of gender and marriage and that such people and their beliefs are due respect. This is an important statement that has implications that protect religious liberty. Second, it explicitly protects all existing religious liberty and conscience protections under the First Amendment and Federal laws including the powerful protections provided by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Third, it guarantees that this bill cannot be used to target or deny benefits, including tax-exempt status, grants, contracts, educational funding, licenses, accreditation, certification, and many others because a person or organization holds a traditional belief about marriage. This protects everything from the tax status of religious nonprofits to the accreditation of religious schools, to the contracts between faith-based adoption providers and the government from being attacked using this bill. Fourth, it ensures that nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, religious schools, and others cannot be required to provide facilities, goods, or services for marriage ceremonies or celebrations against their will. Fifth, it has an explicit prohibition on the recognition of polygamous marriages. These religious liberty provisions are significant and they are meaningful and they have earned the endorsement of important faith groups. In a joint letter to the Senate, eight different faith-based organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church; the Seventh-Day Adventist Church; the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities; the Center for Public Justice; the AND Campaign; the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance; and the 1st Amendment Partnership--all of them concluded that our religious liberty amendments ``[protect] the core religious freedom concerns raised by the bill, including tax exempt status, educational funding, government grants and contracts, and eligibility for licenses, certification and accreditation.'' And they said: ``If passed, it would continue to build on the congressional wisdom represented by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.'' So that is what these religious groups--that is what they say about it. They helped write the language. A group of leading religious liberty scholars and advocates for religious liberty have analyzed the bill, and they have reached the same conclusion. These scholars include, by the way, Professor Doug Laycock, who argued on behalf of faith groups and won two foundational religious liberty cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. On balance, a group of these distinguished professors determined that this bill is an ``advance for religious liberty'' because, as they say, the ``protections are important.'' Notwithstanding these important protections and the opinion of leading experts in the field, the critics of this bill continue to level accusations about what this bill does that are simply not accurate. First, some critics claim this bill provides grounds for the IRS or other government bodies to revoke the tax-exempt status or other benefits from religious organizations that adhere to traditional views on marriage. This couldn't be further from the truth. Section 7(a) of our amendment actually expressly forbids the outcome that these critics are warning of. It prohibits the use of the bill to target the tax- exempt status, certification, accreditation, grant, funding, loan, license, or any other nonmarital status, right, or benefit of religious organizations. To quote Professor Laycock's analysis: Those who claim that the bill would be used as a ground for denying tax-exempt status to organizations adhering to male- female marriage, by analogy to Bob Jones, are disregarding the statutory text. In addition to the statutory prohibition, this amendment contains a clear statement from Congress, again, that diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage, including the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, come from decent and honorable premises and are due respect. This congressional statement distinguishes the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman from the belief that interracial marriage is wrong. This distinction is important, and rather than portraying those who believe in traditional marriage as bigots, reflects a national policy that respects diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage, while also protecting the rights of same-sex married couples, and that is the key. Second, some critics argue that this bill will lead to more litigation between ``institutions and individuals trying to live according to their sincerely held religious beliefs.'' This is also false. The bill only governs the conduct of State actors and contains no litigation tools that would be used against private religious entities acting in a private capacity, even the ones that receive the majority of their funding from the State. To quote, again, from Professor Laycock's analysis, the Respect for Marriage Act and our bipartisan substitute amendment ``poses little or no new risk to religious liberty beyond those that already exist.'' Third, some critics continue to make the bewildering argument that this bill will lead to legalized and recognized polygamy. Again, this has no grounding in reality. No State allows bigamy or polygamy, and this bill does not change this. Moreover, our amendment explicitly says now: Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to require or authorize Federal recognition of marriages between more than 2 individuals. Finally, some critics argue this bill is deficient because it does not contain new enforceable rights for private businesses and other entities beyond the scope of this bill. This bill, as legal scholars and many faith groups agree, poses no new risks to religious organizations, while containing significant benefits and protections for people of faith. Of course, this bill does not cover or address every lawsuit or dispute that may arise between LGBTQ and religious interests, but it does address the disputes that could arise because of this bill. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to look carefully at the new religious liberty provisions. Take a look at it. I hope you will be able to support the Respect for Marriage Act. The substitute amendment is a carefully negotiated, well-crafted piece of legislation that protects people of faith as well as same-sex married couples. A statement in a recent letter from the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities accurately states that our amendment ``sends a strong bipartisan message to Congress, the Administration, and the public that LGBTQ rights can co-exist with religious freedom protections, and that the rights of both groups can be advanced in a way that is prudent and practical.'' I think that is the major point here. They can coexist. That is what our legislation proves. That is why it deserves the support, in my view, of our colleagues. So I urge them to join me in taking this path forward to pass this bill with the same overwhelming bipartisan support we saw in the House of Representatives. The American people want us to settle this issue and millions of American couples who are married, including many in Ohio, are counting on us to recognize and protect their marriage and give them the peace of mind that they deserve. I yield the floor. Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of the Respect for Marriage Act. I hope the Senate will pass this important legislation today. The Supreme Court declared that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right in 2015 and the overwhelming majority of Americans support this view. According to Gallup, over 70 percent of Americans believe that same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid by the law, including a majority of Republicans. Despite this vast support, the U.S. Code does not reflect the American consensus. Current legislation allows States and the Federal Government to refuse to recognize valid same-sex marriages. While it is true that the Supreme Court has held that this law is not enforceable, it still represents Congress's last word on the subject. The American people rightly expect their elected representatives to bring our laws in line with their beliefs. It is time for the Senate to settle the issue. The Respect for Marriage Act, which passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, simply allows interracial or same-sex couples who were validly married under the laws of one State, to know their marriage will be recognized by the Federal Government and by other States if they move in accordance with established Supreme Court precedent. This short, narrow bill has two main effects, both of which are well within the constitutional authority of Congress. First, it ensures that marriages legally performed in one State are recognized as valid in other States, regardless of sex or race. This is a straightforward application of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Under this clause, States are required to recognize things like court judgments and public records from other States. This bill will simply clarify that marriage is one of the things that must be recognized across State lines. Second, this bill specifies that the Federal Government will recognize a marriage that is valid in the State where it was performed. This portion of the bill keeps the Federal Government out of the business of defining marriage and leaves that decision to the States, where it properly belongs. As you can see, this bill is extremely narrow, it is constitutional, and it does not infringe on State sovereignty. This is a bill that simply ensures, as a matter of statutory law, that interracial and same-sex marriages that were legal in the State they were performed will be recognized if the couple moves to a different State. In response to concerns over religious liberty, since the bipartisan passage by the House of Representatives earlier this year, this already narrow bill has been significantly amended in the Senate to include robust religious liberty protections. By working collaboratively on a bipartisan basis with religious liberty scholars, faith organizations, colleagues, and other stakeholders, we have developed a substitute amendment that contains important protections for people of faith. This amendment contains five key changes to the underlying bill. First, it contains an express acknowledgment that decent and honorable people hold diverse views about the role of gender in marriage and that such people and their beliefs are due respect. Second, it explicitly protects all existing religious liberty and conscience protections under the First Amendment and Federal laws, including the powerful protections provided by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Third, it guarantees that this bill cannot be used to target or deny benefits--including tax-exempt status, grants, contracts, educational funding, licenses, accreditation, certification, and many others-- because a person or organization holds a traditional belief about marriage. This protects everything from the tax status of religious nonprofits, to the accreditation of religious schools, to the contracts between faith-based adoption providers and governments from being attacked using this bill. Fourth, it ensures that nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, religious schools, and others cannot be required to provide facilities, goods, or services for marriage ceremonies or celebrations against their will. Fifth, it contains an explicit prohibition on the recognition of polygamous marriages. These religious liberty provisions are significant, they are meaningful, and they have earned the endorsement of important faith groups that hold to an understanding that marriage is between one man and one woman. In a joint letter to the Senate, eight different faith- based organizations--including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, otherwise known as the Mormon Church; the Seventh-Day Adventist Church; the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities; the Center for Public Justice; the AND Campaign; the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance; and the 1st Amendment Partnership--concluded that the religious liberty amendment ``protects the core religious freedom concerns raised by the bill, including tax exempt status, educational funding, government grants and contracts, and eligibility for licenses, certification, and accreditation'' and that, ``if passed, it would continue to build on the congressional wisdom represented by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.'' This view is not limited to faith groups. A group of leading religious liberty scholars have analyzed the bill and reached the same conclusion. These scholars include Professor Doug Laycock, who argued and won two foundational religious liberty cases before the Supreme Court. He argued on behalf of faith groups in the case Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, the premier case on unconstitutional religious targeting, and Hosanna-Tabor, the leading case on the hiring rights of religious organizations. He won both unanimously. Professor Laycock was joined by Professor Thomas Berg, Professor Carl Esbeck, and Professor Robin Fretwell Wilson in his analysis of the bill. Professor Berg has advocated for religious liberty in briefings before the Supreme Court, including in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia to defend the rights of faith-based adoption agencies. Professors Esbeck and Wilson have themselves authored briefs and influential texts on religious liberty. On balance, these distinguished professors determined that this bill is an ``advance for religious liberty'' because the ``protections are important and [] any new risks it creates are quite limited.'' Notwithstanding these important protections and the opinion of leading experts on the issues, the critics of this bill continue to level incorrect accusations about what this bill does. I want to take a moment to respond to three arguments that opponents have made. First, some critics claim that this bill provides grounds for the IRS or other government bodies to revoke the tax-exempt status or other benefits from religious organizations that adhere to traditional views on marriage. This couldn't be more wrong. Section 7(a) of the amendment expressly forbids the outcomes that the critics are warning of. It prohibits the use of this bill to target the tax-exempt status, certification, accreditation, grant, funding, loan, license or any other nonmarital status, right, or benefit of religious organizations. To quote Professor Laycock's analysis: ``Those who claim that the bill would be used as a ground for denying tax-exempt status to organizations adhering to male-female marriage, by analogy to Bob Jones, are disregarding the statutory text.'' In addition to this statutory prohibition, this amendment contains a clear statement from Congress that diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage--including the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman--come from decent and honorable premises and are due respect. This congressional statement distinguishes the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman from the belief that interracial marriage is wrong. This distinction is important, and rather than portraying those who believe in traditional marriage as bigots, reflects a national policy that respects diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage, while also protecting the rights of same-sex married couples. Second, some critics argue that this bill will lead to more litigation against ``institutions and individuals trying to live according to their sincerely held religious beliefs.'' This is also false. This bill only governs the conduct of State actors and contains no new litigation tools that could be used against private religious entities acting in a private capacity, even ones receiving the majority of their funding from the State. To quote again from Professor Laycock's analysis, the Respect for Marriage Act and our bipartisan substitute amendment ``poses little or no new risk to religious liberty beyond those that already exist.'' Third, some critics continue to make the bewildering argument that this bill could lead to legalized and recognized polygamy. This has no grounding in reality. No State allows bigamy or polygamy, and this bill does nothing to change this. Moreover, our amendment explicitly says that ``Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to require or authorize Federal recognition of marriages between more than 2 individuals.'' No court would entertain the fanciful arguments suggested by critics that a man married to multiple women is somehow not engaged in polygamous marriage. Finally, some critics argue that this bill is deficient because it does not contain new enforceable rights for private business or other entities that apply beyond the scope of this bill. This is not a fair criticism. This bill--as legal scholars and many faith groups agree-- poses no new risks to religious organizations, while containing significant benefits and protections for people of faith. Of course, this bill does not cover or address every lawsuit or dispute that may arise between LGBT and religious interests, but it does address the disputes that could arise because of the bill. Having addressed these erroneous arguments and criticisms, I also want to take a moment to address the three amendments that we will vote on today. None of the amendments that we are voting on solve perceived problems created by this bill. As I just described, this bill is narrow, it provides no new risks to religious organizations, and it contains important protections for people of faith. Senator Lee's amendment provides new affirmative rights that allow people to sue the government--including lawsuits for money damages--if the government discriminates against their beliefs about marriage in any number of ways. Now, because of the significant protections and prohibitions that we have added, none of the discrimination contemplated by Senator Lee could occur because of the Respect for Marriage Act. In other words, this new right proposed by the Lee amendment goes far beyond the scope of the bill before us and seeks to address harms and resolve disputes that are not created by the Respect for Marriage Act. Although I disagree with Senator Lee that his amendment solves any potential problem created by the Respect for Marriage Act, I support the overall goal of providing a defense to discrimination in other contexts. I, therefore, will vote in favor of this amendment. Senator Lankford and Senator Rubio have proposed separate amendments, both which remove the private right of action from this bill. I do not support this change. It does not fix any alleged problem created by this bill or improve it in any way. A private right of action is a common way for Congress to allow Americans to enforce their statutory rights. It simply allows someone to go to court and to receive a judgment if they have been harmed. To illustrate just how common it is, Senator Lee's amendment that I just discussed--and will support--also provides a cause of action. There is no reason to strip the private right of action from this bill because it is extremely narrow and cannot be used against anyone acting in a private capacity. It also cannot be used to obtain money damages. This provision simply allows someone to get a court order requiring a State actor to recognize their valid marriage. Contrary to the claims of some critics, it absolutely does not allow lawsuits against private parties simply because they contract or receive funding from the government. The right of action is a necessary enforcement mechanism for this bill and removing it could leave those who have their rights under this law violated without a remedy. In other words, it undermines the very purpose of this bill. I will not support the Lankford or Rubio amendments for this reason. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to look carefully at the new religious liberty provisions and to support the Respect for Marriage Act. The substitute amendment is a carefully negotiated, well-crafted piece of legislation that protects people of faith as well as same-sex married couples. A statement in a recent letter from the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities captures my views precisely, and so I will directly quote from it: This amendment ``sends a strong bipartisan message to Congress, the Administration, and the public that LGBTQ rights can co-exist with religious freedom protections, and that the rights of both groups can be advanced in a way that is prudent and practical.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in taking this path forward and to pass this bill with the same overwhelming bipartisan support that we saw in the House of Representatives. The American people want us to settle this issue once and for all. Millions of American married couples, including many in Ohio, are counting on us to recognize and protect their marriage to give them the peace of mind they deserve. We shouldn't let them down.

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I come to the floor today in support of the Respect for Marriage Act. I want to summarize my remarks, though, and ask unanimous consent that my full remarks be printed in today's Record.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I come to the floor today for the 26th consecutive week that the Senate has been in session to highlight the very latest from Russia's illegal, unprovoked, and deadly assault on Ukraine. This continues to be a critical time for Ukraine and Ukraine's freedom fighters, and it is a classic fight for freedom. At this critical juncture, as the winter months approach, Russia's morale is flagging and Ukrainians are making steady gains on the battlefield. It is absolutely vital that the United States and our allies continue to stand by the people of Ukraine. We can't pull back now. Ukraine, as you know, is a democracy. They are a great ally of ours. They just want to live in peace with their neighbors, including Russia. Over the objections of 140 countries in the United Nations, Russia launched a brutal invasion of Ukraine on February 24. That was 9 months ago, and they haven't let up. While we celebrated Thanksgiving holiday this past week here in America, Ukrainians endured a deadly week of Russian attacks and bombardments on civilian population centers far, far from the frontlines. They didn't get a Thanksgiving break from the war. Russia's military is actually continuing to bomb inside of Ukraine even today, civilian targets. What is interesting is that, at the same time, Ukraine is winning on the battlefield. Over half of Ukraine's Russian-occupied territory has now been liberated. Remember, at one point, Ukraine included the occupied territory up here near Kyiv, the capital, and all this area. Most of that area has now been liberated, and these are the areas where the Russians continue to occupy: Crimea, which they took back in 2014, parts of the Donetsk, and these additional areas. Even today, Ukrainians are making progress in these areas. So on the battlefield, the Ukrainians, with our help and the help of 50 countries around the world, are making progress. Yet, Russia continues to launch these missiles into Ukraine. Even in a place like Bakhmut, one place where the Russians were making some progress using mercenary forces--the Wagner Group, it is called-- the monthslong assault by these Russian forces has turned into a grinding battle of attrition, and Russia has made little to no gains. So in the Bakhmut region, which is right here, even there, where the Wagner Group is fighting, they are not making significant progress at all. By the way, back in April 2018, I visited Bakhmut. I was able to go there as part of a congressional factfinding trip, and the Ukrainian military allowed me to see the line of contact--actually go to that border area--the line of contact being between the occupied part in 2014 and the rest of Ukraine. That is where I learned that the Ukrainians were going to fight, by the way, because I talked to a lot of the soldiers there about what was going on, and when there was discussion several years later about whether Ukrainians would fight if the Russians invaded, as it appeared clear they were going to do, I had no doubt that the Ukrainians were going to fight because I met these soldiers and talked to them, and they were hardened, and they knew what Russia had done to them and their families and their country and their freedom. And they have fought. Here is a photo of me back in 2018 in this area of Bakhmut. As you can see, you have Ukrainian soldiers walking around freely. Here is a photograph of Bakhmut today, to show you the difference. Back when I was there, there was sniper activity. You could hear some artillery being fired off in the distance, but today, months and months of Russia's brutal assault has led to Bakhmut looking like this. Here is the Ukrainian soldier today. It is a hellscape straight from the Western front of World War I, isn't it? Relentless artillery bombardments have forced soldiers into these trenches, just like they dug in France during World War I and World War II. This is the condition that Ukrainian soldiers are fighting in to defend their families, their freedom, and their country, and they are doing it as the temperature is falling and winter approaches. But they are undeterred, and they continue to fight hard. The response to Ukraine making progress on the battlefield by Russia is to launch these missiles into the interior. I really think it is out of frustration. It is a cowardly approach. They can't win on the battlefield, so instead they are sitting back in Russia and bombing these civilian targets. Here is one you can see. It is an energy grid in Ukraine. This is in western Ukraine. And it is just relentless bombing. They are killing people when they do this, by the way. They are not just taking out energy infrastructure; they are killing civilians, including energy workers. Again, it is a cowardly approach. They are killing civilians and noncombatants, needlessly slaughtering men, women, and children. They are attacking residential areas, and they have been all along-- apartment buildings, hospitals, community buildings--and, of course, causing cities to go dark as they go into winter, dark and cold. When we were in Ukraine just a few weeks ago--Senator Coons and myself--Senator Coons and I went to get some additional information on the ground in Ukraine, and we got to see this firsthand. This is in Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine. This is where the control center was for this energy utility, and this had happened just a few days before we got there. So the Russians are targeting very specifically energy to knock out electricity, knock out heating, knock out water. That night, by the way, we had dinner with Ukrainian Parliamentarians. It was a dinner meeting to talk about what we could do as Congress and they can do as Parliamentarians to help the Ukrainian people right now. We had to have the meal by flashlight and candles because there was no electricity. The systemic bombing of civilian infrastructure, throwing these Ukrainian cities in the dark and in the cold, without running water, has been met by heroic repair by Ukrainians. I imagine this is already repaired. But again, the Russians keep bombing. They need our help to be able to help prepare and provide more equipment as this equipment is being destroyed by the Russians. Today, I was pleased to see that Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced an additional $53 million from the United States to support efforts to rebuild this Ukrainian energy grid that keeps getting destroyed by the Russians. This package will include distribution transformers, circuit breakers, surge arresters, disconnectors, vehicles, and other key equipment. It brings U.S. support for Ukraine's energy infrastructure since February up to about $145 million. But again, it is not just us, and it shouldn't just be us. Our allies need to step forward to help Ukraine in this difficult moment as well, and they are. Finland, as an example I just saw, will send energy equipment to Ukraine this week. The EU, the European Union, will give Ukraine 200 transformers and 40 heavy generators to support the energy sector. The EU has probably given more than anyone else. This critical aid is needed because, again, these attacks just continue and continue. The recent attacks in Kyiv, by the way, that we saw earlier when I was there 3 weeks ago, 300,000 Ukrainian citizens in Kyiv had lost power when we were there. I am told that there are currently about 130,000 Kyiv residents losing power, without electricity. The Ukrainian military, again, has been making progress. They have had a huge success here in Kherson. This city of Kherson in Ukrainian was the first provincial and only provincial capital the Russians occupied and the first major city that they took. The Ukrainian military carefully and over time orchestrated a great victory there, and about 3 weeks ago, it was liberated. As this photo shows, Ukrainian citizens have welcomed these soldiers as heroes. You have probably seen some of this on TV news. They have just embraced these soldiers, and they put the Ukrainian flags back up in all the buildings. They have told these soldiers and others, including the investigators from the International Criminal Court, of the war crimes, the unthinkable war crimes that were committed by the Russian occupiers while they were there. So the Russians were forced out of Kherson because of very effective work by the Ukrainians, using the weapons that we and the Europeans have provided them, including longer range missiles, taking out their supplies, taking out their ability to resupply themselves. So what has happened now is that Russia, once they had left Kherson, has now started their bombing campaign, just nonstop bombing in the very city they occupied only a few weeks ago. So they are saying: If we can't have it, we are just going to bomb it into oblivion. Ukrainians are having now, after having lived through the occupation, to try to live through this bombing. I saw the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine recently urge civilians to leave Kherson and go to other parts of Ukraine this winter due to these Russian attacks. That is what has to be done. The soldiers will stay and they will fight, but the Russians are just constantly attacking Kherson. In this area--this oblast, it is called--that provincial area, 10 people have recently been killed and 54 injured. The Russians shelled this provincial area 49 times on Thanksgiving day, 49 missiles and bombs on Thanksgiving day, hitting residential buildings, a shipyard, the school grounds, gas pipelines, everything. The Russian shelling hit a school that was being used as a distribution point for humanitarian aid in the Zaporizhzhia area, up here. So in Zaporizhzhia, they had a school that was handing out humanitarian assistance, and it was attacked by a Russian missile. It killed a social worker and injured two other people. You probably saw that also in eastern Ukraine recently, the Russians attacked a maternity hospital, and again they killed innocent civilians. They actually killed a newborn baby, a baby boy. They critically injured a doctor. The overnight explosion left a smalltown hospital there in total disrepair, just a crumble of bricks and scattered metal. There were medical supplies, by the way, strewn all over the streets. The newborn who was killed was only 2 days old--2 days old--but he had a name, Serhii, and his death will not be forgotten in Ukraine. These are flagrant human rights abuses and war crimes. As a Zelenskyy Presidential adviser said, ``There is no military logic [here]: they just want to take revenge on the locals. This is a huge war crime.'' I agree. Vladimir Putin is trying to bring Ukraine to its knees, but do you know what it is doing? It is only strengthening their resolve, the amazing resolve of the Ukrainian people. Russia is beginning to feel the negative impacts of this war more and more. The sanctions are beginning to bite more, and we should strengthen them even more, in my view. But it is having an impact. The Russian banking sector has been hit by this. The Russian central bank reported that a record $14.7 billion in hard currency was withdrawn from the Russian banking system last month, in October. People are taking their money and running. This was during the 300,000 troop mobilization of mostly untrained recruits. A November report by the central bank warned that Russia's GDP would face a sharper contraction of 7.1 percent in the fourth quarter of this year, after falling 4.1 percent and 4 percent compared with last year in the previous two quarters. So the economy is going the wrong way in Russia. Last week, the economy officially entered into a recession. So this war is having an impact on Russia, finally. The central bank chairwoman told the Russian lawmakers that next year the situation will get darker still. She said: We really need to look at the situation very soberly and with our eyes open. Things may get worse, we understand that. I sure hope so. I sure hope so--that countries around the world see what is happening here and tighten these sanctions. For many Russian companies, the reality of war sank in with the latest desperate mobilization. This is according to the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. I think that is true. While there are a lot of Russians who still believe the propaganda and the disinformation from the Kremlin about Ukraine and, therefore, continue to fight innocent Ukrainians--their neighbors--other Russians now understand that this battle is not against an enemy; this battle is a failed ploy by Vladimir Putin to achieve his misguided ambitions to recreate the Russian Empire, the Russian Federation. That is what it is about. It is not about Ukraine. I want to take a moment to talk about the aid package that is being developed right now here on the floor to send to Ukraine to continue our help at this crucial moment and to make an important point, which is that oversight of our assistance to Ukraine is very important. It is important to me. It is important to my constituents. It is important to my colleagues. We need to be sure there are significant accountability measures in place. We have got to know where the aid is going. We need to know exactly where it is going and who is using it and how. No one is advocating that we give Ukraine a blank check; and, by the way, they have not gotten a blank check. There are spending safeguards in place already. President Zelenskyy agrees with that. He wants those kind of checks in the system because he knows that that transparency is critical to the continued aid--not just from us but from the 50 other countries around the world that are providing assistance or more. There is an accounting firm from the United States involved that follows all the aid to the government, as an example. Also, the World Bank sends a report about all the aid that goes to--the state aid, the government aid part, and they constantly audit that and report on that. So there are mechanisms in place already. Could they be strengthened? Probably so. With regard to military equipment, we have put in place unprecedented policies to be able to have what is called end-use monitoring of the military weapons that are going to Ukraine. I visited with the 101st Airborne in Poland a few weeks ago and talked a lot about how that end- use monitoring is going. We finally have a military attache in country and some people who can help follow where these various weapons are going. And, honestly, so far, so good. I have to tell you, I am surprised by this, but there has been absolutely no documented instance yet of diversion of U.S.-supplied weapons--to Russia, to Belarus, to third parties. Now, that may happen in the future, but this end-use monitoring is carefully ensuring that you get the serial number and you find out where the thing is going and you check on it. And I think that is very important, and my colleagues need to know that. This is something that the Ukrainian Government wants to do. And they should want to do it, and our military certainly wants to do it. The Ukrainian Government has been transparent in terms of the funding because it is in their interest. It is in all of our interest. They hear questions about oversight coming from Members of Congress, and they understand the need to provide the accountability. So we need to continue the assistance at this crucial time, as we have said tonight, but we need to be sure it continues to be accountable. You know, Vladimir Putin, when he decided to initiate this invasion, which so many people around the world thought he would never do because it made no sense; there was no logic behind it. But when he did this, he thought it would be a walk in the park. He thought the Russian Army would roll in and the Ukrainians would roll over. It turned out to be a walk through Hell for his army and his government. Why? Because the Ukrainian people showed grit and determination and the military fought more effectively than anybody expected. It is because Ukraine's morale and leadership has not faltered, even against overwhelming odds, a much larger military, and many more missiles. They have not faltered. I have seen this mindset in Ukraine on my visits there. I think I have been there 8 or 10 times since 2014. It goes from President Zelenskyy all the way down to the soldiers we saw in the trenches, to the civilians who are doing their part. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that during the Russian occupation of Kherson, the area we talked about earlier, the 68-year- old head doctor at the hospital there in Kherson refused to bow down to the Russian invaders, setting a tone for citywide resistance. He told the invaders: ``You can shoot me if you want,'' but I am not going to do what you want. I have a responsibility to this hospital, and I am going to carry it out for the citizens of Kherson. Other Ukrainian workers at the hospital were just as heroic and clever. The Journal reports that their resistance lasted 8 months. They faked a COVID outbreak to keep Russians from stealing their equipment, coming into the hospital and taking equipment. They spied for Ukrainian forces. The fighting spirit of the Ukrainians should come as no surprise. They are a proud, patriotic, and tough people. For perhaps one of the best illustrations of this courage, I am reminded of the grandmother who gave sunflower seeds to invading Russian soldiers way back in February when they first started coming in. She gave them the sunflowers and said: Give these to somebody to plant at your burial place because you are going to die for invading our country and you might want to have something beautiful being grown at your gravesite. That was a brave Ukrainian grandmother. I remember the photograph of a woman about 5 feet tall telling this to a Russian soldier a foot or so taller. And who can blame the patriotic defiance that they have shown. Today, half of Ukraine's energy infrastructure is gone. Kyiv is operating on scheduled blackouts that last 4 hours. This is the capital. Civilians are being killed every day. Ukraine's economy continues to suffer catastrophic consequences. War crimes continue to be revealed day after day. The actions by the Kremlin to knowingly destroy and attack civilian areas and kill innocent Ukrainians, of course, are meant to dampen Ukrainians' resolve, but, instead, these actions encourage fortitude among the ranks of Ukraine's freedom fighters against the barbaric enemy that has invaded their homeland. That is how they feel. When I have come down to the floor each week to discuss the status of this war on Ukraine's land, I have pointed out that this is where the battle is occurring for freedom over tyranny, of democracy over authoritarianism. This is where it is being waged here, in our generation, now. This is why we need to stand up and be counted. If we don't join allies throughout the world in condemning it and helping Ukraine defend itself, what happens? Well, the world becomes a much more dangerous and volatile place. Trust me, people are watching-- our enemies and our adversaries. Iran is watching. China is watching. Others are watching. This is not the time for the United States and the allies around the world--more than 50 of them who have provided military assistance--to pull back. At a meeting in Romania today, the NATO Secretary General reaffirmed that NATO's door to membership remains open to Ukraine. It has been open since 2008. I found this to be very welcome news, something I have called for, for years. I don't think Russia would be in Ukraine if it had happened. Ukraine is making gains on the battlefield, as I said. Russian forces and equipment are being destroyed and depleted. Russian war crimes continue to be committed as they punish Ukrainian civilians, and the Russian people are beginning to feel the negative effects of this failed war. I think, frankly, that Vladimir Putin believes his supply of missiles will outlast the patience of the free world. I think that is what he believes. That is why he continues this senseless war. I think he believes he will continue to be able to have enough missiles to outlast the patience of the Western World, of us, the freedom-loving people. I don't think that is accurate, but we need to prove him wrong. We need to keep the pressure up to end with a resolution to this senseless, brutal war. I believe, with the help of the United States and our allies, democracy can and will prevail over tyranny and authoritarianism. And that, of course, would send the right message echoed across the world, a message that tyranny and authoritarianism must not triumph. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I have come to the floor today to talk about legislation that is going to come before this Chamber this afternoon called the Respect for Marriage Act. I hope the Senate will consider this legislation and pass it. I think it is good for our country. Marriage is really important in our society. It is a sacred bond that two people make to each other. It represents a lifetime of commitment and love and care in times good and bad. It is also the foundational unit upon which our entire society is built. I have witnessed this firsthand over the past 36 years with my wife Jane and our amazing family. I was fortunate to have an upbringing with parents who were together for five decades. The recognition and protection of this bond makes the couple, the family, and our country stronger. That is why there is a constitutional right to marry. Same-sex marriage has also been a constitutional right since 2015. Today, there are about a million same-sex households. About 60 percent of them are married. In the minds of most Americans, the validity of these marriages is a settled question, and the overwhelming majority of Americans want this question to be settled. According to Gallup, 71 percent of Americans believe that same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid by law. The majority of support for same-sex marriage, by the way, is seen across all age groups, races, religious affiliations, and even political parties. In fact, polling from just last year shows that 55 percent of Republicans support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Now, the Respect for Marriage Act we are about to vote on actually doesn't go that far. It simply says that if you get married in one State, another State has to honor it. So why are we here? Given this broad American consensus, why is the Senate debating this today as to whether we should recognize something that the vast majority of Americans already recognize and support? The answer is, because current Federal law does not reflect the will or beliefs of the American people in this regard. The current statute allows States and the Federal Government to refuse to recognize valid same-sex marriages. While it is true that this law is not currently enforceable, I would argue, because of Supreme Court rulings, it still represents Congress's last word on the subject. So it is important to clarify that, to get the old legislation off the books. Likewise, current Federal law is silent on the question of interstate interracial marriage, believe it or not, so that needs to be addressed. Given this disconnect between the American people and our current legislation, it is time for the Senate to settle the issue and pass the Respect for Marriage Act, as the House of Representatives has already done. By the way, that was an overwhelming vote in the House with 46 Republicans supporting it. This bill simply allows interracial or same-sex couples who are validly married under the laws of one State to know that their marriage will be recognized by the Federal Government and by other States, if they move, in accordance with established Supreme Court precedent. That is why we have to do this. Second, we have to do it because in a recent Supreme Court case, there was this notion that maybe this would get revisited, this issue of same-sex marriage. So it is important that we resolve the issue for both of those reasons. And people who are in same-sex marriages are understandably very interested in having that resolved. They want to clarify it. They've made financial arrangements, maybe adoptions, and so on. They want to be sure that their marriage can continue to be honored. I think, in short, there are two main effects of this bill, and both are well within the constitutional authority of the Congress to address. First, to ensure that the marriages legally performed in one State are recognized as valid in other States, regardless of sex or race. This is a straightforward application, by the way, of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution anyway. Under this clause, States are required to recognize things like court judgments and public records from other States. This bill simply clarifies that marriage is one of those things that must be recognized across State lines. Second, this bill specifies that the Federal Government will recognize a marriage that is valid in the State where it was performed. This portion of the bill keeps the Federal Government out of the business of defining marriages, which is something, on my side of the aisle, among Republicans, particularly important because that leaves the decision to the States where it properly belongs. I also want to take a moment to address what this bill does not do because I have had a lot of conversations with my colleagues over the last week or so about this; and in some cases, they are talking about things that this bill simply doesn't do. It does not require any State to perform same-sex marriages if it chooses not to, in the event the current Supreme Court case, let's say, is overturned. It just doesn't do that. It does not require anything not already required by the Supreme Court precedent. It certainly does not allow polygamy. This is a point that has been raised by some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle. Polygamy is illegal in every jurisdiction in the United States, and this does nothing to change that. It actually adds another provision in our amendment--that I will talk about in a second--that explicitly prohibits polygamy. This bill does not permit lawsuits against individuals or entities acting in a purely private capacity. That is important. As you can see, the bill is really very narrow. It is constitutional, and it does not infringe on State sovereignty. It is a bill that simply ensures, as a matter of statutory law, that interracial and same-sex marriages that were legal in the State in which they were performed will be recognized if the couple moves to a different State. I also want to address several points of criticism against the bill and the significant efforts that we have made to address those through a substitute amendment, which was written by all of us who have been involved in this process but also a number of outside groups. This amendment contains robust religious liberty protections. The amendment was developed collaboratively, again, between us--as Tammy Baldwin is here on the floor, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, also Kyrsten Sinema-- also by listening to feedback and working extensively with many of our Senate colleagues, with faith-based groups on the outside, and also other stakeholders. The first criticism that I heard was this bill does not sufficiently protect people of faith. I disagree. I believe religious freedom is a fundamental pillar of our constitutional order, and I am confident nothing in this will limit the religious and constitutional protections that exist under the First Amendment or any other Federal laws. To further advance and protect our cherished religious freedoms, however, our amendment contains four very important provisions. First, it acknowledges that decent and honorable people who hold diverse views about the role of gender in marriage and that such people and their beliefs are due respect. This is very important to many of the religious organizations we have dealt with who are strongly supporting this legislation, to make the point that people can have different points of view. We are going to respect that. It also has a very important application to the lawsuits that people are concerned about that might come up. In the Bob Jones case, as an example, there was a notion that was different with regard to interracial marriage. In this case, though, with regard to same-sex marriage, again, we respect people have different points of view. It is important to lay that out. Secondly, it explicitly protects all existing religious liberty and conscience protections under the First Amendment, any other constitutional provisions, and Federal laws explicitly. I would argue it already did that, but I think it is important to make it explicit. Third, it guarantees that this bill cannot be used to target or deny benefits, including tax-exempt status which is very important to a lot of religious organizations; also, grants, contracts, educational funding, licenses, and many others. Religious organizations helped us to put this language in place just to ensure that this bill cannot be used for that purpose. Fourth, it ensures that nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, religious schools, and others, cannot be required to provide facilities or goods or services for marriage ceremonies or celebrations against their will. These religious liberty provisions are very significant. Several constitutional scholars, by the way, and advocates for religious liberty, led by Professor Doug Laycock of the University of Virginia Law School, have carefully analyzed this bill and sent us a letter concluding that overall this legislation is ``an advance for religious liberty.'' These are advocates, especially Laycock himself, who has taken cases to the Supreme Court representing religious schools. He is saying that this bill, on net, this bill actually increases religious liberty. Numerous other important faith groups agree. The Reverend Walter Kim, President of the National Association of Evangelicals described this amendment, if it passes, as ``the first significant bipartisan legislation in many years advancing religious freedom for all, including for those who hold traditional views on marriage.'' In other words, he is saying this legislation--forgetting the parts about same-sex marriage, which are very important--but with regard to religious liberty, it moves the ball forward, in his view, as the President of the National Association of Evangelicals. Another criticism of this bill is that it will be used to target religious organizations by revoking their tax-exempt status under Federal law. I don't see how this would be possible without even having an amendment, but we wanted to clarify that. This bill does not require anything that is not already required by the Supreme Court. However, penalizing or targeting a private organization because of sincere views on same-sex marriage would be a clear First Amendment violation. I am confident the Court would not tolerate it. But to ensure that this bill cannot be used to target or deny benefits to religious organizations, our amendment explicitly prohibits it. The amendment specifies that this legislation may not be used to deny or alter any ``benefit, status, or right'' unrelated to marriage, period. This gives assurances to people and organizations of faith that their tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, licenses, and other benefits cannot be affected by this legislation. The third criticism I heard is that this bill legalized and recognized polygamy. To address this, we put an explicit prohibition in place, even though no State permits it, so there cannot be a recognition of polygamous marriages, period. As you can tell, we have worked hard to address concerns that have been raised and to craft an amendment that provides robust, affirmative protections of people of faith without diminishing the rights of couples in same-sex marriages. This is very important. President Hoogstra of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, a group that is endorsing this legislation, observed this amendment ``sends a strong bipartisan message to Congress, the administration, and the public that LGBTQ rights can coexist with religious freedom protections, and that the rights of both groups can be advanced in a way that is prudent and practical.'' That is what is extraordinary about this bill. These two sometimes viewed as competing interests are working together. But as she said, we have shown here through this legislation that these rights can co- exist--religious freedom, on the one hand, LGBTQ on the other hand. Achieving this kind of compromise could not have happened without hard work, good faith, and bipartisan negotiation. I want to extend specific thanks to the following groups who have worked with my colleagues to develop this legislation, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church; the National Association of Evangelicals; the Seventh Day Adventist Church; the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities; the Center for Public Justice; the AND Campaign; the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance; and the 1st Amendment Partnership. It is my hope that, with the changes we talked about today and we have all now agreed to, we can pass this legislation with the same kind of overwhelming bipartisan majority we saw in the House of Representatives, and, therefore, settle this issue once and for all. Millions of American couples, including many Ohioans, are counting on their elected representatives in Congress to recognize and protect their marriage, to give them the peace of mind to know that their marriage is, indeed, protected and secure. We must not let them down. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I come to the floor of the Senate tonight for the 25th consecutive week while the Senate has been in session to talk about the brutal and illegal and unprovoked war on Ukraine by Russia--Ukraine, a democratic nation, an ally of ours who only wants to live in peace with its neighbors. A lot has happened in the last 6 weeks since we have been in session; however, I want to start by addressing some very serious news out of Poland this afternoon. Today, Russia launched another barbaric salvo of missile strikes against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, including hitting civilian residences and power facilities. According to reports, during this bombardment today, two missiles went into Poland and struck a Polish village 5 miles from the Ukrainian border, killing two people. Several officials, including a senior U.S. intelligence official and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine himself, have stated that these missiles were Russian missiles. Now, remember, Poland is a NATO ally. There are U.S. troops in Poland. The Pols have been beside us in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are strong allies. If this is true that Russia launched missiles that, intentionally or unintentionally, struck NATO territory and killed civilians, then NATO's response must be strong and unequivocal. And it must be swift, as soon as we get the proper intelligence from what happened. At the very least, I believe this is an opportunity for the administration to remove what were already misguided restrictions on U.S. military aid to Ukraine. Ukraine needs better aircraft, as an example, to be able to clear its skies of these Russian missiles and the Russian drones, many of which are now being procured from Iran. And if Russian missiles are now striking NATO territory, then it is clearly in NATO's interest to provide these aircraft to Ukraine. The planes don't have to come from the United States. They may well come from other allies. But the F-16s or F-15s that would be especially useful in this situation would probably have to be approved by the United States before any conveyance could occur. We should provide that approval. Ukraine also needs longer range missiles. They have been asking for what are called ATACMS missiles that enable them to strike Russian missile launchers in enemy territory, many in Ukraine, in places like the Donbas or the southern part of Ukraine or Crimea. The Ukrainian missiles currently cannot reach those missile launchers that the Russians are using. So the Russians have these long-range missiles, and they don't. This is to avoid more destruction, more tragic circumstances like we saw today, more destruction of civilian targets, and more death. And, lastly, Ukraine needs other help too. They need more air defense systems. They need more armored vehicles like Abrams main battle tanks, which have the ability to push Russian forces out of its territory and end the Kremlin threat to the free world. We should be patient and let the experts determine exactly what happened today in Poland, but if these initial reports prove true that Russian missiles struck NATO territory today, then our response must make it very clear to Vladimir Putin through our actions that this aggression will not be tolerated. I think the reason we are seeing these barrages of missiles, by the way, and drone attacks from Russia on these civilian targets is precisely because Ukraine is winning on the battlefield. So military to military, against all odds, and with the help of the United States and 50 other countries around the world that have provided military assistance to Ukraine, they are making steady progress in this crucial battle for the very survival of Ukraine. I think that is why President Putin is responding as he is. Two weeks ago, I traveled to Ukraine with my colleague from across the aisle Senator Chris Coons. It was my 10th visit to Ukraine since the first Russian invasion in 2014 when they took Crimea and parts of the Donbas. It is my fourth visit since Russia's war on Ukraine, which started in February of this year. While we were there, we were able to see how the U.S. and allied help is making a huge difference in Ukraine's stunning battlefield successes since my last visit just a couple of months ago. However, we also heard and saw firsthand the clear evidence of horrific crimes that Russia continues to commit against the people of Ukraine. Across the frontline, Russia has suffered major setbacks at the hands of Ukrainian soldiers, particularly here in the northeast, where the Ukrainians have taken over important strategic areas, and also down here in the southern part of Ukraine, southeast, where the Ukrainian troops have recently taken over almost all of this blue area, right up to the Nepa River, and actually taken the city of Kherson. Kherson--or Cherson, as it is called in Ukrainian--is a really important city. Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin, because of these successes, again, has vented his frustration against the innocent civilians of Ukraine. He loses on the battlefield, and he is striking with more missiles and more drones behind the frontlines. In particular, over the past month or so, his military has been striking infrastructure--energy infrastructure, water infrastructure--in various cities of Ukraine. This is a cruel attempt to leave innocent Ukrainian civilians without access to water and in the cold and dark ahead of the upcoming winter. President Putin cannot defeat the military of Ukraine on the battlefield so now he is turning to barbaric and cowardly tactics to try to terrorize and defeat the civilians of Ukraine. In Kyiv, Senator Coons and I saw the tragic evidence of these cowardly acts. We went to the headquarters of the Ukrainian state-owned power company called Ukrenergo. Ukrenergo is the place where the Russian missiles and drone attacks have focused in the city of Kyiv to try to take out their power but also power in the surrounding area, and we saw that damage that had been done just 2 weeks prior to our arrival. This example is a situation where there was a control center here, a command center, that was attacked by Russian missiles--again, just a couple of weeks before this photo was taken. What we were told by the CEO of the company, Volodymyr Kudrytsky, is that Russia is trying to break the morale of the Ukrainian people but also literally break Ukraine's energy infrastructure in half. The bottom line is what they are trying to do is create an unpowered eastern part of Ukraine that is not able to access the power that is being generated here in the western part of Ukraine. We saw this when we were in Kyiv. We saw rolling blackouts. We went to a dinner that night with Ukrainian Parliamentarians, and as we came up to the restaurant, of course, it was entirely dark. We had our dinner meeting by flashlight. Tonight, much of Kyiv is without electricity. Ukraine needs to be able to defend itself from these barbaric tactics. In our meeting with him, President Zelenskyy passionately asked the United States to help more to obtain these air defense systems they need to avoid these kinds of attacks. Current Ukrainian air defenses are able to shoot down an impressive number of Russian missiles and Iranian drones, stopping maybe 60 percent, on average, of these weapons. But those that get through are causing enormous damage to civilian targets, including infrastructure, and they are killing employees of these powerplants. They are killing civilians in residential structures. Ukraine needs more air defense systems from the West in order to close its skies to protect its people ahead of this winter and defeat Russia's latest campaign against innocent civilians. High-cost conventional systems like the German IRIS system have made a big impact, but they are not enough. More cost-effective options like drone-jamming electronic warfare platforms would make an immense impact to defend the skies at a relatively low cost. The United States, Israel, and other countries could provide those. We have already provided some crucial systems to Ukraine, but, again, these recent bombardments should give us the sense of urgency to do more. President Putin and his supporters must also be held accountable for the crimes they are committing. This is why, while we were in Ukraine, we spoke with the Prosecutor General, Andriy Kostin. With funding generously provided by this Congress and others, the United States is supporting the Prosecutor General's office and other law enforcement entities across Ukraine to investigate, document, and prosecute Russian war crimes. However, true justice requires not just Ukrainian courts to be involved here but also international courts. This is particularly true when we are talking about prosecuting Russian senior leadership for condoning and ordering these crimes. That is why, after our visit to Ukraine, Senator Coons and I also joined several of our colleagues in the Senate in The Hague, in the Netherlands, to meet with officials from the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which is headquartered there. We discussed the potential for the United States to support the ICC's efforts to deliver justice for the people of Ukraine and do so in a way that creates a disincentive for future attacks like these. Like many Members of the Senate, I have been critical of the ICC in the past. I have criticized it for its biased investigations into U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan, as an example, and into Israel. Under previous leadership, I believe it was a seriously flawed institution that had lost sight of its core mission to prosecute real war crimes and achieve results that could act as a deterrent for future war crimes. However, I believe the new leadership, including prosecutor Kareem Khan, is very promising and has ``righted the ship'' in many ways at the ICC. On a very limited basis, regarding war crimes in Ukraine, I believe there is an important window of opportunity for the United States and other allies to work more closely with the ICC. We spoke frankly and openly with officials about past differences and the possibility of our support for their efforts in Ukraine. I now look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we are providing them assistance to ensure that these war crimes are prosecuted. While in the Netherlands, we also met with Prime Minister Mark Rutte and commended his government for its leadership in the role for justice. The Dutch have sent dozens of law enforcement experts to Ukraine, forensic experts to assist in the collection of evidence of Russian war crimes. And the evidence is everywhere you look. Every time that Ukraine takes over an occupied part of its country, the war crimes are very evident. We will talk about that in a moment as it relates to what is happening in Kherson. On all these things regarding support to Ukraine, the Netherlands has been a critical voice in Europe, strongly supporting Ukraine. I am grateful to Prime Minister Rutte and the Dutch people for their steadfast support. We have to come together as a global community to hold Vladimir Putin and his regime accountable, just as we have come together to support Ukraine's fight to defend itself. Senator Coons and I had a very productive visit to Ukraine and the Netherlands. We saw firsthand how the United States has helped and the urgency of us to continue to help in this fight for freedom. Since our visit, Ukraine has continued to achieve stunning successes on the battlefield. Last week, Russia announced its troops were going to retreat to the west side of Dnipro River here and leave the city of Kherson. This is a really big deal. Kherson is a provincial capital of this oblast. And, you may remember, it was the first major city to fall to Russia's initial onslaught after the February 24 invasion. In fact, it was the only provincial capital that the Russians had been able to capture. Now it is back in Ukrainian hands, as Ukrainians continue their successful fight for their freedom against this unprovoked assault. This is a huge victory for Ukraine and equally big defeat for Russia. This was crucial, partly because the horrors on display in Kherson, which are now being uncovered, needed to be stopped. As one Ukrainian who lived under the occupation said: If there is a hell on Earth, it was here. Reports go on and on and tell the world of Kherson residents being arrested because they were accused of fighting for Ukraine's freedom, being a part of the freedom fighters to liberate Ukraine. The Washington Post reported: [L]ocals were locked up and tortured because they had Ukrainian tattoos, wore traditional clothing, took selfies standing near Russian troops, or simply dared to say, ``Slava Ukraini''--or ``Glory to Ukraine.'' A mother was arrested in front of her teenage son and held for two months on a suspicion of helping Ukrainian forces. A 64-year-old man was detained and beaten with a hammer for fighting--eight years ago. A priest was arrested and sent to Crimea, according to a congregate. That priest has not been heard from. Even the mayor was arrested. Still, no one knows where he is. This is why the liberation of Kherson meant so much to the Ukrainians. To the ones who had to live this hell on Earth, seeing their liberators and greeting soldiers meant a new kind of freedom. This photograph, I think, demonstrates well what is happening. Here is a Ukrainian soldier, a liberator, coming into Kherson, and this is a woman who is feeling this sense of freedom, finally, and liberation and comfort. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a videotape addressed to the Nation: Today is a historic day. . . . We are regaining Kherson. . . . the people of Kherson are waiting. They never gave up on Ukraine. And the Ukrainian Government never gave up on their people, as this next photo shows. The people never gave up in their fight for freedom because they knew what it was like to have their freedom stripped from them. They had experienced freedom in Ukraine after 2014, and then they experienced the Russian occupation. This is a joyful crowd, taking photos as the flag of Ukraine was raised over this community building. The abandonment of Kherson was clearly a blow to the 9-month Russian invasion, a great loss for Moscow, a win for freedom, and a sign of what is to come as the tide in this war turns, if we can continue to support Ukraine. This victory was the result of a long, patient, and successful counteroffensive conducted by Ukrainian forces. Over the course of many months, the Ukrainians slowly whittled away at Russian forces with precision artillery strikes, using the HIMARS, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, that we provided them and others have as well. They struck logistics hubs, command and control outposts, and bridges along the Dnipro River here. So they are able to strike into the occupied areas and essentially keep the Russian troops in Kherson from being resupplied. That is why the Russian troops had to leave, because they couldn't get the supplies because of the successful and patient onslaught by the weapons that we had provided Ukraine. Ukrainians did it in a way that avoided civilian casualties and avoided the destruction of the beautiful city of Kherson but pushed the Russians out. What happened this week is that Russia finally realized that its position was totally untenable when they had to pull back. Ukrainian strikes made it possible for Ukraine to win here. We need to continue to provide them the help--the missiles, the HIMARS--so they can continue to engage in massive frontal assaults against these fortified Russian defenses, all along this area. Once again, Ukrainian soldiers have proven that they have the will; they have the bravery; they have the smarts to win this war. All they need from us and other allies--again, 50 other countries around the world have provided help--is the tools to be able to succeed. This is not a time for us to let up in our support for Ukraine. I hope the government funding bill that we will vote on next month will include robust amounts of assistance to Ukraine. This victory, in addition to Ukraine's many other gains over the past several months, is a clear indication that this is a cause that is worth supporting. And it is one we can win. We have to continue to provide the HIMARS but other weapons as well. We talked about the airplanes earlier. We talked about tanks and infantry-fighting vehicles to bolster its current and future counter offenses to liberate sovereign territory. Two weeks ago, President Zelenskyy asked Senator Coons and me for the United States to provide these important armored vehicles to Ukraine. And yet the administration has still not acted on this request. We make the world's most lethal and most survivable tanks in the world. We make them in the State of Ohio, my home State. They can be used in Ukraine today to outmatch the vehicles used by Russia. Let's provide them. For months, Ukraine has specifically asked for these longer range missiles we talked about, the ATACMS, that can be launched from HIMARS launchers already in Ukraine and be able to reach these Russian positions to stop some of the missiles from being fired in the first place. And yet the administration has not acted on this request. We cannot deter ourselves from providing these weapons to Ukraine out of a misguided fear that somehow that would provoke Russia. Russia is already escalating the war themselves. What the past 9 months have shown is that they will escalate regardless of what we do. So we need to equip Ukraine to be able to defeat the escalation as it occurs, as it is right now with the barrage of missiles on civilian targets. I know some of my colleagues have questions about oversight of our assistance to Ukraine. I do, too. We need to be sure that there are significant oversight mechanisms in place. We need to ensure that our aid is going exactly where it belongs and being spent wisely. When we were in Ukraine, we had the opportunity to talk about this with the embassy, with Ukrainian officials, and also when we were in Poland going into Ukraine at the 101st Airborne, where much of the materiel, the military materiel, comes into Ukraine. No one is advocating we give Ukraine a blank check. I believe there have to be safeguards in place for how the funding is being spent. By the way, President Zelenskyy totally agrees with that. And we saw in place some of the things that they have. They have an accounting firm from the United States involved in following the state aid. In other words, the humanitarian aid and the aid to the government. We have put in place unprecedented policies to be able to end use monitoring for the military equipment going to Ukraine. I can confirm that we are engaged in a very ambitious and very successful effort on this end-use monitoring. There have been literally no documented instances of diversion of U.S. supplied weapons, which is incredible to me--not diversions to the Russians, not diversions to third parties. That may happen at some point. But because of this end-use monitoring and because Ukrainians agree that they need to be accountable for what we are providing them, we have had very good success. And I think the Ukrainian Government, it is fair to say, has been a very eager and willing partner in all these endeavors. They have stepped up to provide oversight for our equipment and funding because they know that is incredibly important for them to continue to receive it. They hear the questions about oversight coming from Members of Congress and our constituents, and they are happy to provide the transparency to answer these questions. That is important. And that must continue. The war in Ukraine is not just measured by the days that flip by on the calendar, although it has been a long time since February. Just ask the Ukrainian mothers and wives who watch the men in their family fight off their country's invaders. In Kyiv, we met with internally displaced Ukrainian women--mothers, grandmothers, sisters. We were at a World Food Programme site in Ukraine where some of the 7\1/2\ million internally displaced people in Ukraine are coming for their basic needs. By the way, there are about 7 million people outside of Ukraine, also displaced people. This refugee flow is probably unprecedented when you add it up, over 14 million people. We heard some heart-wrenching stories. A couple of women sat down with us and told us a story about their cousin who was captured by Russian soldiers in the occupied area up here in the northeast that has now been liberated. This young man was taken into the town square, and in front of his mother and his family, he was tortured. Then he was taken underground and tortured for weeks. They told us that his mother died of grief 10 days after he was captured. Their tears and those of many others whom we met are confirmed by the stories we are hearing from these prosecutors who are patiently and carefully investigating these war crimes so that people can be held to account. War is much more than dollars spent, land captured, and the strategic gains made. The war is about innocent children who die, about their loving parents who are worried about how they will keep their homes warm and how they will keep their kids fed as Russia intentionally tries to make Ukraine uninhabitable this winter. The war in Ukraine is about the schools and the hospitals and the infrastructure that is being attacked, war crimes that will affect the most vulnerable of Ukrainians. The war is about unprovoked Russian aggression toward a nation that only wants to live in peace with its neighbors. The war in Ukraine is about a freedom-loving people fighting for the right for basic self-governance and dignity and democracy. Russia's war against Ukraine is, indeed, horrific; but allowing Russia to win would only embolden other dictators to start equally horrific conflicts in the future. We have the means to help ensure a Ukrainian victory, along with our allies. And we must ensure that we are doing what we can. That is how we win, and that is how we deter future conflicts. The United States of America and our allies must stand up in the face of Russian aggression and demand that freedom be preserved. The United States has stood as the shining city on the hill for about two and a half centuries. In the Revolution of Dignity, as they call it, in 2014, when the Ukrainian people decided to rid themselves of a Russian-backed corrupt government, they saw that shining city on a hill. And they strove to be like it. They said they wanted to be like us and like their European neighbors. They are strong. They are resolved. They know what they are up against. They are determined to push back against the threat of Russian aggression and win. As Americans, it is our duty to stand up for what we know is true: that in a fight between authoritarianism and freedom, freedom must win. American aid to the war effort is working. We are providing tools to these strong and resilient people. In the face of ruthless aggression and unprovoked violence, Ukraine has liberated cities and restored hope to millions. The will of the Ukrainian people is so strong. Likewise, the will of the United States and our allies must be clear. We must stand with them and their worthy cause. As I heard from Members of Ukraine's Parliament when I was in Ukraine and also we have heard from them here in Washington as they come, freedom must be armed. It is not enough just for the Ukrainian people to seek freedom. They have to have the arms to back it up. That is what we are doing, along with 50 of our allies around the world. Supporting Ukraine during this pivotal moment is critical. At this juncture, we have to provide them with what they need to defend themselves and retake their sovereign territory from their Russian invaders. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in tribute to P.J. O'Rourke, one of America's greatest humorists. P.J. passed away after a brief illness earlier this year, leaving behind his beloved wife Tina and his three children, as well as countless readers who will miss the laughter and delight he brought them over a career that spanned nearly half a century. P.J. was born 74 years ago in Toledo, OH. We are proud to call him an Ohio native. His father owned a car dealership; his mother was a homemaker. P.J. was the product of Toledo's public schools, then of Miami University in southwest Ohio. One of his English professors, spotting a unique talent, arranged a scholarship that allowed him to continue in school and get his degree in English, with honors. In the 1970s, P.J. moved to New York. There, he became editor of the legendary satirical magazine ``National Lampoon,'' then in its prime. After the Lampoon came stints at ``Rolling Stone,'' the ``Atlantic Monthly,'' and many other magazines, as well as 20 books known for their energy and wit. Frequently, he turned his attention to American politics. Some here in Washington can still feel the sting. He even found humor in the world's trouble spots; He was in Beirut in the 1980s, Somalia and Afghanistan in the 1990s, Iraq in the 2000s. One of my favorite P.J. O'Rourke quotes is: ``Politics is a necessary evil, a necessary annoyance, a necessary conundrum.'' His tone was always one of mischievous irreverence, tempered by an abiding sympathy for our common humanity. And he was never far from Toledo or from Ohio. ``No Toledoan ever outgrows Toledo,'' he wrote several years ago, in a tribute to his hometown. He was clear-eyed about the charms of a Midwestern upbringing and blind to any imperfections. ``Toledo is better than exciting,'' he went on, ``it's happy. Nothing is more conducive to unhappiness than taking yourself seriously, and taking yourself seriously is difficult when your baseball team is called the Mud Hens.'' In truth, P.J. O'Rourke, while not taking himself too seriously, achieved much success in life--best-selling books, packed lecture halls in America and Europe, a journalistic career that took him to every corner of the world. But he never forgot he was from Toledo, from Ohio, from the heart of the country. And the country's heart always beat within him. My fellow Buckeyes join me in bidding farewell and offering our thanks to a treasured native son.

Mr. PORTMAN

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 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 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 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.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and service of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who was laid to rest in Windsor Castle just yesterday. Queen Elizabeth conducted herself with dignity and grace and represented the best of the United Kingdom to the world. She was unwavering in her support for the United States, and the American people reciprocated with their admiration and respect for her. My sympathies to the royal family and to the people of Great Britain. We treasure our unique relationship and America stands with you once again as we mourn your loss. Ukraine Mr. President, I am here on the floor of the Senate for the 23rd week in a row to bring to the attention of the Senate, to my constituents, and to the American people the latest news of Russia's illegal, unprovoked, and brutal war against Ukraine. I will talk about the disturbing news from Ukraine, about more Russian war crimes, and I will discuss the upcoming vote on the supplemental spending bill for the effort in Ukraine and why it is so important right now to continue to support Ukraine as it makes progress in pushing back against Russia's war of aggression. Last week, I spoke about Ukraine's stunning advances up here in the north around Kharkiv. After distracting the Russians with a counteroffensive here in the south near Kherson, the Ukrainian Army launched a surprise counteroffensive in the north and punched through the Russian lines. In just a matter of days--as you see in the light blue part of the map here, in just a matter of days, the Ukrainian Army was able to liberate roughly 300 settlements across 3,000 square miles and liberate over 150,000 Ukrainians from Russian occupation. They also managed to capture hundreds of pieces of Russian military equipment and vehicles and ammunition. So now, instead of being used to kill and subjugate innocent Ukrainian citizens, these vehicles, the equipment, and the munitions can be used by Ukrainian forces to liberate their fellow citizens from Russian tyranny. There were stories of Russian soldiers abandoning their equipment and stealing Ukrainian cars to make their escape--even stealing motorbikes and bicycles. Last Wednesday, Ukraine's President Zelenskyy visited a town in this area. The town is called Izium. Izium is located right here on the map. It is a very strategic town for the Russians. Just 4 days before he stepped foot there, this town was under Russian occupation, and even when he visited, the frontline was only about 6 miles away. Izium had been used as an important logistics hub from which the Russians attacked south and east into the Donbas region--down into this area. This was supposed to be the northern part of the pincer that Russia would use to trap Ukrainian forces in the Donbas. The Ukrainian forces who were here had to deal with this area that would be used as a station ground to build a cut-off to Ukrainian troops. Instead, it is now under Ukrainian control. There were reportedly 10,000 Russian soldiers in this town of Izium, and most thought it would be months before Ukraine would recapture it. But after just a couple of days of a lightning strike, this town, which had been held by the Russians for 6 months, is now free, its Russian occupiers on the run. Unfortunately, what the occupiers left behind was not just military equipment, but clear evidence of Russian atrocities. Ukrainian officials say multiple graves have been found near the city's cemetery. President Zelenskyy has said it contained the bodies of civilians-- civilian adults, civilian children--as well as Ukrainian soldiers showing signs of violent deaths including evidence of torture. Oleksandr Filchakov, the chief prosecutor of the Kharkiv region, has confirmed that at least 445 graves were at one site in this town. Here is a photo of some of the corpses that had been discovered. Some corpses had their hands tied behind their backs. Others had ropes around their necks. Some victims are still being identified, but as an example, investigators have confirmed that among the dead are the entire Stolpakov family--Elena, her husband Dmitry, 6-year-old Olesya, 8-year-old Sasha, and Elena's parents. They were killed by a Russian air strike on their home in this region. Again, another target--a civilian target of Russian missiles. Nearly 400 civilian graves in Izium were found near a previous graveyard; but near there, they also found 17 graves of Ukrainian soldiers. Their hands were all tied, and they appeared to be shot at close range. They were in a single mass grave, bodies piled upon one another. They were executed. So those killed in Izium were men, women, children, soldiers, and noncombatants alike--more victims of Russia's brutal and unprovoked war. CNN described the scene this way: Even the heavy rainfall couldn't erase the smell of death in pine forests in Izium. President Zelenskyy described it as ``cruelty and terrorism.'' Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova said yesterday that the scene was one of ``torture, rapes, killings, and war crimes of a massive proportion.'' It is indeed inhumane and genocide, but it is not the first time we have seen evidence of Russia committing such horrible atrocities. A commander in the National Guard announced that his team is also hunting for additional graves reportedly of people who were abused, victims who were abused, at a detention center in Kozacha Lopan, north of Kharkiv. It is this area up here. Certainly, we will learn about many more graves and many more atrocities in this area as we begin to discover more and more of these war crimes being committed by the Russians. Over the weekend, President Zelenskyy also said that Ukrainian forces had found 10 makeshift torture chambers throughout the liberated territories in that Kharkiv region. According to him, some of these rooms had tools for Russian soldiers to conduct electric torture on innocent Ukrainians. This photo is from inside one of these cellars-- one of these makeshift torture chambers--that were found in the Kharkiv region. Here you can see where a prisoner actually scratched the Lord's Prayer on the wall of the torture chamber. The liberating soldiers are also recovering bodies on the battlefield, which is where they are aligned too often in farm fields or woods, just left to rot in the fields and the woods. This is what Russia has done to Ukraine. This is not a one-off event. When Senator Klobuchar and I were in Ukraine 3 weeks ago, we visited Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv, and we saw the spot where Russian soldiers had dug a mass grave for dozens of innocent civilians they had murdered during their occupation. Sadly, the murder, the torture, and the rape discovered in Bucha was not unique. These horrific events that happen behind Russian lines often aren't known to the world until that area is liberated by Ukrainian forces. One has to wonder what other Russian horrors are currently occurring in occupied areas that we will witness when Ukraine finally liberates the rest of its territory. This is the grim reality of Russia's war. President Putin claims that his war is about liberating Ukrainians and reuniting them with the Ukrainian ``brothers and sisters,'' but this photo is not what brothers and sisters do to each other. This is not a war of freedom or a war of liberation. This is a war of conquest and genocide. And over the weekend, we also got a glimpse of what happens to the Ukrainian children who have lost their parents in this war and fall into Russia's hands. Russia's Presidential Commissioner for Children's Rights, who by the way has been sanctioned by the United States, recently stated that Russian authorities are placing 125 Ukrainian orphans with Russian families. Of course, the natural solution here would be to put these children in the care of their extended family members in Ukraine, allow them to stay in their country, but that is not their objective. Russia's goal isn't to provide a better future for these children. Their goal is to erase their Ukrainian identity and turn them into Russians. Under the rules laid down by the United Nations, ``forcibly transferring children of one group to another group'' constitutes genocide. Another example. Frustrated by Ukrainian gains in the northeast and in the south that we have seen on these maps, Russians have begun bombing civilian infrastructure at increased rates, like powerplants and dams, threatening the livelihoods of millions of innocent Ukrainians. Unfortunately, we have to expect more missiles being fired into Ukraine to terrorize civilians. Just this weekend, a Russian missile struck about 300 yards away from a nuclear powerplant in southern Ukraine, threatening a nuclear disaster. Now this was not the Zaporizhia plant that we have talked about a lot on this floor. This is another powerplant. The Zaporizhia plant, as you know, is the largest nuclear powerplant in all of Europe. It provides 20 percent of electricity--or did--to the country of Ukraine. That is a plant that the Russians are using as a shield, much as they have used energy as a weapon, including in Europe, cutting off energy unless Europe agrees to stop the necessary sanctions. They have used food as a weapon, bombing grain bins in the Odesa region, keeping food from going to starving people in Africa. Now they are actually using nuclear powerplants as weapons in this war. It is all reckless; it is all dangerous, but this risks a catastrophe by creating a military zone around a nuclear powerplant and firing on Ukrainian forces from there and actually exploding parts of the plant that connect to Ukraine. This is incredibly dangerous and risks something like the tragedy we had at Chernobyl. So all of this is precisely why we need to continue to give Ukraine the help it so desperately needs. Vladimir Putin will continue his reign of terror against the neighbor that just wants to live in peace, unless he knows that there are consequences. He is betting that he can use terror to intimidate Ukraine and its allies into surrendering. Let me be clear, I want this brutal war to end as much as anyone else in this Chamber, but the responsible way to end this war is not to stop providing our assistance to our allies and watch as Ukraine slowly falls to Russian domination. The right way to end this war is to actually win it, to continue to provide Ukraine the weapons it needs to keep advancing and liberating territory, like it did over these past few weeks. For the sake of global freedom, Ukraine must be allowed to end this war on its own terms, not Russia's. That is why, when this Chamber votes on the continuing resolution to keep government open next week, I urge my colleagues to also support the expected supplemental request for additional Ukraine funding. Most important to me, frankly, is the military support, including needed ammunition for the weapons they already have and including refilling our own stockpiles of military weapons and ammunition. This is one way we can show Vladimir Putin that we will not stand for his war crimes. The West and our allies all need to recognize that these Russian atrocities will not stop until there are more victories on the battlefield and until sanctions are more effective at cutting off funding to Russia's war machine. The world is watching, and if President Putin's military is not held accountable for these atrocities, it sends a signal to other rogue leaders that they will be able to get away with the same types of war crimes. As Congress considers this latest request for support, I hope my colleagues will think about four things. One, the mass graves I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. We should not turn a blind eye to the indiscriminate violence Russia has wrought on Ukraine. Vladimir Putin will continue his reign of terror against the neighbor that just wants to live in peace unless he knows, again, that there will be consequences. As President Zelenskyy said, ``Russia leaves death everywhere and must pay for it.'' Second, despite these atrocities, Ukraine is turning the tide of the war, in large measure, because of our help. It is working. This map, to me, is very interesting because it shows here on February 24, after the invasion of Ukraine on that date, how much territory that the Russians controlled, not just the parts that they had already controlled, down here in Crimea, here in Luhansk and Donetsk. But look at all the territory that they controlled at that time, including right up to the city of Kyiv. This is where the famous battle occurred at the airfield outside of Kyiv where they had planned to bring in heavy weapons and more military and topple the government in the capital of Kyiv. But, look, all this in red, all of this in red; and today here we are. So we have made progress. The Russians have come along the Donbas area. And now, more recently, of course, we have made additional progress, here and here, to push the Russians back. This would not have happened without the support of this body. And we must think about that as we look at this additional request for funding. We are making a difference. Specifically, thanks to this Congress, these long-range missiles called HIMARS have been extremely effective in enabling Ukraine to be able to strike behind enemy lines and disrupt Russia in ways no one thought possible. Before the Russians were sitting back and firing on Ukrainian positions and Ukrainians couldn't respond because they couldn't reach the Russian guns. They were firing with impunity, killing civilians, killing Ukrainian soldiers. Now, with these new weapons, these HIMARS, these longer range missiles coming from the United States, coming from the UK, coming from Germany, Ukrainians are able to hold their own and more, as we see with their advances in the south and in the northeast. We need to keep it up, particularly at a time when Russia is getting help from its own partners. As our Republican leader, Senator McConnell, pointed out, Iran is equipping the Russian military with armed drones like the ones that they used against American forces in Syria and Iraq. Additionally, there are reports that North Korea has supplied Russia with artillery shells. Third, I would ask my colleagues to remember this is not just about Ukraine. We have got to remember that Vladimir Putin has said that ``the borders of Russia never end.'' Earlier this summer, President Putin said he views Ukraine as basically just the first step toward recreating the Russian empire. His advisers have made similar statements about their intent with regard to this war. It is not just about Ukraine. What the United States does matters. What we do in defense of global freedom not only shows the world we will stand up for Ukraine against a rogue authoritarian attacking an ally, but our actions show our adversaries that we are ready to defend democracy around the world. And it is not just the United States providing this military support, just remember that. Forty-nine other countries are contributing, in one way or another, weapons, ammunition, training, and so on. And with regard to economic support, more countries than 50 are providing help to Ukraine. Fourth, I ask my colleagues to remember that there are important guardrails to ensure this assistance from the U.S. taxpayers is very well accounted for, and there should be. While in Poland recently, Senator Klobuchar and I met with the 101st Airborne to discuss their unprecedented end-use monitoring of our military equipment that goes into Ukraine. This has ramped up even further with the addition of our Embassy staff on the ground in Kyiv, which we also heard about when we were there, to ensure there is no diversion of the military assistance that we are providing. Again, this is an unprecedented level of accountability, and it is necessary. Transparency is absolutely needed and promised by the Ukrainians. I will say that from President Zelenskyy to members of his government, to members of Parliament we met with, everyone said the same thing; they too want total transparency and accountability. It is very important to them. Just as they are continuing their reforms against corruption even in the face of this war, they want transparency with regard to all the aid. They have an accounting firm in Ukraine that is following the budgetary funding that goes from this place, this Congress, to Ukraine as well. And they have a need and an interest in transparency themselves. With regard to the end game in Ukraine--and some have asked me about here on this floor--I believe Ukraine's Ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova, said it well: Ukraine will not rest until all our country is free, all our people are back and Russia is brought to justice. As Russia's military suffers setbacks in Ukraine, that is actually good news for the freedom-loving countries of the world. For decades, Russia has used its military to threaten and coerce its neighbors. Think of Russia's invasion of Ukraine this year and back in 2014 when they invaded Crimea and the Donbas. Russia, under its current government, is a threat to all of its neighbors. Think about its invasion in Georgia in 2008, and its ongoing occupation of parts of Moldova, just to name a couple. As Russia's military is weakened, Europe and the United States are made safer. So our support matters. Global support matters. I believe President Putin responds to strength, and weakness on our part would only invite more aggression. Helping Ukraine is just one way to show our strength and to show our resolve as a country and as an alliance. I noted last week that we are finally seeing the fruits of our labor when you look at the progress that has been made. The support now is more important than ever. Three thousand--three thousand square miles of territory has been liberated just in the past few weeks. This is the battle of our generation. This is the fight between authoritarianism and democracy on the world stage--the fight between evil and good. Freedom is at stake. Ukrainians are fighting for that. They are fighting for democracy, for the right to live free, for the right to chart their own course; and, as we have seen, they will fight like hell for it. We see this every single day in their courage and their resolve. They are fighting for their family. They are fighting for their homeland. They are fighting for their freedom. When Senator Klobuchar and I met with President Zelenskyy last month, he started and ended our discussion with expressing gratitude to the American people for their willingness to stand with Ukraine. He spoke about Russia's war on his country as our joint battle as all freedom- loving countries strive toward our joint victory. Ukraine is the shield of democracy. It is bearing the full brunt of the aggression that Russia has threatened against Europe for years and is still standing strong. It is in our interest that Russia's military aggression ends here. The sword of Russian imperialism must be broken in Ukraine by Ukrainians, and the United States and our allies need to continue to provide those brave Ukrainians with the tools they need to be successful. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota who just talked about our recent visit to Ukraine, where we were able to meet with President Zelenskyy and his top officials and see firsthand what you can see on TV. But, frankly, the emotion and just the incredible courage of the Ukrainian people, when you see it in person, is much more powerful, including going to an airport right outside of Kyiv where a bunch of inexperienced National Guard troops were able to fight off a larger and very seasoned group of Russian and Chechen special operators who landed at that airport. This was back on February 24. You may remember seeing this on television. I remember watching CNN and seeing these Russian troops landing one after another. Twenty-five helicopters came in, and they were going to use that as a staging area, as you said so well, to not just take Kyiv but take the entire country and topple the government. And this small band of National Guard troops, fighting for their family, fighting for their homeland, and fighting for freedom, as they told us, were able to instead defeat this group of highly trained Chechen and Russian special operators and turn the tide. Within 3 days, they had routed them. Thanks to their bravery and courage, they were not able to use that staging area to then go into the city of Kyiv, which is only about 30 minutes away, and be able to topple that government. I remember we asked the commander whom we saw there, who was the commander that night when these helicopters arrived: How did you do it? Like, how could this have been possible, that you could fight off these more experienced troops and the world's third biggest army? And his response was: Because I was fighting for my family. Remember that? So we saw constantly. Senator Klobuchar was always good about ensuring that the people of Ukraine knew that we were standing with them and that we understood the challenge they face and the fact that this is not just a fight for freedom in Ukraine but a fight for freedom that affects all of us around the world. They are the shield, really, of freedom--certainly for Europe and for so much of the rest of the world. So I appreciate your, again, going with me on the trip. We took the last congressional delegation into Ukraine before the invasion and now the first authorized one, I guess, after. There is so much we were able to learn when we were there because it was a time when the U.N. inspectors were coming into Zaporizhzhia. This is the biggest powerplant in Europe that Senator Klobuchar just talked about. Thank goodness they were able to get to the plant, inspect the plant, and make some changes to try to keep the plant from leaking radioactive material that has the potential to be another Chernobyl and also make a very declarative statement that you must demilitarize that zone, which the Russians still have not done. In fact, they have done just the opposite. They have used that plant as, effectively, a military base by having their military there, using the plant as a shield to fire on Ukrainian positions. They have also destroyed infrastructure going into Ukraine from that plant, which is very dangerous, but they have used explosives to do so to try to cut off the electricity going into Ukraine because they would like to take that electricity and direct it, instead, to Russia and to Crimea. These are dangerous, dangerous games. We have seen them play politics with food, destroying bins of grain all along the southern coast of Ukraine, stopping the ships from going out. Finally now, because of the U.N. and Turkey and the negotiations, some ships are going out. But they have used food as a weapon. They have certainly used energy as a weapon. They continue to do so every day, as they are doing in Europe, as they cut off even the Nord Stream 1 Pipeline to Europe, insisting the Europeans give up on their sanctions, which need to be tightened, if anything. Now they are actually using a nuclear powerplant as a weapon of war--not just incredibly irresponsible but dangerously reckless and risking a catastrophe. So, again, I appreciate Senator Klobuchar coming with me. I appreciate her leadership on this issue. We have tried to keep this issue totally nonpartisan, not just bipartisan. The members of the Ukraine Caucus, including Senator Klobuchar and myself, continue to meet regularly and get updates as to what is going on in Ukraine and ensure that we are doing our part here as a leader of freedom-loving countries all over the world. As she said, there are many other countries participating. In fact, there were 50 countries at the recent conference on providing defensive military assistance to Ukraine. At least 42 countries have provided serious weapons, like these longer range artillery weapons that are so essential to Ukraine's success. So this is not just America alone, but America has a unique leadership role to play here. That is what we have seen so far. As we come upon another vote here in the U.S. Senate and the House over the next couple of weeks, we have to ensure that we continue to take that leadership role. I have come to the floor every week for the past 21 weeks--this is the 22nd week--while we have been in session since the invasion began, and the focus has been often about kind of grim news about what Russia is doing: the murders, the rapes, the fact that they are constantly bombing civilian targets, not just apartment buildings but hospitals and schools. It is a grim story, and it is a sobering experience to see this, as we did in Irpin and in Bucha, to see the ditch that the Russians dug to be able to dump the bodies that have been tortured and murdered. But today I am, fortunately, able to talk about some much more positive news, which is that, at a time of all these tragic circumstances, the Ukrainians are now making great progress and pushing back this Russian assault. So we were here in the Kyiv area. This is where we saw some of the results of what the Russian troops had done, the atrocities and the war crimes they had committed--Irpin and Bucha. This is where the airport was we talked about. You remember, at one point, Russians were all in this area. They were pushed out and went down to this area called the Donbas. The Russians had been making progress down here, frankly, in Donetsk and Luhansk and even in southern Ukraine here, taking Kherson. This is one of the key and one of the first cities that Russia took. Here is Odessa. Here are the ports. So that is where we were until a couple of weeks ago, but a few weeks have made a big difference. Just 3 days before we arrived in Kyiv, there was a counteroffensive that began, and that counteroffensive was here in the south, so going here toward Kherson, as it is called, and trying to liberate some of these areas that the Russians had invaded. This is what they invaded initially back in 2014, and this is what they invaded more recently. So this Russian war has been going on for 8\1/2\ years. The good news is that this counteroffensive has been making progress, and that progress has been not just here in the south but also up here in the northeast. In fact, in many respects, I think what happened is Russia moved some of its troops down here to the south, knowing that this counteroffensive was beginning. In a surprise move that is really astonishing, the Ukrainian troops have made progress now here in this area, the northeastern part of Ukraine. This map will show you a little more detail about what is happening up north in Kharkiv. And I show you this in part to show progress but specifically to show and demonstrate to my colleagues that what we provided in military assistance to Ukraine is working. In particular, they have been asking for some time for these weapons called HIMARS, which are rocket systems that allow for a longer range and more accurate use of artillery. Prior to that, the Russians were sitting back and firing on Ukrainian positions, destroying towns--again, a lot of civilian targets--and doing so with impunity because the artillery from Ukraine could not reach them. So we now know from public sources there are at least 16 of these batteries that are over in the area. There are also a few from Germany and the UK. They have made a tremendous difference. That is something, again, that is in public reporting, but we have also heard quite a bit about this from their defense secretary and their team. But here is where we are today. Remember, all this was red in that larger map. Now, after only a few weeks and, really, just a couple of weeks in terms of this offensive, you see the great progress that has been made. A number of these cities that they have taken back are areas where there is a tremendous advantage to the Ukrainians, because this city, as an example, is a rail hub that was being used to supply the Russian troops that are in this part of the Donbas called Luhansk. Now look at that amount of blue. That is all where the Ukrainians have made progress. In fact, they have pushed the Russians right back to the Belarus border or to the Russian border. So this is very positive news. Again, the reason for it--the reason that Kharkiv Oblast is now free--is because of the work of 42 countries around the world that supplied them the necessary equipment, the necessary ammo, to be able to succeed and because of the courage and bravery, most importantly, of the Ukrainian fighters. Again, think back to that commander at that small airport in Kyiv who said: We are fighting for our families, for our homeland, for our freedom. That gives them a distinct advantage, in my view. Let there be no doubt that what happened here in this northeastern part of Ukraine was a collapse of demoralized Russian forces who fled, often leaving behind Russian armored vehicles, personnel carriers, tanks. You have seen some of that, perhaps, on the news coverage. On the other side were Ukrainians showing courage, tenacity, and determination. The Ukrainians not just outsmarted the Russians, but they were braver and charged into the breach to liberate, by the way, thousands, if not millions, from Russian domination. People came out of their homes, by the way, to embrace these Ukrainian soldiers and to thank them--people who had been hiding in their homes, people who had been living under these terrible conditions and suffering from some of the atrocities from the Russian troops. There was a great photo that I saw that I wanted to show you, which is of a bus stop in the Kharkiv Oblast, the Kharkiv region. This is a bus stop that had been defaced by the Russian soldiers, including putting the Russian flag on it and other graffiti. Here are some Ukrainians repainting this bus stop with, of course, the colors of Ukraine, yellow and blue--yellow standing for the sunflower fields that at one time were all over the country of Ukraine. Unfortunately, because of the war, that production will be down about 50 percent this year, but it is a beautiful sight to see those sunflower fields, which I have seen throughout Ukraine. And, second, of course, there is blue for the beautiful blue sky. This is a photograph of people celebrating. I think there is another one there, too. People are celebrating not just the fact that they can reclaim their homes but celebrating the fact that their country is being liberated, that they can, once again, call themselves proud Ukrainians and stand tall. This is what is happening. Sometimes the events of the day make it difficult to follow what is going on in Ukraine. Remember, we saw it on the front pages and the top of the news for weeks. And then, more recently, we have gotten distracted with other issues. But it is time for us to refocus on Ukraine and ensure that we are helping them to continue to make progress. Ukraine has the will, the bravery, and the military competence to win. We have now seen that. What they need are the weapons to be able to defend themselves and the equipment that we and other nations of the world can provide for them. The economic aid package that passed here in the Senate back in May included this funding they needed--again, funding for the HIMARS, as an example. It took longer than many of us wanted for the administration to provide those weapons, but they did provide them and, again, we see what is happening. Recently, the administration, just this week, is making another request, a supplemental request, for additional funding. This time it is $13.7 billion in Ukraine-related funding, $7.2 billion in military assistance of two different kinds and then $4.5 billion in budget support. This is a country whose economy has been reduced to a shambles thanks to the Russian invasion, and their economy is down about 40 percent to 50 percent. So until we can have more peace in that country and people can come back, they need budget support, as well as military support, just to be able to pay salaries for first responders and teachers. I was pleased that Secretary of State Blinken also made a recent surprise visit to Kyiv right after our visit to let Ukraine know that the Biden administration and this country stands with them. He told the leaders the administration will continue to provide long-term support to Ukraine and to 18 other countries that are at risk of a Russian invasion in the Eastern European area. That funding that he promised is from some existing appropriations. The new money, $13.5 billion, is a new package. This is a lot of money, but it is important that Congress continue to strongly support Ukraine, particularly during this incredibly critical period for the country's future. This is a fight, again, not just about Ukraine, but it is a fight about global freedom. If we are not there to help Ukraine and Ukraine were to lose this fight and Russia were to take Ukraine, the cost we would all pay would be far, far more. We have to learn the lessons of the past. Last month, we marked 1 year since the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, when the Biden administration was rightly criticized for abandoning our allies there. It was a stain on American credibility. It shook the trust of many of our allies around the world. I can say that having talked to many of them in the aftermath, if we were to abandon Ukraine, especially right after they demonstrated such spectacular military success, we would be making that mistake all over again. Many would wonder if America could be trusted to watch their backs. Remember, Ukraine is a free and democratic country that looks to us, the United States, as a role model. In 2014, they made a very deliberate decision, which was to get rid of a Russian-backed corrupt government and, instead, turn to the West--to Europe, to the United States--to adopt our free-market approaches but also our democratic approaches of free speech, free and fair elections, ensuring that they had transparency and were fighting corruption. That is the country that we want to hold up as a role model and, certainly, continue to support them. In 1994, we made a commitment after the Cold War ended--along with, by the way, the UK and Russia--that in exchange for them getting rid of their nuclear weapons in Ukraine, we would stand with them and protect their territorial integrity. Of course, Russia is not making good on that pledge, but for the United States of America it is another reason for us to stand with our allies who have chosen to stand with us. To underscore the point that the assistance is appreciated, every time Senator Klobuchar and I were at the meeting, we heard the same thing, whether it was with President Zelenskyy or whether it was with people who were in these small towns like Kharkiv or Bucha. It was ``thank you, thank you, thank you.'' There was deep appreciation for what we are doing and thankfulness to the American people. I will remind everyone that Ukraine has never asked for us to put American boots on the ground. This is not Iraq. This is not Afghanistan. What they have offered for us is an opportunity to protect freedom by providing them with the ability to protect themselves. We can't let Vladimir Putin even begin to think that the West is beginning to falter in this mission, especially as this counteroffensive makes more and more progress as the war crosses the 200-day mark. It is important to note that we are not the only ones, again, providing it. Nations around the world have banded together and that is important. They know that if aggression can succeed in Ukraine, it can spread elsewhere, including further Russian encroachments in Europe that Russia has openly talked about, reclaiming the Russian Empire, as they say, and increased Chinese aggression throughout Asia, including in the Pacific Ocean. The Solomon Islands is an example of that today, increased Chinese aggression with regard to Taiwan, and aggressive moves by Iran, exporting terrorism and instability across the Middle East. So this is about Ukraine, but it is really about a broader issue, and all countries are watching--our allies and our adversaries. I know there are some out there who say we can't provide indefinite funding to Ukraine, with no end in sight. I totally agree. That is not what anybody wants to do or no one expects to do. Everyone agrees that our aid to Ukraine will end at the right point, as Ukraine reclaims its rightful territory. The question is just when. We cannot let an arbitrary timeline determine that. We tried that in Afghanistan; it doesn't work. We have to be guided by the reality on the ground. It is clear that ending our support now would be premature and ill- advised. We have to step up, and this is money well-spent in defense of freedom. A Russian victory would be disastrous for U.S. national security and the stability and volatility of the world, the security of our NATO allies, and, certainly, the security of Eastern Europe. We know that Russia would not stop there. Vladimir Putin himself has said: The borders of Russia never end. He talked about recreating the Soviet Union, recreating the Russian Empire. I would say the borders of Russia end where freedom begins. Meanwhile, China would see the West's surrender in Ukraine as proof of the West's ``weakness.'' This would further embolden them. A Ukrainian victory would have the opposite effect. It would not only cripple Russia's war machine that President Putin has used to invade Georgia, Ukraine in 2014, Transnistria, Syria, and parts of Africa where they continue to meddle. It would also make Russian military aggression less likely for a long period of time. With President Putin expected to meet with Chinese President Xi this week, both men know that the United States and their allies stand together against rogue aggression against sovereign countries. That is very important as a message to send. Of course, with our assistance that we are going to be voting on, once again, here in this body, there have to be safeguards in place. There have to be guardrails. We have to ensure that military assistance is subject to careful accountability. When Senator Klobuchar and I were there, we talked to the 101st Airborne in Poland, who are handling a lot of the equipment coming in from around the world, from all these dozens of other countries and the United States. They talked a lot about what is called ``end-use monitoring,'' knowing where these weapons are going precisely to ensure they are going to the right hands, to ensure there is not an issue with regard to how these weapons are being used. It has been more difficult to do that in Ukraine given the security concerns. But during our trip, we heard about real progress being made to increase that U.S. and global oversight of our military aid to Ukraine with real end-use monitoring. As our Embassy in Kyiv begins to bring people back, we have more American eyes on the ground to ensure that oversight. Ukraine, itself, by the way, wants that transparency and strongly supports it. The price that we pay to stop Russia now is small compared to what we would pay if they succeed, and the deeper price, of course, is being paid by Ukraine. As NATO Secretary Stoltenberg said recently: The price we pay is measured in currency. The price they pay [in Ukraine] is measured in lives lost every day. We are on the side of freedom. Ukrainians want their freedom back. They fought for it in 2014 in the Euromaidan. They fought for it several times in their history. The United States and dozens of our allies have stepped up to help them achieve this goal and win this brutal war. They have this big advantage. They are fighting with heart. They are fighting for the freedom of their homeland, their families. Russia is fighting against an enemy that never truly existed in the first place. They are fighting against a neighbor that never wanted anything but peace with all their neighbors, including Russia, but now has to take up arms to protect itself. Recent polling by the International Republican Institute, IRI, shows that 98 percent of Ukrainians believe Ukraine will win this war. Their morale is strong. Their spirit is amazing. That was certainly the feeling I got from President Zelenskyy, his team, and every other Ukrainian Senator Klobuchar and I met with on this trip. They are united together for victory. We met with parliamentarians from four different parties in the Rada, the equivalent of their U.S. Congress, their parliament. They are all together, all working together toward a common cause and a common enemy. This morale isn't just in Ukraine. I see this spirit every time I go back to Ohio, where tens of thousands of Ukrainians call Ohio their home. These Ukrainian Americans and others from the Eastern European area--others of the community of nations that have been affected by the Soviet Union and Russia over the years--they are sticking together and their morale is high too. On Sunday, President Zelenskyy brought this spirit to his people in a powerful address to the Ukrainian people. This was a 200-day speech that talked of 200 days of brave troops fighting. He said that he was certain Ukrainians would get through this difficult path to victory. This was an inspirational speech at a time when the Ukrainian people are making progress toward victory on the battlefield and, therefore, peace by getting Vladimir Putin to the bargaining table. This must be the result. With our help and the help of all freedom-loving countries, victory can be achieved. That is what is so important right now as we look at this new appropriations bill, this legislation that the administration has sent us to help Ukraine continue its battle for freedom. My hope is that this week and next, as we take up this legislation, that Congress passes it, showing the same spirit and the commitment to victory as we saw in Ukraine. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor again today to talk about the situation in Ukraine--this is the 21st week in a row since we have been in session that I have done so--and to talk about how Ukraine is responding to Russia's brutal and unprovoked attack on that sovereign country--an ally of ours, a democracy. This is a map of Ukraine. You can see here where the Russian invasion came back in 2014 and where they are now. You can also see some progress being made in blue as the Ukrainian military pushes back on this latest invasion. Last week, I was able to visit Ukraine and to go to Kyiv, the capital, along with a colleague of mine across the aisle, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. Senator Klobuchar and I believed it was important to demonstrate bipartisan support for Ukraine at a very critical time. She and I will be back here on the Senate floor, together, later this week to talk further about this trip. The trip came on the 6-month anniversary of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. It also came in the same week that Ukraine began a counteroffensive against the Russian invasion here in the Kherson area. It also came at a time when there was increased concern about the nuclear powerplant at Zaporizhzhia here. The powerplant is actually right here near this red line. Inspectors from the U.N.--United Nations--International Atomic Energy Agency visited this Zaporizhzhia nuclear powerplant last week, which is Europe's single largest nuclear powerplant. We began our trip in Poland, where we met with the leadership of the elite 101st Airborne Division, which is stationed in south Poland. The 101st is a unit with a long, proud history, including of participating in the daring airborne assaults on D-day, in striking deep within enemy lines during Operation Desert Storm, and in serving with distinction in the Global War on Terror. As its motto attests, the 101st had a ``rendezvous with destiny'' during pivotal moments in our country's history. Now they have another rendezvous with destiny. In Poland, they are not only bolstering allied defenses in Eastern Europe--here in Poland but really all around Eastern Europe--but they are also conducting a very important mission: They are facilitating the delivery of vital military assistance to Ukraine from 42 other countries--other than the United States--all around the world. These soldiers are really at the tip of the spear of America's historic effort to arm Ukrainian soldiers with the tools they need to protect themselves and to protect their democracy. I also got to meet soldiers from the 101st from my home State of Ohio. They told me of the Polish people's welcoming of them. They said that people are so grateful for what the American soldiers are doing there in Poland. They feel so much better knowing that the American presence is there. One guy told me about walking down a street in Poland and of someone coming up and hugging him just to say thank you. He was a little surprised by that. The senior leaders of the 101st briefed Senator Klobuchar and me on how the military assistance mission is going and on what is actually happening on the battlefield against the Russians. In Ukraine, Senator Klobuchar and I traveled to Kyiv to meet with senior Ukrainian officials, including President Zelenskyy, Defense Minister Reznikov, Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak, and others, as well as members of their Parliament, which is called the Rada. We also traveled north of Kyiv to see firsthand where Russian forces committed unspeakable atrocities against defenseless, innocent Ukrainian civilians during the initial stages of this war. We also saw where Russian forces were stopped dead in their tracks--in the early assault on the capital--by brave Ukrainian defenders. During our meeting with President Zelenskyy, the very first thing that he wanted to say was thank you--thank you to the American people for being such great partners and strong allies in helping Ukraine defend itself. He and his leadership team know well the vital role that America's assistance has played in helping Ukraine not just to defend itself against Russia's illegal, unprovoked, and cold-blooded invasion but now to actually push Russian forces back and begin to liberate territory in some places, like in the southern part of Ukraine. It was a common theme of our trip that we heard from all Ukrainians regarding their thankfulness to America. They are immensely appreciative of what the American people have done, the fact that we have stepped up and led in helping Ukraine in this fight for freedom. By the way, because of that, because of America's assistance and America's leadership, they are very optimistic about their future. We spoke about many topics with President Zelenskyy, including the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear powerplant, which has grown increasingly dangerous over the past few weeks. The Russians have captured this plant and now have taken the Ukrainian employees of this nuclear powerplant--the biggest in Europe--captive and have intimidated them in various ways. We were told about their being harassed. There have even been reports of torture and of working at gunpoint. Now Russia is reportedly using explosives to destroy electrical infrastructure from the plant that takes electricity into Ukraine. They want to cut off the infrastructure that goes into Ukraine and steal the energy for themselves. Remember that this is not just the biggest plant in Europe; it provides 20 percent of the electricity for Ukraine. It allows Ukraine, actually, right now, to sell some of its electricity to other countries, which is helping with regard to Ukraine's serious budget problems. The Russians are also using this nuclear powerplant as a military base essentially--as a nuclear shield. This is playing with fire. They are firing artillery, which is positioned at the plant, on the Ukrainian forces nearby, knowing that the Ukrainians cannot fire back. Russia has already irresponsibly used oil and gas energy as a weapon of war. We have seen this. We have seen what they have done to Europe. They have said to Europe: If you don't stop all of these sanctions, we are going to cut off your energy. In fact, Nord Stream 1 now has been cut off, causing great harm and pain in Europe. So they are using energy as a weapon already. We have seen them use food as a weapon of war--totally irresponsible--including actually bombing Ukrainian grain bins with grain that is absolutely essential right now to places like Sub-Saharan Africa to be able to survive because they depend so much on Ukrainian wheat, corn, and sunflower oil. Now, they are taking it to the next step. Now, they are actually using nuclear power and this military base as a weapon of war. Using nuclear power and these reactors as a tool in this war is a reckless escalation, risking a catastrophe. We can have on our hands the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. I encourage President Putin to do the right thing and demilitarize this area around the plant. This is dangerous to the entire continent, including to Russia and the rest of Europe. Allow these workers to do their jobs without this kind of pressure and ensure there is no leakage from the plant. President Zelenskyy agreed with us in our meeting that that is the way this should be handled: It should be demilitarized. I note that today the United Nations' IAEA inspectors at the plant have also said there should be a demilitarized zone around the plant. I also heard today that two members of this inspection team who visited last week when we were there will now be staying at the plant for an uncertain period. That is good news, that there actually will be some inspectors there from the United Nations. It is a step in the right direction, at least. What Russia needs to do is to back off this plant and demilitarize the area. We know that Russia's ultimate plan here is to disconnect this nuclear powerplant from Ukraine's grid, as I said, and connect it to the Russian grid. This is a theft of power, plain and simple. This plant, which is the largest in Europe, produces, again, 20 percent of Ukraine's electricity. We also talked to President Zelenskyy about the various weapon needs that they continue to have. He talked specifically about how effective the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, has been. These are weapons that the United States has provided to Ukraine, about 16 of them. Also, the UK and Germany have provided comparable systems to Ukraine, and they have been extremely effective. They have used these missile systems to target Russian ammo depots' logistics lines that are within Ukraine but are far from the frontlines. They are destroying these ammo depots--these command posts, these pieces of critical infrastructure--and this is causing disarray in Russia's ability to supply, control, and maneuver its forces. We have heard repeatedly that Ukrainian military morale has been lifted by these HIMARS because of their ability, finally, to reach these Russian positions and reach the Russian artillery that previously was out of reach of the Ukrainian artillery. They said they were sitting back with impunity and destroying Ukrainian cities, killing civilians and killing soldiers without having any consequences. Now, they are feeling some consequences. They also said that not only is the Ukrainian morale increasing but that the Russian morale is decreasing. It is deteriorating as the Ukrainians make progress. HIMARS have been in use by the U.S. Armed Forces for over a decade; yet even the soldiers I talked to at the 101st told us how surprised they were at how resourceful and creative the Ukrainians were in using and maintaining these systems. Ukrainian soldiers clearly have the ingenuity as well as the will and the determination to fight. If we continue to provide them with these tools that they need to be able to be successful, Ukraine will persevere over time and preserve its freedom and independence from Russian domination. The point I would like to make, really, is that what we did here in this Chamber by voting for this aid that resulted in these HIMARS is making a huge difference in Ukraine. After meeting with President Zelenskyy, we visited some of the suburbs outside Kyiv. Collectively, these places tell the story of Russia's failed attempt to capture Kyiv. We first visited Irpin. It is a small town about 30 minutes outside of Kyiv. Before the war, Irpin was a quiet town where people lived and worked in peace, but Russia's invasion in February brought horrific violence there. As these pictures show our walking through Kyiv--Senator Klobuchar and myself--you can see the destruction to the civilian targets, to these apartment buildings. The Russian forces assaulted Irpin with no regard for civilian property or civilian life. Everywhere we looked, we saw destroyed businesses, apartment buildings, cars. We saw bullet holes everywhere, massive holes in the sides of buildings. You can see where tank rounds were fired through buildings. We also saw small craters in parking lots from mortars. Thankfully, a lot of the civilians were able to flee the violence just before the Russians reached the city, but not all had that opportunity. Irpin's mayor estimated that up to 300 civilians were killed in Russia's assault on the town. We also visited the nearby town of Bucha--a name that has, unfortunately, become synonymous with war crimes and Russia's atrocities during this war. During the few weeks that Russian soldiers controlled this small town in March and April, unspeakable crimes were committed there, including rape and torture and the executions of hundreds of civilians. Senator Klobuchar and I went to the Church of St. Andrew--a beautiful church but, sadly, also the site of a mass grave dug by Russian soldiers. There, the Russians buried dozens of innocent Ukrainians, civilians who were tortured and murdered at the hands of the Russians. Our visits to Irpin and Bucha were sobering. It is one thing to see the destruction of apartments and other civilian targets on television; it is another to see it firsthand and to talk to the people--the locals, the residents--about what happened. It is hard to believe that such things can happen in the 21st century. Senator Klobuchar and I also visited Hostomel Airport, which is outside of Kyiv. This photograph is of the airport and of some of the destruction there. This is the Deputy Minister of Interior of Ukraine, who joined us there. This airport was meant to be Russia's forward operating base for its assault on Kyiv. It was assaulted by elite Russian airborne forces and experienced Chechen fighters on the very first day of the war--February 24--with a plan to secure the airport and use it for ferrying in troops and equipment and flying in Russian forces to take over Kyiv and take over the country. However, these troops had landed deep into Ukrainian territory, and brave Ukraine soldiers--mostly inexperienced but highly motivated national guard troops--counterattacked the Russian invaders at the airport and fought ferociously. Remember, these were elite Russian airborne troopers who had come into this airport. Yet they were defeated by Ukraine's national guardsmen, most of whom had never seen combat before. We had the opportunity to speak with some of the soldiers who were there at Hostomel Airport during Russia's initial assault. The national guard commander, who was there that day, told us about his unit's heroic efforts to defend the airport that day and the next day and the next day and about the men he lost, including several captured soldiers who are still prisoners of Russia 6 months later. I asked him how they could have been successful beating the odds. He said simply: We were fighting to defend our families, our freedom . . . our homeland, and that's why we won. Hostomel Airport is where Ukrainian forces won their first major victory against the Russian invaders and where they stopped Russia's northern advance dead in its tracks. If you look at this map, you can see what the Russians intended to do and what actually happened. They intended to come into the airport here, north and east of town, take over Kyiv, topple the government, and eventually take over all of Ukraine. Eventually, because of the fighting and the Ukrainian troops that pushed back, they ended up going through Belarus, back into Russia, and now are in this area. So if this war had not been successfully prosecuted at Hostomel Airport, it would have been a very different outcome. You would have seen Kyiv fall. You would have seen the President's government fall-- the duly elected government of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy--the Rada, the Parliament, fall. This war could have been over very soon if that had happened. But, thankfully, it did not. And, again, it is because of the bravery and courage of the Ukrainian National Guard. Hostomel Airport, to me, is a symbol of Ukrainian resistance, of Ukrainian victory in the face of overwhelming odds. And I was very honored to meet some of the brave heroes who were there that day and liberated the airport. We also met with members of Ukraine's Parliament, called the Rada, from various political parties, including David Arakhamia. David is the majority leader in the Parliament and one of Ukraine's chief negotiators with the Russians. We spoke about the current state of the war and the future of the conflict, including possible paths of victory for Ukraine. The consensus was that the only way that Russia would come to the bargaining table would be if the sanctions could be further tightened and if the Ukrainians continued to make progress on the battlefield. Victories in the east and the south give Ukraine more leverage at the bargaining table when negotiations begin. That is why it is so important, you see here in the light blue, some of the success the Ukrainian soldiers have had recently, even in the last week or so, as well as up here around Kharkiv. In each of our meetings--with the 101st Airborne, the President and his top advisers, the Secretary of Defense--we spoke extensively about ensuring proper oversight and accountability for U.S.-provided assistance, including military assistance. The 101st Airborne told us they had a sophisticated ``end-use monitoring'' program for weapons with the ability to track all of the military equipment being transferred to Ukraine. I am happy to report that much progress is being made on that front. The United States has spent billions of dollars to support Ukrainians in the defense of their nation, and it was appropriate. But Ukrainian officials understand that it is important that we provide transparency to this funding. They do not take it for granted. They know this funding is ultimately accountable to the U.S. taxpayer. They are eager to demonstrate to their allies to the West that they are using these weapons and this equipment properly and to great effect on the battlefield. So we have good partners here who want to be sure that we do have this transparency. They have been providing significant visibility on the weapons and equipment, we learned, as it has been received from the United States, and they will continue to do so. The goal is to be able to track the delivery of every single weapon down to the individual serial number all the way to the frontlines. We left this trip with several takeaways. First, the genuine gratitude of the Ukrainian people and the government of Ukraine, the feeling of common cause with the people of America. Forty-plus countries have provided military equipment and other support. The Ukrainians recognize that if it weren't for these weapons and training that the United States and our allies have provided to Ukraine, their country might very well be part of Russia today. And they know that America has led the efforts. Some officers from Embassy Kyiv told us that a few weeks ago, they ordered takeout from a restaurant. They got some cheeseburgers. And in the bag that was delivered to the Embassy, the local restaurant personnel had written: Thank you for the HIMARS. Remember, HIMARS are these rocket assault systems. HIMARS has now become a household name in Ukraine. They are so appreciative that they have the ability to defend themselves. Second, it was remarkable to Senator Klobuchar and me to learn just how much of an impact our military assistance is having on the battlefield. In the opening stages of the war, that was the Javelins-- remember, the anti-tank missiles that were a decisive weapon that halted the slow advance of the Russian armored columns toward Kyiv. Now, in this stage of the war, it is the HIMARS and the anti-aircraft weaponry. Every day, Ukrainian forces are pounding Russian positions all across the frontlines, particularly in the south. In fact, the day before we arrived in Kyiv, they launched their long-awaited counteroffensive in southern Ukraine. And from what I hear in Ukraine from both U.S. and Ukrainian officials, it is clear this counteroffensive would not have been possible without our help. HIMARS strikes have softened up Russia's position in the south and made it possible for the counteroffensive that is going on right here, tonight, as we speak. Again, as you may recall, the Russian artillery was out of reach before and was just pounding Ukrainian forces and civilians with impunity. HIMARS have also struck command posts, which is very important because that has crippled Russia's ability to effectively command and control its forces. They have also struck some really important bridges across the country, including one here that is incredibly important to Russia to be able to supply its troops. So this has isolated some of these Russian forces and prevented them from being able to maneuver to support one another. Our assistance in Ukraine is having a significant and positive impact on the battlefield, and we must not stop now and squander the progress that we have made. The money is being well-spent in the defense of freedom. The weapons we are providing are giving the Ukrainians a real chance at leveling this battlefield and giving them an opportunity to win back their lost territory. My third takeaway from this trip is that we need to do more for Ukraine both in the short term and the long term. President Zelenskyy made an appeal to Senator Klobuchar and me for the United States to provide Ukraine with ATACMS, which are Army Tactical Missile Systems. These can be fired from the HIMARS launchers currently in Ukraine, and they have significantly longer range and longer reach than the missiles we are currently providing. It seems to me these missiles would be an important part of their arsenal, from what we learned from both American and Russian briefing and Ukrainian briefings. President Zelenskyy also requested more air defense systems: short, medium, and long-range. His rationale was very simple. He wants the 7 million Ukrainians who have left his country to be able to return, and they want to return. Having met with refugees in two previous trips this year to the border of Poland, Moldova, and talked to these refugees, all of them want to go back. But when it is safe, they will be able to go back. So having more air defense systems at every range-- short, medium, and long-range--would enable people to come back. This is crucial because this is one of the issues now, is that Ukraine's economy has been reduced by about 40 percent because of the terrible war that is being waged. If these people could move back to Ukraine, get back to work as normal, pay taxes, begin to become part of the economy again, this would be the most helpful thing to Ukraine's budget problems and their economic woes. With a layered air defense system, they could close its skies to the Russian missiles, protect its people, and get life across much of Ukraine back to normal. I am glad the Biden administration has already acted on some of the request to provide more protection for the skies by pledging eight National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, or NASAMS, in conjunction with our German allies. I urge the Biden administration and other partners to do more to respond to this request. Ukraine is where we are engaging in the fight for freedom in this generation. And it is not just about Ukraine. For years, Russia and China have been saying that the West is in decline, that the United States and our allies are weak-willed and untrustworthy. That is certainly what President Putin thought when he invaded Ukraine. He thought he would divide NATO, divide the West, and that we would not respond; that Ukraine and our allies would fold; that we would just stand aside and let it happen. We have proved him wrong so far, not only by aiding Ukraine but protecting the region. The recent announcement that we were sending 250 of the best tanks in the world--the Abrams battle tanks, which are made in my home State of Ohio--to Poland is a commitment to the region. It is a commitment to Eastern Europe. This will send a critical message to Russia that the United States stands for freedom not only in Ukraine, but all throughout Europe and the world. I thank our European allies for all they are doing as well and urge them to continue to step up their support for Ukraine. After all, their own ability to remain free may very well rest on Ukraine remaining free. As one Ukrainian told me on this trip: Ukraine is the shield for democracy for Europe. We must show Vladimir Putin's cynicism about the West, that he is wrong. America has always stood by its values: freedom, democracy, and the right of nations to chart their own futures and to live in peace with their neighbors. We cannot stop now. Most of us who serve in this Chamber understand that, and so do the vast majority of American people. Ten days ago, before I headed overseas, I marched in the Ukraine Independence Day Parade in Parma, OH, just outside of Cleveland. I was with two national leaders in the Ukrainian community: Marta Liscynesky and Andy Futey. I proudly marched with them. There were over 60 entrants in this parade. It went on and on and on. The large turnout, both in terms of participants and spectators, was a demonstration of the support for Ukraine. Ohio is home to tens of thousands of Ukrainian Americans who do not want to see Ukraine become part of some renewed Russian empire. They want Ukraine--their homeland--to remain free and sovereign. And the so- called Nationalities Community--from Slovenians to Poles, from Georgians to Lithuanians--all have the same understanding of the direct threat that Russia poses. They know Ukraine is on the frontlines of a larger battle for freedom. So many Ohioans have rallied together to support Ukraine from all backgrounds. In closing, I want to thank everyone who helped make our important trip possible, including the State Department and our allies in Ukraine and including our military colleagues in Poland. It is important that Congress continue to show our strong support for Ukraine, particularly during this critical period for the country's future. The stakes are so high. This is a fight about global freedom, self-determination, democracy, and respect for territorial integrity. All of us--the United States and our allies--need to stand up because the alternative is a far more dangerous and volatile world, and that affects all of us. Forty-two freedom-loving allies of the United States have stood together in support of Ukraine militarily. Dozens of others have helped in other ways. But all nations around the world are carefully paying attention to what happens in Ukraine, not just our allies but also our adversaries. We have shown the world that America and allies didn't back down after 6 weeks, not even after 6 months. We haven't faltered. We must commit to continuing to help Ukraine defend itself until Vladimir Putin understands that Russia's borders end where freedom begins. ``Slava Ukraini'' and Godspeed to the brave soldiers of Ukraine. ``Heroyam Slava.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is a really easy one. Let's trade bureaucracy and more funding in this bill for bureaucracy at the Department of Homeland Security for desperately needed technology along the southern border to stop deadly fentanyl from coming into our communities. Tragically, over 100,000 Americans were killed last year, which is a record, from drug overdoses. Two-thirds of those overdoses were from these synthetic opioids, like fentanyl. We know that the vast majority of that fentanyl originates with drug cartels in Mexico now, and there is a surge of these deadly drugs coming across our southern border. This amendment increases funding for Customs and Border Protection by $500 million for badly needed technology to detect fentanyl and other drugs. If you can believe it, right now, only 2 percent of cars--2 percent--and 14, 15, 16 percent, maybe, of commercial vehicles are being screened. Both GAO and the Department of Homeland Security IG have done reports saying we badly need this technology, and it is available. We need the funding. The funding is more than offset by reducing huge funding increases in this bill for this Office of Chief Readiness at the Department of Homeland Security. So this money stays at DHS. Let's make it a higher priority to stop and detect these deadly poisons coming into our communities.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to talk about the partisan reconciliation legislation that is before us tonight. It is named the Inflation Reduction Act, but that is misnamed because, unfortunately, it does not reduce inflation; it actually makes things worse. When you are at the gas pump or at the grocery store or buying something anywhere today, you are feeling the sticker shock. Yet this legislation is going to make it even worse. It adds $700 billion more in spending and over $300 billion more in new taxes at the worst possible time, increasing costs to consumers and actually making inflation worse. The nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model that a lot of us have used over the years to look at various legislation predicts that it will actually increase inflation over the next 2 years. While over time it says that may even out, it won't decrease inflation as the name suggests and the bill sponsors claim. Why? Well, primarily because when you put $300 billion-plus of new taxes in the economy, it actually hurts workers and it hurts consumers. Yes, they are saying it is going to go to companies, but what happens then? Companies pass it along. And at a time when we have the worst inflation in over 40 years, that is bad for the economy. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation that we have to rely on here in Congress--not a partisan group but nonpartisan--says this bill will hurt Americans in nearly every tax bracket. They say that more than half of the burden of the over $300 billion in new taxes is going to fall on folks making less than $400,000 a year. Well, that directly contradicts promises made not to increase taxes on Americans at that level. While I am glad the blow to manufacturers has been somewhat softened in the last 24 hours, with the latest version of the bill, what the Democrats did was essentially exchange one bad tax--the book tax on manufacturers--for another bad tax, a tax that will tax stock buybacks, that is going to hurt particularly Americans who are trying to save for retirement. Let me start with the book tax. This is a proposed tax that is very different from the existing corporate income tax which is based on income that business report to the IRS when they file their taxes. That IRS income, by the way, is defined by the U.S. Congress. Here in the Senate, we debate that all the time: Is it good to have a particular tax incentive or another tax incentive, that is not in the book tax? The book tax, instead, looks at a company's financial statement. And that is what this new bill does. In fact, it comes up with a whole other definition of tax and, therefore, another tax system called the adjusted financial statement income. This is broader than the IRS income. It is not fair. It is way too complicated, and it is going to hurt employees and consumers. Taxable income owed the IRS is meant to raise revenue, and, again, it includes these incentives or disincentives for certain activity like being able to immediately deduct the cost of new equipment, if you are a manufacturer. We want to encourage that, particularly in periods of high inflation, so we allow them to do that. The financial statement income is not determined by us. It is not determined by elected representatives at all. In fact, Congress does not have anything to do with it. It is actually determined by something called the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which is a private nonprofit recognized by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as the accounting standard setting for private companies. That may work fine for determining accounting standards, but this change effectively puts these people in control of what the corporate tax base is, even though they are not elected to anything. That doesn't make sense. Let's not set up a whole new tax system for some companies. Let's learn from the past. Back in 1986, when we passed a big tax reform bill, they put a book tax in place, and it was repealed less than 3 years later. Why? Because it was viewed as unfair, way too complicated, and, actually, they thought that you shouldn't have these nonelected officials deciding what the taxes ought to be. They said it was bad for the economy, too, because companies were managing to the book tax rather than the IRS tax. So let's learn from the past. Why would we want to do that again, set up a whole other tax system, tax the American economy, tax consumers, tax workers, and do so through something that in 1986, we looked at and decided this is not working? So Democrats will say tonight, Well, this new complicated tax system is just going to affect big companies. That is true. But you know what, big companies employ a lot of people, and a lot of people are going to be hurt. They also sell to a lot of consumers, all of us who will be hurt. Last year, there were over 200 companies listed on the Fortune 500 as meeting the criteria that is set out in this legislation. They employ over 18 million Americans. It is those employees and those who are customers who are going to bear the brunt of these tax increases as it is passed down to them in the form of lower wages, lower benefits, and higher prices for goods and services. The Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan group, just last year said they expected 25 percent of these corporate taxes to fall on workers; again, this means lower wages. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that employees and workers bear more like 70 percent of the burden of income taxes, so there is a long list of analyses in- between. Let's say between 25 percent and 70 percent of these taxes are going to fall on workers in the form of lower pay and lower benefits at a time when wages are not keeping up with inflation that is getting higher and higher. And, by the way, it is not just wages I am talking about; families will now face even higher prices as the cost of corporate taxes get passed along to them. In a study last year performed by the business schools at the University of Chicago and Northwestern, they found that 31 percent of corporate taxes fall on consumers through higher retail prices. Aren't prices high enough? Dems have just added another new tax in the past 24 hours. Democrats now say we are going to have this complicated tax called an excise tax on stock buybacks. Again, this is instead of some of the tax they had in the other new tax that they put forward called the book tax. Now, Democrats tonight will talk about how taxing buybacks is good because it somehow hurts Wall Street fat cats. Here is the truth: It increases the price of stocks to allow buybacks, and by taking away that incentive by putting a tax on it, there will be less of it. So the reality is this is a tax on working families, including those trying to save for retirement when they are already dealing with the struggling portfolios due to the recent economic contraction and the record inflation we are experiencing. Fifty-eight percent of Americans own stock, and 60 million investors invest in an IRA or a 401(k). We want people to save for retirement; it is a good thing. We want them to have healthy retirement. So when Democrats say they worry about stock prices going up, I have to ask: Are they worried about people having a healthy retirement account? Again, when companies buy back stock, it generally causes that stock to go up, which means it makes Americans' retirement accounts that much larger. Why is that a problem? The Tax Foundation says retirement accounts own 37 percent of all corporate stock. That is about $8\1/2\ trillion in retirement funds, $8\1/2\ trillion of retirement funds own corporate stock. Americans lost about $2 trillion in their IRAs during the COVID crisis. Let's not encourage them to lose anymore. Some will say, this is just 1 percent. Well, we know that once a tax is initiated, it tends to increase. This is the camel's nose under the tent. The first income tax in 1913, by the way, was 1 percent and just on top earners. I think a lot of middle-income earners right now would be happy to have a tax rate that low. This type of proposal will impact families and their retirement, and for that reason, we should not even go down this path. Democrats will also tax employee stock ownership programs, or ESOPS, in this package. I think some of my colleagues might be surprised to hear that. ESOPS are plans to give employees ownership of their own companies, with tax incentives for the dividends to go to their retirement savings. They are really popular. ESOPS work; they are great. They enjoy wide bipartisan support here in the Congress. Employees have this ownership stake, and because of that, those companies tend to do better. Employees are happier. They are more profitable. They are more productive. The companies benefit from it. I don't understand why Democrats want to punish this ownership structure. Doing so will, once again, discourage investment and hard work, and it could not come at a worse time. That is why I want to introduce an amendment tonight that will exempt ESOPS from the minimum book tax. This is a commonsense amendment-- nothing complicated about it. It will encourage savings and investment; it is good for the country; and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who support ESOPS to support the amendment. I also plan to offer an amendment that will increase funding for Customs and Border Patrol by $500 million that will be used for new technology to detect fentanyl and other dangerous drugs that are, unfortunately, flooding across our southern border. Over 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses last year, the worst year on record. Unfortunately, more and more people are dying of overdoses, and they are dying from this synthetic opioid called fentanyl. About two-thirds of those overdose deaths were due to fentanyl. At a time when deadly fentanyl is flooding across the border, only 2 percent of cars and only 16 percent of commercial vehicles are being screened. Now, these drugs come across the ports of entry where only 2 percent of cars and 16 percent of trucks are being screened. They also come between the ports of entry, but at a minimum, we should be able to do screening of these vehicles and trucks. It is a gaping hole in our border security, and it has got to be fixed. This amendment will simply assure that the new funds in this bill for the Department of Homeland Security bureaucracy, for an office called Readiness, $500 million will be assigned to a higher priority, to have Customs and Border Protection be able to detect and stop deadly fentanyl that is being smuggled into this country at record levels. So this money would stay at the Department of Homeland Security. It will instead be used for a more urgent priority. Let's be serious about our national security and this drug crisis we face, and let's give the Border Patrol what they need to counter the drug cartels and the traffickers. Tonight, I also plan to offer an amendment to ensure the new postal electric vehicles are actually made in the United States of America. In this bill, there is a $3 billion appropriation to the Postal Service. We just went through postal reform, as some of you know, we provided them additional funding that they needed. This is an additional $3 billion appropriation to buy electric vehicles and charging infrastructure. However, there is no requirement that these vehicles be made in America, with U.S. batteries and other components. In other words, the bill uses taxpayer funds to buy electric vehicles that can be made with Chinese batteries and Chinese critical minerals. We know that this is counter to everything we are trying to do around here. We just passed legislation to make us more competitive with China. Again, we just passed legislation to provide the Postal Service with funds for new vehicles, including electric vehicles. The Postmaster General just made a decision to go from 10 percent electric to 20 percent to 50 percent. That is already happening. But in that case, there are requirements; in this case, there are not. We know that Democrats believe that when we are expanding electric vehicles, that we ought to ensure that these vehicles are being made in America. How do we know that? Because in another part of the bill, which is the expansion of the electric vehicle tax credit, Democrats included new requirements that the tax credit award EVs made in the United States with American components. My amendment would simply apply these identical requirements to these new electric postal delivery vehicles. Both involve taxpayer subsidies. What is good for the American driver should be good for the Postal Service. My hope is this misnamed ``Inflation Reduction Act'' can be stopped before it makes things worse, but at least I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look at these commonsense amendments and accept some of these amendments. Some, I have laid out, and some others, I have talked about tonight to improve a flawed bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Ohio, Senator Brown, and I thank him for working with us on this bipartisan legislation that impacts thousands of retirees in our home State of Ohio. In the summer of 2009, as the Federal Government took General Motors into bankruptcy, the Obama administration terminated the pension plans covering thousands of Delphi workers. While union employees were protected, these 20,000 salaried retirees, ranging from shop floor supervisors and salespeople to engineers, office managers, were left out. They had spent many years working at Delphi, a major employer and economic engine in Dayton, OH, in Youngstown, OH, and in Sandusky, OH. These people had followed the rules. They had earned their pensions the American way, through hard work and dedication and contribution. But instead of honoring the promises that had been made to these salaried, middle income employees after 30, 40 years of service, the administration terminated their pensions. People who had worked hard their entire lives and played by the rules saw benefits cut by as much as 70 percent. It is just not fair and no fault of their own, and it has devastated some of them, particularly those who have healthcare issues in their later years, who have not been able to lead the standard of living that they assumed they would, based on the pensions they had. So it is about fairness, and it is very simple. It ensures that these Delphi retirees receive the retirement benefits they were promised. It would reinstate their pension plan and restore their benefits that were unnecessarily and unfairly reduced. Some of my colleagues may characterize this as a bailout, but I respectfully must correct the record. The Delphi pension was over 80 percent funded when the Federal Government terminated the pensions in 2009 and took over these assets. By the way, it would have been fully funded by the next year based on all the data we now have showing what happened with market conditions. So it was 80 percent funded when the government stepped in and said that it was massively underfunded, and a year later it would have been fully funded. Despite this, the government, again, treated the pensions as though they were underfunded and slashed the benefits. It is simply about keeping our promises to these workers. There were 20,000 participants. Some say: Well, that is not a lot of people. Well, to them, it is really important, and it is really important to Ohio. About a quarter of those 20,000 live in our home State of Ohio. That is why I am proud to stand with them, my colleagues from Ohio, and with others here in this body and over in the House to ensure that fairness is what they get at the end of the day. This should not be controversial legislation, in my view. I am pleased to say that it has bipartisan support. We just saw 36 Republicans support this on the House side. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to also support these workers, to make them whole with this legislation so that we can make good on the Federal Government's promise to them. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am on the floor today with Senator Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire to join in a colloquy regarding what is happening in Ukraine. This is the 20th time in so many weeks that I have come to the floor to talk about the illegal, unprovoked, and brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Today, I look forward to being with my colleague Senator Shaheen, a member of the Ukraine Caucus and someone with whom I have traveled to Ukraine and also to the border of Ukraine and Poland to meet with the refugees. Senator Shaheen is going to talk, I think, a little about how we got to where we are and what we do going forward. I was also recently made aware of the fact that we are going to take up the NATO ratification vote today. And this is to have the United States approve the addition of Sweden and Finland to the NATO alliance. This is great for the alliance. It is great for the United States. And I believe it is also-- otherwise, they wouldn't be interested--very good for the people of Finland and Sweden. They add a lot to the NATO alliance. They are militarily and economically in a position to be valuable contributors. They also, in the case of Finland, share the largest land border with Russia of any country. They have understandable concerns with what they see happening in Ukraine. I just believe it is very much in our national security interests and the interests of people I represent to have, in addition, even further strengthening of the NATO alliance through the addition of these two partners. Vladimir Putin thought he was going to split NATO apart when he began his invasion of Ukraine, I believe. And today, he is finding just the opposite has happened. NATO has come together in ways we have never seen. And we now have, again, the addition of two very strong members of NATO who are longtime allies of the United States and will add significantly to the NATO alliance. With regard to Ukraine, let's start with a little history. Ukrainians have faced adversity from Russia for hundreds of years. This is not new to them. Russia's oppression of Ukraine is not a 21st century issue. For 300 years, under the brutal rule of the Russian czars, Ukrainians were subjected to repeated efforts to stamp out their language, their culture, and their identity. In January of 1918, Ukrainians got their first taste of national freedom. While Russia was dealing with the chaos of the Bolshevik Revolution, Ukraine declared its independence from the Russian Empire. Unfortunately, this freedom was short-lived. Just a few years later, the Bolsheviks conquered Ukraine and subsumed it into the Soviet Union. As an unwilling member of the Soviet Empire, Ukrainians suffered horrific atrocities at the hands of their Soviet overlords. In 1932 and again in 1933, the Stalinist regime confiscated grain harvests across Ukraine and imposed a premeditated manmade famine against the people of Ukraine. This horrific atrocity is known as the Holodomor. Millions of men, women, and children were starved to death in a deliberate effort to break the Ukrainian nation's resistance to communist occupation. Stalin even ordered the borders of the country to be sealed to prevent anyone from escaping this manmade starvation and to prevent the delivery of any international food aid. In 2018, Senator Durbin and I introduced a resolution to commemorate the 85th anniversary of the Holodomor and to recognize the Commission on the Ukraine Famine's findings that the Holodomor was a genocide--no question. I am grateful to Senator Shaheen, Senator Tillis, and others who are in the Chamber today for cosponsoring that resolution. It passed in October of 2018 unanimously here in the U.S. Senate. The Holodomor failed to extinguish the Ukrainian people's identity, as hard as they tried, but it was not the end of the Soviet oppression. In the 1970s, the Soviet leadership imposed a crackdown on Ukrainian intellectuals and those with any sort of leanings toward independence or toward the West. The prisons and gulags became filled with Ukrainian political prisoners as the Soviet Union once again tried to assault Ukrainian identity. But then, in 1991, after years of oppression, Ukraine finally broke away from its Russian rulers for good. Ukraine declared its independence on August 24 that year, and in December, the declaration was confirmed by a referendum in which over 90 percent of the Ukrainian people voted in favor of independence. This chart shows the amazing response of the people of Ukraine to that. Ninety-five percent of the people in the Kyiv area, as you can see, supported independence. By the way, Russians often say that Crimea really was not part of Ukraine. Well, more than half of the people in Crimea were for independence as well. But Russia's crimes against the people of Ukraine continue to this day. Last week, a video was circulated online of a Russian soldier torturing and mutilating a Ukrainian prisoner. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident. After this, the Ukrainian soldier was shot dead and dragged with a rope into a shallow grave by his Russian captors. We have all seen the pictures from Bucha--people assassinated, people with their hands tied behind their back. Elsewhere in Ukraine, a Russian missile attack struck a prison in Donetsk that was housing Ukrainian prisoners of war. This chart shows that prison and the fact that it was attacked by missiles. Many of these soldiers were involved in the heroic defense of the Azovstal steel factory in Mariupol. They held out for weeks against Russian assaults on the plant. At least 40 Ukrainian POWs, maybe more, were killed in this assault. These are POWs. These were soldiers who were lawful prisoners of war, supposedly protected by the Geneva Convention. Russia's murder of these POWs is a war crime. And Russia must be held accountable for this and all its countless crimes in Ukraine. But following its usual playbook, Russia is spreading massive amounts of disinformation regarding this incident and so many others. They claim that the Ukrainian forces killed these prisoners as a way to discourage other soldiers from surrendering. This, of course, is nonsense. Among other things, Ukraine needs the manpower. Why would they kill their own soldiers instead of getting them back in a prisoner swap that everybody assumed was going to happen? It makes little sense, but it has never stopped Russia from propagating lies to deflect blame from its own crimes. And, unsurprisingly, the Red Cross still has not been granted access to the site by Russia, which clearly needs more time to cover up the evidence of its involvement before they allow any kind of inspection. Let the Red Cross in. Those responsible for these atrocities must be held to account. This is one reason why Senator Shaheen and I last week cosponsored a resolution to recognize what is happening in Ukraine as genocide. Across the country, Ukrainian women and children have been subjected to indiscriminate Russian missile strikes and airstrikes. It has killed thousands of innocents; not combatants, noncombatants--children. A few weeks ago, I spoke about little Liza, a 4-year-old girl with autism who was killed by a Russian missile strike in Vinnytsia. When Ukrainian First Lady Olena Zelenska was in town a couple of weeks ago, she spoke about a 3-year-old boy who just learned how to use a prosthetic. Imagine that, an innocent 3-year-old boy who has been forced to learn how to use a prosthetic limb because of a Russian airstrike on civilian targets. These stories are hard to hear and hard to tell, but the world must know about them. This is the reality that all Ukrainians are facing. Unsurprisingly, the people of Ukraine are responding to these atrocities. A possible Ukrainian counteroffensive may be unfolding in the south, in the direction of Kherson. We have heard about this in the popular media. Kherson is here. It is near the Black Sea Port of Odesa. This southern part of Ukraine is incredibly important for Ukraine's economy, and Russia knows that. Remember, Kherson was the first major Ukrainian city to fall to the Russian forces after Russia's full-scale invasion began in February of this year. But now, Ukrainian soldiers are conducting missile strikes against Russian military infrastructure in the area to weaken Russia's defenses. They are also conducting limited ground attacks and liberating parts of this territory that Russia has illegally taken. You can see that in light blue. The significance of recapturing Kherson cannot be overestimated. It would undo one of Russia's earliest successes in the war. It is also important that Ukraine regain control of much of its Black Sea coast as possible. This is the Ukrainian economy's primary connection to the rest of the world. Russia, of course, has sought to capture this coastline in order to economically strangle Ukraine. We talked last week about what they are doing in Odesa. They finally decided they were going to let ships come out of Odesa, and they made an agreement that they would not continue to bomb Odesa and certainly not bomb any port facilities. Within 12 hours, they bombed port facilities in Odesa. That is how much the Russian commitment meant. But a ship finally has sailed from Odesa, and we hope many more will go. If Ukraine is successful in its efforts here in the south, it will undermine President Putin and his attempts to make a Russian victory in Ukraine, something that the Russians say is inevitable. While Ukraine is making progress in the south, Russia is laying the groundwork to try to annex occupied land, particularly in the east, in this area near Donetsk. Occupation means that the Russians themselves are distributing Russian passports, paying salaries in Russian rubles, and expediting Russian citizens for Ukrainian citizens. There are reports that Russia will stage a sham referendum in this area to try to legitimize their illegal annexation. Senior Kremlin officials have warned Russia will never leave areas of Kherson, in the south here, where Russian forces have been occupying the territory. Before the invasion, these cities were home to more than 2.5 million Ukrainians in this area--2.5 million Ukrainians. One prominent Kremlin propagandist said: Ukraine as it was cannot continue to exist. This person continued. There will not be the Ukraine that we have known for many years. It won't be Ukraine any longer. Clearly, that is the Russian intent. Vladimir Putin has said his ambition is even more. It is to fully restore the borders of the old Soviet Union. We must make sure he knows that Ukraine in 2022 is not Ukraine of 1921, which the Russian Bolsheviks conquered and forced into the Soviet empire. We know how to help Ukraine to keep this from happening. It is to provide them what they need to defend themselves. We have recently provided Ukraine with what we call High Mobility Artillery Systems, or HIMARS. Many of us have been advocating for that. We are glad to see that there are some HIMARS now in the theater. These have been critical to the recent Ukrainian military successes. So this Congress has made a difference. We provided funding. We have gotten some equipment into the area that the Ukrainians need to be able to defend themselves and to have some sort of a level playing field with Russia's much bigger Army. Officials have said that with the help of these HIMARS, Ukraine has taken out Russian high-value targets and destroyed them and saved countless Ukrainian lives. These include ammunition depots and targets from long distances. HIMARS have also conducted many of these strikes in southern Ukraine, I talked about earlier, to make progress here in the Kherson area. Russians have similar long-range artillery that previously allowed them to fire on Ukrainian forces with impunity. They could sit back and fire and level cities and kill civilians and kill Ukrainian military personnel. But they couldn't be reached by the Ukrainians. Now the Ukrainians have taken themselves out of that danger zone because these HIMARS can balance the playing field and have that longer range and the accuracy they need. I think there are about 15 in theater now. There are also a few from Germany and a few from the UK. But they need more. They said they need 40 to 50 and the munitions to be able to make them effective. That is something that we should be focused on. We should be focused on providing them, again, what they need to actually win this conflict. I believe we also have to continue to provide the Ukrainians with other weapons as well, including the Army Tactical Missile System, or the ATACMS. This missile, which can be launched from the same HIMARS launchers that we have already been giving to Ukraine, has a longer range of 300 kilometers. In a war like this one that is increasingly becoming an artillery duel, range is a decisive factor. These missiles would allow Ukraine to turn the tables on the Russians, whereas Ukraine used to be outranged by the Russian artillery. With the ATACMS missiles, we would be able to help Ukraine be able to strike important Russian targets with impunity themselves. This is important because Ukraine is now using these weapons in this counteroffensive in Kherson. The Institute for the Study of War--a think tank here in Washington, DC--has said recently this offensive to take out Russia is in the works, and Ukrainians are using HIMARS to strike targets effectively 50 miles away. It is helping. We made a difference. Former security adviser to the Ukrainian Government Alexander Khara told Newsweek the state of Russian morale in the south means a counteroffensive ``has an excellent chance of success.'' He continued. The Russians suffer from poor morale, logistical troubles, and the horror of HIMARS. So the evidence is clear as to why we should continue to send them weapons they need to be able to not just survive but to win this conflict. By the way, we have hundreds of HIMARS in our stocks that are currently not with Active units. So we have the ability to help more. This war has now crossed over the 5-month mark. Since before the invasion began, I have come to this floor a number of times to talk about what needs to be done, as has Senator Shaheen, as have others. I have mentioned the fact that we sent billions in military aid and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and that it is working. Particularly, as we see with some of these new weapons, it is making a difference. It will help these brave warriors and their most vulnerable noncombatants--the kids and the children--be able to survive and be able, in the case of the military, to be able to start making progress to push out the Russian invaders. Democrats and Republicans alike have sounded the alarm with bipartisan pushes and legislation to help Ukraine. We have urged--with success, by the way--that the United States cut off our own Russian oil and gas. We are now urging the Europeans to do the same. We have talked about the need for more weapons, for more sanctions, to remove all of Russia's banks' access to the global financial system--or the SWIFT system--to suspend our tax treaty with Moscow, to explore options to remove other tax benefits, and to remove access to the U.S. market. All of this is necessary, on the military side, the humanitarian side, the economic side, and the sanctions side in order to have a victory. I fear sometimes with regard to the military assistance that we have been doing too little, too late. We can't continue to do too little, too late. This is a struggle. It is a struggle between freedom and democracy and the right of self- determination on the one hand and on the other hand, Russian aggression unprovoked, a brutal conquest, authoritarianism, and tyranny. President Putin's ambitions lie well beyond Ukraine. We must continue to show him the West continues to stand united. We need to show Ukraine the world stands with them. This is why it is so important that Sweden and Finland have chosen to join NATO, and we must support them in that. All this, by the way, transcends the political spectrum, and I have certainly seen that. Senator Shaheen and I have shown that in our work to aid Ukraine. It is not a political issue. It is not a Republican or Democrat issue. We are stepping up in support of our democratic ally together. As the fight rages on, the perseverance and self-determination of Ukrainians seem to grow even stronger. We have seen their resilience in the face of daily bombardments. We have seen their resilience in the face of Russia's broken promises when, counter to their commitments, Russia has attacked ports, as I said, and humanitarian corridors. The Ukrainian people are fighting for their homeland, for their families, for their freedom. It is impressive and inspiring to see what they are doing. The Senate is going to break for an August recess here in the next few days. Even though we won't be on the floor every week to continue to fight for the Ukrainian people, we will do so with our work back home, with getting more people engaged and involved in America to help on the humanitarian side. We will continue to promote the fact that the U.S. national security interest is served by helping freedom and democracy. I want to note something President Zelenskyy said recently in an address to the people of Ukraine. He said: Strategically, Russia has no chance of winning this war. And it is necessary to hold on, so that even at the tactical levels, the terror state feels its defeat. No matter what happens and no matter what the occupiers' plans are, we must do our job, protect our state and take care of each other. Let's help Ukraine finish this mission, protect their state, their democracy, and take care of each other. Let's give Ukraine the tools it needs to be able to do that. After these months of fighting and giving aid, the West must not falter during Ukraine's dire time of need. We must be there through victory for the Ukrainian people--victory for self-determination, victory for freedom. I yield to my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, my partner in this effort.

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I yield back my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I come to the floor this evening to talk about the Democrats' latest reconciliation proposal. This is the tax-and-spend legislation you have probably heard about. It is called the Inflation Reduction Act, but don't be fooled by the name. It doesn't actually decrease the inflationary pressure we all feel at the gas pump, at the grocery store, clothes shopping. It actually makes it worse. Sadly, we have been down this road before. Early last year, the Democrats passed a massive $1.9 trillion package that was supposedly focused on COVID, but most of it had nothing to with COVID but provided a lot of stimulus. It was the largest spending package ever in the history of Congress, and, at the time it passed, a lot of us said: Wow, the economy coming out of that first stage of COVID is already picking up steam. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was telling us that, by midyear last year, we would be back to where we were prepandemic--pretty strong economic growth--and yet the Democrats were insisting on another $1.9 trillion, almost $2 trillion, of spending. Remember, we had just passed a $900 billion spending bill to help with COVID, which was bipartisan, by the way. I was part of putting that together. And so when it came to this new one, we said: Whoa, don't do this. It is going to overheat the economy, overstimulate the economy--particularly because inflation is about demand mismatching supply. And this is exactly what was happening. You had demand growing and supply constricted, partly because of COVID, partly because of policy decisions that were being made. So we warned that this much stimulus in the economy was going to lead to inflation, and very sadly, we were right. By the way, it wasn't just Republicans who said that. Some prominent Democrat officials said that, including some who had been senior economic advisers in the Obama administration, in the Clinton administration, including Larry Summers, who was quite prescient when he said: Gosh, we shouldn't do this because this is going to heat up the economy and cause a lot of inflation. Democrats didn't pay any attention to those concerns then. They went ahead and passed that legislation. Remember, today, we are looking at inflation that is the highest it has been in 40 years, and here we are today about to do some of the same exact things: more spending, more taxes. It is $700 billion more in spending and about $326 billion in taxes-- new taxes on the economy. It will not reduce inflation. In fact, the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model predicts it will actually increase inflation over the next 2 years and that, over time, it will be about even. But it won't decrease inflation. In fact, over the first couple of years, they say it will increase it. And the burden of the $326 billion in the tax increases is not just going to companies. It never does. It gets passed along. In this case, it falls, of course, to workers and to consumers. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation that we have to rely on up here--it is a nonpartisan group that gives us the analyses of these tax bills--it will hurt Americans in nearly every income bracket. In fact, they say more than half of the $300 million in new taxes will fall on folks making less than $400,000 a year. Why? Because, again, you are taxing a company, but the company passes that along to its workers and to its customers. And they are saying that more than half of that burden will fall on taxpayers who make less than $400,000 a year. Why do I say that? Because that is the cutoff that President Biden has always put in place, saying that no tax increases will affect anybody who makes less than 400,000 bucks a year. This one does. Again, it is based on the Joint Committee on Taxation. As part of these tax hikes, manufacturing is hit particularly hard. The Joint Committee says that about 50 percent of the impact of this tax increase is going to be on manufacturing businesses. Now, this is interesting to me because we just passed a big bill. Some call it the CHIPS bill. Some call it the China bill. Some call it the Competition bill. But it was a bill to focus on what? Making our American companies more competitive, particularly our manufacturing companies. And we are spending a lot of money--hundreds of billions of dollars--to do that. And here we are turning around and saying: No. Do you know what? We are actually going to increase taxes on these manufacturing businesses. This proposed tax is very different from the existing corporate income tax, which is based on income that these businesses actually report to the Internal Revenue Service when they file their taxes. That income has been defined by Congress over the years. It doesn't use that as the measure of income. Instead, it looks at a company's financial statements and comes up with a new definition of income called the adjusted financial statement income. This type of financial reporting is far broader because these statements were designed for very different reasons. Taxable income that the IRS is in charge of, as opposed to financial income, is meant to raise revenue and provides in our Tax Code all kinds of tax preferences, incentives, disincentives for certain activity--like being able to deduct the cost of new equipment. That is something we want to encourage. So we allow companies to do that. Like being able to take a tax credit, let's say, for energy efficiency--we want to encourage companies to do that. So that is in the tax part as opposed to the book income part. The financial statement income is not determined by elected representatives. In other words, Congress doesn't determine how you calculate that tax. The financial statement income is actually determined by something called the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which is a private nonprofit recognized by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as the accounting standard setter for public companies. Now, that works fine for determining accounting standards, but this change effectively puts these people in control of what the corporate tax base is, even though they are not elected Representatives. They are not even working for the government. They are a nonprofit. Because corporate income taxes and this book minimum tax are calculated using these very different types of information, the 15- percent minimum tax, which is a book-tax minimum tax, can actually end up being larger for companies than the 21-percent income tax--again, because it calculates it differently. It is an example of Congress avoiding its responsibility, frankly. If we think that we should charge companies more taxation, let's look at the Tax Code and let's get rid of some of these tax preferences that people think don't work. Let's change the Tax Code. Let's not come up with another way to calculate what the tax ought to be--determined, again, by accounting standards that are done by this nonprofit group called the Financial Accounting Standards Board. Instead of examining the Tax Code we created and the deductions and credits that exist, it simply hands the reins over to this board. Most accountants and tax experts recognize this is really a dangerous path. This is why, when it was proposed last year, 264 accounting academics wrote to Congress to warn us not to do it. They warned of the dangers of politicizing this accounting board, how that would lower the quality of financial accounting. They warned that this would change company decision making to make companies less efficient because companies are now going to manage toward the financial statement, not toward the income tax. They also warned that it would add needless and significant complexity to the Tax Code. Well, of course, you are going to calculate, now, income on two bases, with very, very different measurement and factors considered. To their credit, actually, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, who actually stand to benefit from complexity, separately also wrote us just recently a letter saying: Please don't do this. This is the CPA organization in the whole country--again, people who would benefit from complexity--but they are saying this is just bad policy. Why would you determine a company's taxation based on the book income? That is not what that is for. We should listen to these warnings, and we should also learn from history. We tried this type of tax in the form of the 1986 tax reform. We actually tried this as a country. And do you know what? It lasted 2 or 3 years, and then it was repealed. Why? Because it didn't work. The exact warnings that we just talked about ended up being true. The Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Tax Policy told the House Ways and Means Committee when it was repealed that the book tax they had then was ``having a detrimental effect on the quality of financial reporting.'' The complexity was complained about and the fact that this was not fair and was not an appropriate way to measure a company's income. Now, more than 30 years later, Democrats seem to have forgotten history and are about to repeat the same mistake. The line you are likely to hear from some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle is that this tax is just designed to make big companies pay their fair share of taxes because it only applies to companies who have more than a billion dollars in net income. Well, that is fine. But guess who pays this tax. It is not corporations that bear the brunt of it. In reality, taxes on corporate income, such as this new book minimum tax, falls on workers and it falls on consumers. And there are lots of workers and consumers who are connected with these companies. Last year, there were over 200 companies listed in the Fortune 500 as having a billion dollars in profits or more, and, by the way, they employed more than 18 million Americans. You are talking about 18 million people out there who will be affected by this, and these big companies also have a lot of consumers well beyond those 18 million. So it is the millions of people who are employees and who are customers in these businesses who bear the brunt of these tax increases as they are passed down to them in the form of lower wages, lower benefits, and higher prices for goods and services--exactly the wrong thing in this inflationary spiral we are living in now where everything costs more. Why would we want to add additional costs by saying we are going to tax these companies that are going to pass it along to their workers and to the consumers with higher prices? It doesn't matter whether you are taxing income or income on financial statements; the corporate income tax falls on these workers. Don't take my word for it. Again, the Joint Committee on Taxation just last year said that they expect about 25 percent of corporate taxes to fall on workers. This means lower wages, again, as this recession looms and as inflation hits the highest levels since 1981, 40-plus years. By the way, we just went through our second quarter of negative economic growth. Traditionally, that means a recession. That is how we define one. The administration refuses to call it a recession. I will just tell you, for people who live in my home State of Ohio-- particularly people on fixed income, lower and middle-income workers-- they are feeling it. For them, it is a recession. In addition to the Joint Committee saying that the corporate taxes fall on workers, the Congressional Budget Office--again, a nonpartisan group up here in Congress--has said that employees and workers bear more like 70 percent--70 percent--of the burden of corporate income taxes. There is a long list of analyses in between. In 2017, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, reviewed many of the available economic studies around the world that have been done and found that the best studies fall within this range of about 30 to 70 percent. Let me say that again. Overwhelmingly, economic studies support the idea that workers bear between 30 and 70 percent of the corporate tax hikes. So going after workers' wages is one heck of a strategy to bring down inflation. People are already hurting because wages are here and inflation is here. So wages haven't kept up with inflation. This will make it worse. Germany, by the way, did an analysis of corporate taxes recently and found that the burden fell hardest on low-skilled, young, and female employees, not the highest earners. The most important of these tax law changes is limiting what is called bonus depreciation. That is something that you would get as a company if you are in the regular income tax system but not under this new book tax calculation. What is bonus depreciation? Well, it allows companies to deduct the costs of investments, of new equipment in the year they are made. Under the book tax, they spread that deduction over the lifetime of the investment. In both cases, they are deducting the cost of it, but whether they can do it immediately under bonus depreciation or whether they have to do it over the course of many years matters a lot for investment decisions. Being able to deduct the cost of these investments immediately provides a big incentive for people to invest, and that is what has happened. This is not a loophole. I have heard this word: It is a loophole; we are just closing loopholes. This is not a loophole. This is a deliberate tax policy that we have put in place to help encourage companies to invest more in equipment and plan and therefore help the workers, therefore make America more competitive, and, actually, over time, it increases the tax revenue that comes in to our coffers. It is really important to encourage investment and economic growth but particularly important for manufacturers. That is why the Joint Committee on Taxation found that half of the burden of this new tax will fall on manufacturers because bonus depreciation is so important to them. This isn't unique to us. Every single developed country in the world offers a policy like bonus depreciation. Why? Because it works, because if they don't and other countries do, they can't compete. The United Kingdom is far more generous than ours, for example, for purchase of equipment. Across the assets that use this sort of what is called cost recovery, we are actually well below the average in the OECD, which is the group of about 40 highly developed countries like ours. We rank 21st now out of 38 for these types of incentives. This will make us even less competitive, meaning it is going to be better for manufacturers to invest in other countries that have better incentives rather than here in the USA. We want them to invest here. Again, we just passed legislation to provide more incentives to invest here, and now we are doing just the opposite through this book tax increase. Bonus depreciations traditionally had bipartisan support, and this sudden shift to call this bonus depreciation a loophole is a misrepresentation of what bonus depreciation does, why we have it, and how important it is for our manufacturers to compete. We expanded bonus depreciation in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. And then in 2018, the next year, and 2019, the next year after that, we had two of the best years ever for manufacturing investment, growing by 4.5 percent and then 5.7 percent, respectively. A lot of that growth was going on, prior to that time, overseas, particularly in China. And we brought investment back to the United States. This is why, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the manufacturing industry is so hit hard by this. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, in 2023, this tax increase would shrink GDP--that is our economic growth--by about $68 billion, would result in 218,000 fewer jobs, and it would have a labor decrease of about $17 billion. This is the National Association of Manufacturers telling us this week: Please don't do this. This is going to result in a job loss to over 200,000 jobs. We want to have more manufacturing jobs, not less. The workers hit hardest are those who work in manufacturing because this tax hike on physical assets will disproportionately hit manufacturing jobs. My home State of Ohio has a lot of manufacturing jobs. We are a big manufacturer. We are proud of that. We have a lot of factories. We like to make things. So it will particularly hit States like mine. But, remember, it is not just wages we are talking about. No. Workers get hit at both ends. They get hit as workers--wages and benefits--but also as consumers when they get paid and when they try to spend their money. Families facing record inflation today are facing higher prices as cost of corporate taxes get passed down to the consumer. Again, I am not going on gut feeling; although, it makes sense, doesn't it? If you tax an entity, it gets passed along in terms of the cost of the goods. I am talking about what economists are saying is going to happen when we increase taxes on American businesses. In a key study last year performed by economists at the business schools of the University of Chicago and Northwestern, they found that about 31 percent of corporate taxes fall on consumers through higher retail prices, and they warn that policymakers have been underestimating significantly how much of these taxes fall on consumers, on the people that buy these products that these companies make. Democrats are ignoring this evidence, pushing ahead with partisan legislation, without any Republican support, that will make inflation worse; that will hurt workers; that will raise prices. Again, it doesn't stop there. I can talk about how corporate taxes discourage investment, both domestic and foreign, in the United States, according to economists from the World Bank and from Harvard. I can talk about how, contrary everything the Democrats claim, corporate taxes make income inequality actually worse, increasing the income of the top earners and lowering the income of the low- and middle-income workers. This is based on a 2020 study by an economist at the University of Michigan. I can talk about the opposite side of the equation, how lowering taxes for businesses of all sizes, as we did in 2017, supports economic growth. Going into the pandemic, we had 19 straight months of wage gains of 3 percent or more. Most of that wage gain was going to lower- and middle-income workers. We had the lowest poverty rate in the history of the country. We had good things going on because you had this economic growth. You had companies paying higher wages. In the years between the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the coronavirus pandemic, again, we not only saw just an end to these corporate inversions with companies going overseas, we saw jobs and investment coming back to the United States, and we kept inflation very low. That is a far cry from the estimate that was out last week from the National Association of Manufacturers, which, again, predicts that this book tax will result in a $68 billion hit to our economy with over 200,000 fewer jobs. Prior to the pandemic, pro-growth policies led to a really strong economy with steady growth, low inflation, and real wage increases of 3 percent or higher. Instead of spending and tax hikes that are only going to add to this inflation, let's have a true Inflation Reduction Act that lowers costs to consumers by increasing supply to regulatory relief and other pro-growth policies that were working so well before the pandemic. Let's do what we know we have to do to get inflation down. It is a mismatch between demand and supply. We can, through positive pro-growth policies, increase that supply and get inflation down and ensure that American families have a better shot at their American dream. Instead, here we go again with the Inflation Reduction Act that will actually be the ``Inflation Increase Act.''