Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Daniel Davis, my speechwriter--and invaluable member of our team--be granted floor privileges until January 27, 2023.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, if I might be recognized, nearly 1 year ago, Russia launched an unprovoked, illegal, and brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. In doing so, Vladimir Putin quite literally sought to wipe a sovereign nation off the map. But as the world witnessed in the months that followed, Mr. Putin had vastly underestimated the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian leadership. Rather than capitulate, Ukrainians have resisted and saved their homeland from full-scale occupation. The courage and ingenuity shown by Ukrainian troops, many of whom were civilians before the war, continues to be nothing short of heroic. This morning, we learned of yet another act of Russian terror in the form of a barrage of drones and missiles raining down on Kyiv. This left severe casualties. This act of brute intimidation, which has become all too common over the past year, was clearly meant to break the will of the Ukrainian people as they prepare to receive more military aid from the United States and from other allies. Thankfully, Ukrainian forces successfully shot down the vast majority of those incoming projectiles using advanced air defense technology. This is just one more example of what many of us in this Chamber have asserted for months: If Ukrainians get the tools they need, they can finish the job and defeat Vladimir Putin. The harsh reality is that these kinds of attacks on Ukraine, leaving a trail of casualties in their wake, have become far too common, and if leaders across the free world had acted sooner, we would be better positioned to save the lives and critical infrastructure now. The U.S. Congress has led the world in supporting the Ukraine war effort. In fact, we have led the Biden administration--this Senate, on both sides of the aisle. On a bipartisan basis, we have provided security assistance, humanitarian aid, and direct support to Ukraine's government. Although this has amounted to tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, this is actually a bargain investment. Let's put it in context. According to the Kiel Institute's Ukraine Support Tracker, the total U.S. contribution to Ukraine, through November of last year, amounted to only 0.2 percent of our gross domestic product. The new Congress must continue this bipartisan support for Ukraine, and I look forward to leading the charge as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. As the first anniversary of this war approaches, we should reflect on the progress made by Ukraine, and we should carefully consider how to help them decisively win this conflict so that a lasting peace can take root. To do so, we first need to state clearly what our American interests are in Ukraine. That is something the President and his advisers have repeatedly failed to do, choosing instead to make vague references to the rules-based international order, or words to that effect. The American people are right to demand straight answers. With inflation rampant, crime on the rise, and an open southern border, it is fair to ask why we should care about what happens in Ukraine. I offer four reasons. First, Ukraine matters because the security of Europe is closely tied to our own American security and our own American prosperity. For decades, all of our fellow citizens have benefited from peace and stability in Europe, purchased by the sacrifices of Americans in World War I and World War II. What is at stake today in Ukraine is whether the fruits of those sacrifices will continue to endure. Allowing Putin to prevail in Ukraine would usher in a new age of chaos and instability and would invite Putin to test our resolve to defend our NATO allies. Make no mistake, Putin will push the envelope as far as we let him. His goal is to remake the old Soviet empire, and, regrettably, the West has misread and underestimated Putin's intentions for years--in 2008, when he invaded Georgia; and then in 2014, with the seizure of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine; and, yet again, last year in Ukraine with this full-scale invasion. His imperial ambitions are now undeniable. If Vladimir Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, the security of the entire European continent will be put at risk. Second, our support and the support of our allies for Ukraine has made a huge difference and has significantly weakened Russia. Thanks to the U.S. military assistance and the courage of Ukrainian troops, Russia has lost its ability to carry out near-term conventional invasions of NATO members, and we achieved that without having to send a single American soldier into combat. The Russian losses have been massive. Last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Mark Milley, estimated that significantly more than 100,000 Russian troops have been killed or wounded in Ukraine during the war, not to mention thousands of combat vehicles, tanks, artillery pieces, and aircraft destroyed. For those questioning the cost of our assistance, I would simply pose the alternative: How much would it cost in American lives and treasure to confront the Russians directly? Because that is the reality we face if Putin tests our resolve to defend NATO. From that perspective, we are getting one heck of a deal by helping Ukraine do its own fighting. Third, our support for Ukraine is prompting European countries to take more responsibility for their own security, something we have long urged them to do. Republican and Democrat Presidents alike have long believed that Europeans should take the lead on European security. I agree. Almost every American agrees. Thanks to our example, our NATO allies are now spending tens of billions more on defense, much of which will be spent here in the United States. In particular, our friends in the United Kingdom, Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states are making all the right choices to help Ukraine win and prepare their own militaries to deter Russia for decades to come. Backing away from Ukraine at this crucial moment would undermine our credibility as we ask the Europeans to shoulder more of the collective defense burden. Fourth, although this war is happening in Europe, we should not forget who else is watching. Some skeptics of our mission in Ukraine believe it distracts from our principal security threat: the Chinese Communist Party. But the reality is the exact opposite. Xi Jingping is watching us closely. He wants to see if we will stick by our commitments as he weighs his opportunities of invading his own neighbor--and our friend--Taiwan. Our Indo-Pacific allies are also watching closely and even helping in Ukraine. As Japanese Prime Minister Kishida recently noted, ``Ukraine today could be Asia tomorrow.'' Far from distracting us from China, stopping Putin in Ukraine is indispensable in deterring China. We dare not show weakness at this moment in Ukraine. Doing so would simply invite other dictators to act just like Vladimir Putin. The bottom line is that America's interest in this war is clear: We need Ukraine to win, and that means giving them the tools to prevail. Cutting our support would cost us far more in the long run. Unfortunately, as we know, Vladimir Putin understands only brute force. He will not capitulate or negotiate until he is forced to do so. This is something President Biden failed to appreciate when he downplayed Putin's threats a year ago by talking about ``minor incursions.'' Remember that--``minor incursions''? At every step of this crisis, it has been Congress, not the administration, that has taken the lead, and it is something that the President still fails to grasp as he and his administration continue to slow-roll military aid for fear of ``escalation.'' The Biden administration has come along grudgingly as Congress has pushed and pulled and taken the lead. For example, in May of last year, Congress provided the administration with roughly $8.5 billion of drawdown authority to transfer weapons and munitions from U.S. inventories to Ukraine through the end of September. But the administration let almost $3 billion of that authority expire. Ukraine can win this war. Ukraine must win this war. But we and our allies have to do our part to help them. When Russia first launched its invasion, the prospect of Ukrainian victory indeed seemed unlikely. The Russian blitzkrieg forced Ukraine to fight for its very survival. It took repeated acts of heroism to push the Russians back, from President Zelenskyy's fearless example of leadership down to the foot soldiers, like Vitaly Volodymyrovych, who blew up the bridge beneath his feet, sacrificing his own life, to stop the Russian advance. After Russian troops faltered in those initial days, they pivoted to a barbaric tactic of heavy bombardment of civilians--shelling homes, schools, and hospitals. These were war crimes. And as the Russians were finally expelled from Kyiv, we learned of the horrific atrocities committed against civilians, particularly in the city's outer lying areas, such as Bucha. And then began the counteroffensive. The Ukrainians retook Snake Island, liberated Kharkiv, and eventually expelled the Russians from Kherson in November. Their battlefield success demonstrated the impact of high-end U.S. military aid--such as HIMARS, long-range rockets--as well as the Ukrainians' own capabilities to plan and execute complex operations in defense of their own homeland. Today, the situation has stabilized, with Russia occupying only about 15 percent of Ukraine. The courage of Ukrainians presents us with an opportunity. As the war approaches its second year, Congress must once again lead the administration to ramp up military aid to Ukraine to drive toward victory. We should all want Ukraine to win the war. A continuation of the status quo, which would drag out the war, favors Russia. The United States has made a huge difference in this war, and we can now tip the balance in favor of Ukraine if we take the right steps. I would sum up this policy of the right steps in three words: more, better, and faster--more ground vehicles and munitions, better equipment, faster deliveries. We need faster deliveries right now. While I appreciate the White House's recent announcement that we will send a batch of Abrams tanks to Ukraine, it is now our duty to follow through on this commitment and make certain the Ukrainians promptly receive the battlefield capabilities we plan to provide them, including the necessary training. In addition, we need to give Ukraine ATACMS, long-range missiles, and advanced drones, like the Gray Eagle and Reaper. We should deliver these assets quickly to make an immediate difference on the battlefield. In concert with our allies, this approach of ``more, better, and faster'' would give the Ukrainians a real shot at victory. At the same time, we must continue our work to expand our own defense industrial capacity here at home. The American people have already invested billions of dollars to replenish the weapons we transferred to Ukraine, particularly munitions. We are using that money here in America to expand production, doubling and even tripling production capacities for weapons like 155-millimeter shells, Javelins, and HIMARS, and our work on that has just begun. Lastly, we will continue to maintain and expand the rigorous oversight structure we have placed over military aid. As of today, Congress has imposed more than two dozen detailed oversight requirements on the Biden administration, and we continue to monitor their responses closely. Of course, some of the oversight work we do is classified to protect the people and sources conducting it. But Americans should know the scope of our oversight work, and so we will hold oversight hearings in this Congress, and we will do so on a bipartisan basis. We should also press the Pentagon to make more oversight information public. We should continue tracking the work of the inspectors general in the State Department and the Department of Defense and in the U.S. Agency for International Development and 14 other government organizations that are already tasked with ensuring accountability for all spending related to Ukraine. These organizations are hard at work. Thus far, 20 reviews of Ukraine assistance have been completed, with another 64 reviews ongoing or planned. That is oversight. We have work ahead of us this year, and it is critical work. If we make the right choices, we can ensure a Ukrainian victory over Russia, send a message of strength to China and others who wish us ill, and restore the United States as the world's arsenal of democracy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mrs. Victoria Long Rubin, a Knauss Sea Grant fellow on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Mrs. Ruben's scientific expertise has informed the committee's efforts in a meaningful and professional way. She has worked on several pieces of legislation that are important to improve the safety and economic security of the Nation, including the TORNADO Act, the Maritime Technical Advancement Act, and the first authorization of the Minority Business Development Agency. Her contributions will help improve tornado forecasting to keep Americans safer from deadly storms, promote maritime education at our Nation's community colleges, and increase support for rural minority businesses. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mrs. Rubin for all of the fine work she has done and wish her luck in the years to come.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Ms. Ashlyn Spector, a Knauss Sea Grant fellow on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ms. Spector's scientific expertise has informed the committee's efforts in a meaningful and professional way. She has worked on several pieces of legislation that are important to improve the safety and economic security of the Nation, including the TORNADO Act. Her contributions will help improve data management at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, promote Federal partnerships with our Nation's historically black colleges and universities and increase Federal coordination on floods and wildfires. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Ms. Spector for all of the fine work she has done and wish her luck in the years to come.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, just very briefly, I have served in three legislative bodies during my lifetime: the Mississippi State Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and then, since New Year's Eve of 2007, here in the United States Senate. I have never had a better friend in any legislative capacity than Roy Blunt. So this is a very profound moment for me and a very emotional moment for me. If there were ever anyone who was a born legislator, that person is Roy Blunt. He sprang to this Earth with the ability to understand a diverse group of individuals representing diverse parts of the country, both in the House and in the Senate, and to bring them together for a result. This country is so much better off because of the legislative skills and the legislative accomplishments of Roy Blunt. There are people who are well today who had been sick, and they are well because of the efforts of Roy Blunt. There are people alive today who would not have been had it not been for the legislative skill of Roy Blunt. This Republic will go on and this body will go on, of course, but there will be a void in this room, in this Chamber, in this Senate, because of the absence of Roy Blunt. I don't remember a finer mentor whom I have ever served with, and it is my great honor to count him as a close friend forever and to salute his service today. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins, Senator Inhofe, and I be allowed to give our remarks before the next vote.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, as we see, this is that difficult time of the year when we pause and say goodbye, farewell, and Godspeed to departing Members of this body. Senator Collins and I are prepared to act as a team at this moment to wish the very best and pay tribute to two individuals, Richard Shelby of Alabama and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to call attention to the Mississippi National Guard on the eve of the 60th anniversary of their largest ever deployment. We have been fortunate since before Mississippi actually became a State to have a strong National Guard dating back actually to 1798. The Mississippi National Guardsmen have served honorably in armed conflicts, including the War of 1812, both World Wars, the Korean war, and the Global War on Terror. They have also been the backbone of disaster relief, responding to hurricane, floods, and tornadoes. But what I want to talk about today is what they did to keep the peace at a time of civil unrest 60 years ago tomorrow, September 30, 1962. Many of us remember this. No doubt, the Presiding Officer remembers this. On September 30, 1962, a riot erupted at the University of Mississippi, my alma mater, as James Meredith arrived on campus. James Meredith would become the first African-American student to gain admission at Ole Miss. James Meredith is being recognized in Mississippi this week, as he rightly should be. My wife Gayle attended a very impressive event last night on the campus of the University of Mississippi at our beautiful Gertrude Ford Center with Mr. Meredith present. We are glad he is still with us, and he was rightly recognized. Today, for the first time, we have an opportunity to finally recognize those young Mississippians and young Americans who were called up by President Kennedy and maintained the peace and did their duty. The soldiers arrived in Oxford on September 30. They came from small towns and rural communities across Mississippi, and like Mr. Meredith, some of them are still with us. As we mark the 60th anniversary of that Ole Miss riot, it is right that today we honor the citizen soldiers who stood in harm's way to answer the call of the President to protect life and property. It was clear even before the violence erupted that many agitators--a vast number of them from out of State--were going to cause trouble. There was a retired general in Texas named Edwin Walker. He issued a radio call from Texas suggesting that 10,000 people from across the region descend on the Ole Miss campus. In response, our Mississippi National Guard prepared for the worst. They responded to President Kennedy's call in the great tradition of our military dating back to the time of George Washington. The civilian leadership gave an order, and our military saluted and did their duty. As night fell, the crowds grew increasingly violent, and the need for reinforcements became dire. At the command of Mississippi Brigadier General Charles Billingslea, the National Guard dispatched two battle groups from the 155th Infantry Regiment and one group from the 108th Armored Cavalry Regiment, a total of 3,086 men out of Laurel, Amory, and Tupelo, MS. These young soldiers immediately met resistance as they arrived on campus. Rioters actually assaulted General Billingslea, along with his deputy, General John Corley, and his aide, Captain Harold Lyon, and set their vehicle on fire. These three soldiers managed to escape by crawling 200 yards to the Lyceum building, our administration building, while under gunfire. Hours later, additional troops were called in from Pontotoc, Water Valley, to quell rioters who surrounded the Lyceum. By morning, some 25,000 servicemembers had arrived to restore order. Tragically, there were two fatalities during this 15-hour riot, but there could have been a lot more. Dozens more were wounded, including 40 of the soldiers. As a precaution, the National Guard troops were kept in place for several weeks. And by the end of their deployment, more than 30,000 soldiers had been mobilized. These citizen soldiers did their duty, and following the orders of their Commander in Chief, they prevented a crisis from becoming much worse. This riot was an ugly chapter in our history, but it was one of the Mississippi National Guard's finest hours. As the decades have proceeded, and we recognized the other people who were involved, this is the first time that the Senate will have had an opportunity to recognize the young Americans who came and restored order. My colleague Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith and I have joined to introduce a resolution honoring the Mississippi National Guard for their heroic actions and designating tomorrow, September 30, 2022, as Mississippi National Guard Recognition Day. The following day in Mississippi, the University of Mississippi has designated it as ``James Meredith Recognition Day.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 809, which is at the desk.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak on the same matter that Senator Burr has raised and will raise on the unanimous consent request. Think of the economy right now, Mr. President. Inflation is at 8.3 percent or higher, our GDP is shrinking, and supply chains have not recovered from the pandemic. The last thing we need is a shutdown of this Nation's rail service, both passenger and freight. Yet that is what we are facing in less than a day and a half from this moment: a massive rail strike that will virtually shut down our economy. Now, this didn't have to happen, but I will tell you, it has been going on since 2019. So we are in our third year of this matter. There has been negotiation among the rails, some 37 companies--including 7 major freight carriers--and 12 unions. They reached an impasse. So, pursuant to statute, the President of the United States, President Joe Biden, appointed a PEB, a Presidential Emergency Board, to help resolve this issue. They brought the parties together and have worked with the suggestions from both sides--both labor and management--and come up with their recommendation, which the President of the United States has endorsed in full. We are now at the point where we are asking both labor and management to agree to this recommendation of the PEB. One hundred percent of management has agreed to this recommendation of the Biden-appointed Presidential Emergency Board. Of the 12 unions, 8 of the unions have agreed. So we have an overwhelming majority of the unions agreeing to this and 100 percent of management agreeing to it, but under the law that Congress, in its wisdom, passed years and years ago, we have to have 100 percent of the 12 unions, and there are 4 holdouts at this point. Pursuant to the statute, when we get to a situation like this, Congress can step in, and that is what my friend is going to ask us to do in just a few minutes. Congress can pass the recommendation of the PEB in full. The Senate can pass it, send it over to the House, send it to the President, who has endorsed the recommendation in full, and we can avoid this strike. And that is what we ought to be doing. So I want to commend my friend from North Carolina for his leadership in this case. If the trains stop running, our economy grinds to a halt. And that is the very reason this law is in place, and it is the very reason why it is incumbent on us as Senators and Representatives to pass a resolution implementing the PEB. I yield to my friend.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, the objection has been heard and the Senator from Vermont has that right. I wonder if the Senator would yield for a question concerning some assertions that he has made. It is my understanding--and the Senator is correct in this regard--only two of the unions have actually voted in favor of this plan. Six others have--their leadership has agreed, and we have tentative agreements with six of those. So six plus the two is the eight I mentioned. Also, the Senator, I think, is mistaken in saying that there is no sick leave policy. That would be unbelievable for the rail industry in this day and age. It works a little differently for the rail. Railroad employees operate trains and have a leave policy under which they first indicate unavailability for work, and when that unavailability is the result of illness, then they receive sick pay through a sickness benefit under a statutory scheme. The Presidential Emergency Board heard arguments on both sides, recommended an additional paid leave day. And, again, I would stress that this comes on top of a 24-percent wage increase. But the thing that really strikes me about what my friend from Vermont said is he seems to cast doubt on whether President Biden is actually for this PEB recommendation, and that needs to be cleared up. If the Senator from Vermont is suggesting that President Biden is not behind this, then the White House needs to let us know immediately because when the PEB report was issued, the clear message from the White House is that President Biden was in favor of this and endorses this. So if there are people in the White House listening to this, if the President of the United States is following this debate, then he needs to clarify this. If he is backing out on his support for the PEB, we need to know that. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I appreciate the debate on this. Here is where we are on this issue. We are going to have a nationwide strike within a day and a half from now, midnight, 12:01 a.m., Friday. There are two things that could stop this. The distinguished majority leader can bring this PEB recommendation to the floor, and we will produce the Republican votes to get President Biden's administration's recommendation enacted. Send it to the House. The other thing that can happen is for President Biden to do as I have called on him to do just a few moments ago--to make it clear that this is, in fact, his recommendation, his endorsement of the plan that has been put forward by the Board he appointed; make that clear and exercise the Presidential leadership that is needed at this point to persuade his friends and the four holdout unions that this is what needs to be done. But that is where we are. If we don't have one of those two actions, then we will have done nothing, and we will see a strike and the economic devastation that the distinguished Senator from North Carolina has described. It is really up to the Democratic leader and the President of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

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

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Kara-Murza's imprisonment is part of Mr. Putin's larger assault on what remains of political freedom in Russia. In Mr. Kara-Murza's words, Putin's regime has gone ``from highly authoritarian to near-totalitarian almost overnight.'' In March, Russian officials passed a new censorship law forbidding all criticism of Mr. Putin's war in Ukraine. That law has been the basis for more 16,000 arrests since the war began in February, including that of Mr. Kara-Murza. Another 2,400 Russians have been charged with administrative offenses for speaking out against the war. Meanwhile, Putin's propaganda machine is ramping up. Independent Russian media outlets have all but vanished, having been blocked, shut down, or forced out of the country by the Kremlin. The last embers of freedom in Russia are going cold. Putin's crackdown on domestic freedom began in 2003, when Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested on trumped-up charges of tax fraud after he simply criticized the government. A former member of the elite, Mr. Khodorkovsky had successfully led the Yukos Oil Company through privatization after the Iron Curtain fell. And contrary to the Kremlin's claims, the company consistently paid its taxes. But that didn't stop Vladimir Putin from plundering its assets and throwing Mr. Khodorkovsky in jail, where he stayed for 10 years. I would note that just before his arrest, Mr. Khodorkovsky displayed the same courage and patriotism that we now see in Vladimir Kara-Murza. Like Mr. Kara-Murza, he knew very well he could go to jail for speaking out against the government, but Mr. Khodorkovsky did so anyway and refused to flee the country, saying: I would prefer to be a political prisoner rather than a political immigrant. Of course, by then, Mr. Putin had already shown himself willing to violate the international laws of war, having leveled the Chechen capital of Grozny in his own Republic of Russia in 1999. In 2008, he launched a new assault on international law with the invasion of Georgia. In 2014, he started a bloody war in eastern Ukraine. In 2016, Russian dictator Putin and his forces attacked the Syrian city of Aleppo, killing hundreds of civilians and prolonging the rule of Bashar al-Assad. Meanwhile, Putin ramped up his attacks on domestic freedom as well. In 2015, Boris Nemtsov, leader of the democratic opposition, former Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, was shot to death in broad daylight just yards away from the Kremlin. Three months later, Mr. Kara-Murza was poisoned for the first time. More recently, in 2020, Alexei Navalny, the current leader of the opposition, was himself poisoned and had to seek treatment in Berlin. This is Vladimir Putin's Russia today. When Navalny recovered, he chose to return to Moscow, knowing the risks, and immediately upon landing, he was arrested. This is the deplorable state of Russia and freedom under Vladimir Putin. Time and again, he has shown that he is bent on stamping out the aspirations of his people for freedom and the rule of law. As leader of the free world, America must continue to condemn Putin's lawless acts and stand in solidarity with our Russian friends who are courageously fighting against all odds for a better future in Russia and are suffering as a result. These are modern-day heroes--Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Kara-Murza--and we should not forget them. My friend the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, and I, along with Congressmen Steve Cohen and Joe Wilson, are the four House and Senate leaders of the Helsinki Commission, which monitors human rights in former Soviet countries. We recently sent a joint letter to President Biden calling on the administration to name and sanction all of those who have been involved in the arrest, detention, and persecution of Vladimir Kara-Murza. I issue that call again today, and I invite my colleagues from both parties to stand with Vladimir Kara-Murza and work for his release. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to make sure that the plight of Russian leader Vladimir Kara-Murza is not forgotten, that the outrageous imprisonment of Vladimir Kara-Murza by the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is not forgotten. We remember three decades ago what hope we had for a new Russia. Russia had entered a new age of possibility some three decades ago. After more than 70 years of communist repression, the Soviet order had collapsed, and with it, the Iron Curtain that kept freedom away from millions was torn down. As the red flags came down in Moscow, the free world watched with anticipation, hoping that democracy and the rule of law might finally take root in a free Russia. Regrettably, that has not happened. Instead of democracy and freedom, the Russian people got Vladimir Putin, a man who has used his office to murder, imprison, and force into exile anyone who threatens his grip on power, all the while enriching himself beyond anyone's wildest imagination while ordinary Russians, especially out in the countryside of Russia, live in squalid conditions. One of his latest victims is Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Russian patriot and a friend I had the privilege of hosting in my office just 4 months ago. As a matter of fact, I have hosted him several times. Today, Vladimir Kara-Murza spends his days in a prison cell, where the only thing he can see through the window is a barbed wire fence. What was his crime? He simply spoke the truth about Putin's war on Ukraine. His trial--if it can even be called a trial--was held in secret. No journalists, no diplomats, or spectators of any kind were allowed to be there. And for his offense of talking about the Russian war against Ukraine, he now faces up to 15 years in prison. This is not the first time the Russian dictator has tried to silence him. Mr. Kara-Murza has been poisoned twice--in 2015 and 2017--and almost died in both cases. Since then, his wife and three children have had to live abroad, although he himself has chosen to spend most of his time in Russia. In a recent interview with National Review, his wife Evgenia explained why he insists on working in Russia: He believes that he would not have the moral right to call on people to fight if he were not sharing the same risks. As Mr. Kara-Murza put it in a recent CNN interview the day of his arrest, he said: The biggest gift we could give the Kremlin . . . would be to just give up and run, and that's all they want from us. What a contrast in character to the man currently running the Kremlin. The National Review story goes on to describe Mr. Kara-Murza's courageous work for democracy through the eyes of his wife Evgenia, as well as the costs that he and his family have endured, along with so many other Russian dissidents. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this point to have printed in the Record the National Review story that I referred to.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized to speak on the bill. We will soon be moving to a vote on the so-called CHIPS legislation. It has had several names during its consideration in the Senate and in the House. I prefer to call it the CHIPS and Science Act. But it is an important bipartisan piece of legislation, and I urge its adoption. Is my friend from Vermont seeking recognition?

Mr. WICKER. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this legislation. It will expand American semiconductor production, create new opportunities for research into cutting-edge technologies, and enhance our ability to compete with China. There is no more important competition than the one for technological supremacy between the United States and China. The outcome will shape the global balance of power for decades and will impact the security and prosperity of all Americans. Regrettably, at this moment, we are not in the driver's seat on a range of important technologies; China is. China and other nations are increasingly dominant in tech innovation, posing a massive threat to not only our economy but to our national security. But with today's vote, Congress has a chance to move us back in the right direction and put America back into a place to win the game. This legislation--the CHIPS and Science Act, I will call it--will provide a historic boost to our semiconductor industry, which for too long has played on an uneven global playing field. Increasing American chip production is absolutely vital, given the importance of chips to our economy, as well as our national defense. The pandemic taught us the hard way that we cannot be dependent on semiconductor production halfway around the globe. But, of course, chip semiconductors are not the whole ball game. This legislation goes much further, advancing American innovation in quantum computing, advanced robotics, biotechnology, advanced materials, and artificial intelligence--the full suite of technologies that we need to outcompete China. And instead of limiting those investments to a small handful of institutions in five wealthy States, this bill casts a wide net, enlisting the talent and expertise of STEM researchers nationwide. This legislation will guarantee that EPSCoR, a program designed to stimulate competitive research in 25 predominantly rural States, receives 20 percent of all R&D funding from the National Science Foundation, up from the current 13 percent--13 percent now, 20 percent when it is finally ramped up. The bill will also reauthorize the National Science Foundation, the gold standard for funding basic research, and it will establish a new Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships, called TIP, at NSF to supercharge the process of translating basic research into technology development, and then to the commercial market, enabling us to compete better with China across a vast range of technologies. This legislation would not be complete without new safeguards against espionage--which we know is taking place right now--against intellectual property theft, for which the Chinese have become notorious. I am pleased we were able to include a number of long- overdue reforms to protect the fruits of our Nation's R&D investments. Even so, there is more work to be done to protect American research across the whole of government, and I commend my friend Senator Portman from Ohio for moving forward with his initiative, which I hope can be incorporated into the statute at some point. This moment has been a long time in the making, and I want to issue some bipartisan congratulations and words of thanks. My dear friend and colleague from the State of Washington, the chair of the Commerce Committee, Senator Cantwell, is on the floor, and I congratulate her and commend her and thank her for her cooperation with me on this issue. I want to thank Leader Schumer and Senator Young, the original cosponsors of the Endless Frontier Act, as well as Senator Cornyn, Senator Sinema, and many other colleagues who helped make this a better bill. And I also want to congratulate and commend officials from the previous administration--from the Trump administration--who are also telling Americans about the importance of this legislation. This is a bill that will be signed by President Joe Biden, but it is also endorsed by Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, President Trump's International Trade Adviser; by Mike Pompeo, President Trump's CIA Director and Secretary of State; and by Robert O'Brien, former National Security Advisor to President Trump. So three distinguished and knowledgeable national defense officials and foreign policy officials are saying this about the bill we will soon vote on. Ambassador Lighthizer, of the Trump administration, said on Kudlow 2 days ago: We are in this existential competition with China. The battleground of that competition is technology and chips. That is where we are going to win it or lose it. And he goes on to point out that the bill, while not perfect, is exactly the bill that we can get done right now, and I don't know of any bill that is ever perfect. Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, a stalwart in the last administration on national defense, says this: Congress must pass the CHIPS Act for both our national and economic security. We have to become less dependent on China for critical technologies--and this is how we do it. . . . A bipartisan bill, supporting R&D for semiconductor chip manufacturing, is essential to securing vital technologies for our economy and our military. That is Mike Pompeo, President Trump's Secretary of State. And then Robert O'Brien, former National Security Advisor to President Trump, said: America needs this legislation without delay. So I want to also say a note of thanks to my own staff--my personal staff and my committee staff--for their tireless efforts over the last year and a half on this issue. This is the culmination of a great deal of work by some very, very talented personnel--countless meetings, a legislative hearing in April, a markup in May, a final vote by the Senate in June after days and days of debate on the floor. All of these staff members worked nights and weekends, considering and helping to manage almost 1,000 amendments through the committee and the floor, and all of them contributed in many ways. I will single out for recognition my policy director, James Mazol, who was absolutely vital to us in putting it all together, and his entire team. So thank you very much, Mr. President. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I think the strong 64 votes we had yesterday on cloture was indicative of the support, and I anticipate its passage and look forward to its successful passage in the House of Representatives. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, a number of our congressional interns this summer have greatly profited from a program conducted by the Stennis Center for Public Service. The Stennis Program for Congressional Interns is designed to enhance the internship experience for exceptional future leaders, giving them an inside look at how Congress works and enabling them to learn from senior staffers across both parties. These bipartisan relationships will serve them well throughout their future careers supporting Congress. Interns are selected based on their employment experience, college course load, and prospective service to Congress. This summer, 18 interns were chosen for this prestigious opportunity. These interns serve us on both sides of the aisle, working for Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate. I congratulate the interns on completing this distinguished program. I also thank the Stennis Center and their Senior Stennis Congressional Staff Fellows for providing a meaningful experience and promoting bipartisan work. I ask that the names of the 2022 Summer Stennis Congressional Interns and the offices in which they serve be printed in the Record. The material follows: Jack Behan, Office of U.S. Senator Sam Peters; Courtney Cochran, House Committee on Natural Resources; Carmen Evans, Office of U.S. Representative Lizzie Fletcher; Jacob Feit, House Committee on Homeland Security; Dory Finney, Senate Special Committee on Aging; Chanidu Gamage, Office of U.S. Representative Matt Rosendale; Christian Gentile, Office of U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville; Jagaar Halverson, Office of U.S. Representative Randy Feenstra; Zach Jewkes, Office of U.S. Senator James Risch; Kenny Johnson, Office of U.S. Representative Fred Upton; Erin Kavanagh, Office of U.S. Representative Kevin Brady; Eslie King, Office of U.S. Senator James Risch; Sophie Laurence, Office of U.S. Senator Angus King; Clara Smith, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry; Peyton Witt, Office of U.S. Representative Fred Upton; Ana Worthington, Office of U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville; Hasan Zai, Office of U.S. Senator Gary Peters; Grace Zehner, Office of U.S. Representative Michael Turner.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, for the second year in a row, the State of Mississippi is the center of the universe for college baseball. Senator Hyde-Smith and I are proud and delighted this afternoon to congratulate not one but two Mississippi collegiate baseball teams on becoming national champions for their respective divisions this year. Those teams are the Ole Miss Rebels and the Pearl River Community Wildcats. It was just last year that the Mississippi State Bulldogs won their first-ever College World Series national championship. And with the new year, came even more successful baseball in Mississippi. Last month, after sweating out selection day, Ole Miss went to the NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament and won 10 out of 11 games, sweeping Oklahoma in the final round of the College World Series to become national champions. Just weeks earlier, Pearl River Community College, located in Poplarville, MS, defeated Madison College of Wisconsin in the Division II Junior College World Series. After spending the entire season ranked in the top five, Pearl River won five out of six games in the playoffs, defeating Florida State College at Jacksonville, Lansing Community College, and, finally, Madison College in a three-game series finale. The Wildcats dropped game one to Madison, but then roared back with a 19-to-1 victory in game 2 and a decisive 7-to-2 victory in game 3. They finished their season with a sparkling record of 45 wins and 11 losses. Just think about this for a moment. Three college baseball national titles in 2 years for the State of Mississippi. Congratulations also go to the University of Southern Mississippi, which had an excellent season and even hosted their first super regional in Hattiesburg, ending with a record of 47 wins and 19 losses. This year's Ole Miss championship run is a comeback story for the ages. After spending the early parts of the season ranked No. 1 in the Nation, the Rebels went into a deep slump in April, losing 4 straight series and 11 out of 16 games. In May, they were among the last 4 teams to be included in the field of 64. But they had finished the regular season hot, and some people believed they just might carry that momentum into the playoffs. And they did, outscoring their opponents 46 runs to 11 down the stretch. Led by Coach Mike Bianco and Team Captain Tim Elko, Ole Miss beat one team after another--first Arizona and Miami in the regional, then Southern Miss in the Hattiesburg Super Regional, then Auburn and Arkansas in the College World Series, which led to a final best two out of three face-off with Oklahoma. Game one was a slugfest. The Rebels put up 16 hits, including back- to-back-to-back home runs in the eighth inning by T.J. McCants, Calvin Harris, and Justin Bench--a stunning feat not seen at the College World Series since 1998. On the mound, the Ole Miss pitchers kept things quiet. Jack Dougherty, Mason Nichols, and Josh Mallitz gave up just three runs, securing a 10-to-3 victory. The decisive game two was a lot closer. For the first five innings, it was a pitchers' duel between Ole Miss's Hunter Elliot of Tupelo, MS, and Cade Horton of Norman, OK. The bats finally got going for Ole Miss in the sixth when Jacob Gonzalez hit a solo home run. The Sooners quickly answered by knocking in two runs, making it 2 to 1, Oklahoma. In the eighth inning, Ole Miss tied things up with hits by T.J. McCants, Justin Bench, and Jacob Gonzalez, and scored two additional runs on wild pitches, making it 4 to 2. In the top of the ninth, Brandon Johnson took the mound for Ole Miss and closed out the night with three strikeouts, capping off a magical run for the men from Oxford. ``From last team in, to last team standing,'' exclaimed the announcer. And then to Oxford they returned, bringing with them the 30th NCAA championship in Ole Miss history. The day after winning the title, these national champions were welcomed back to campus by crowds of jubilant supporters as they walked the hallowed pathway known as the Walk of Champions. On behalf of the entire State of Mississippi, I commend the Ole Miss team and their staff on this historic achievement. Justin Bench, Calvin Harris, Kevin Graham, Kemp Alderman, and Dylan DeLucia all were named to the NCAA's All-Tournament Team. Dylan DeLucia received the Jack Diesing, Sr. Most Outstanding Player of the Series award for pitching a complete game shutout against the Arkansas Razorbacks, becoming the first recipient of the award in Ole Miss history. And Captain Tim Elko became only the sixth player in history to earn four hits in a Men's College World Series final--not to mention his 46 career home runs, the second most in school history. I also congratulate Mike Bianco, who has coached Ole Miss for 22 seasons and led the team to 18 playoff appearances, including two trips to the College World Series in Omaha. He has rightly been named National Coach of the Year by the American Baseball Coaches Association and the Collegiate Baseball Newspaper. He never gave up on his team, and he inspired his players to persevere through the tough times. I wish Coach Bianco the best of luck this week as he now leads Team USA at an international tournament in the Netherlands, where he is joined by two Ole Miss players, Hunter Elliott and Jacob Gonzalez. I also congratulate Michael Avalon, Head Coach for the Pearl River Wildcats, who, after leading his team to a national title, was named National Coach of the Year for Division II junior colleges. I commend the University of Mississippi, Pearl River Community College, the University of Southern Mississippi, and Mississippi State University for carrying on Mississippi's winning tradition. Two years ago, after a season cut short by the COVID pandemic, Ole Miss catcher Hayden Dunhurst boldly said: I have never been a part of a team so special . . . We will bring a National Championship to Oxford. And so they did. Congratulations and Hotty Toddy.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I certainly hope we don't have to prolong this for very long, but I can report to Members of the Senate that there are Members on this side who have concerns about this particular nomination. Perhaps those matters can be resolved in short order. I certainly understand my friend from Massachusetts and his support for this nominee, and I respect that. In addition, there are larger issues involving actions and conduct of the State Department in Europe writ large that go beyond this nominee. Again, I hope the State Department will work with us on those important concerns. But for those stated reasons, I do object at this point.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, in a few moments, the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Mary Boyle to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC. It appears that the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, finally has the votes lined up for confirmation of Ms. Boyle and that she will be elevated to this position. I think this is a decision that Members of the Democratic Party and the administration will come to regret and Americans, in general, will come to regret. Recently, the Commerce Committee failed to report Ms. Boyle's nomination favorably. All Democrats voted aye; all Republicans voted no. I think Members should understand this. CPSC plays a vital role in ensuring the safety of American consumers. For this reason, I have significant concerns about major administrative failures at the agency during Ms. Boyle's tenure as Executive Director there, including the improper disclosure of unredacted manufacturer and consumer data. An investigation I led as chairman of the Commerce Committee last Congress determined that the unauthorized release of this data, which violated section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, was the result of insufficient training, ineffective management, and poor information technology implementation. All of these failings at the CPSC were under Mary Boyle's watch as the primary career official charged with the day-to-day administration of the Agency's business, and yet today we are being asked to elevate her to an even more important and responsible position at CPSC. I am also deeply troubled by the CPSC's curtailing of port inspections for several months beginning with the pandemic and Ms. Boyle's involvement in this decision. In addition, she presided over the deficient and prolonged process of fully returning CPSC staff to work at these ports. So the inspections were not getting done. There are now hundreds, if not thousands, of unsafe products that entered the country under Ms. Boyle's watch, and we still lack a clear plan from the CPSC on how those dangerous products will be removed from the market. This nominee has failed to demonstrate strong and effective leadership in her current position as executive director of the CPSC. Yet the administration and, apparently, the majority leader of the Senate are inexplicably trying to promote her to a higher position of trust and authority. In light of these many problems at the Agency associated with Ms. Boyle's leadership, I think her confirmation will be a mistake, and I think my Democratic colleagues and the administration will come to regret this decision. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I commend the Senator from Indiana and join him and my other colleagues in decrying the legislation that we will be asked to move to the floor tomorrow. But before I speak on the substance of the bill, it needs to be reiterated why this bill is even before us. The only reason we are debating this bill today is because of the extreme and unprecedented breach of protocol that took place at the Supreme Court. The leaked draft in the Dobbs case was a full-blown assault on the U.S. Supreme Court and on the independence of our judiciary. It was an attempt to incite mob pressure against the Justices, which has, in part, succeeded by inciting pressure against the Justices in an attempt to bully them into changing their final votes. And I do trust, based on the information that we have about the nine Justices, that that attempt will not be successful. We saw over the weekend disturbing videos of protesters outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices. There is growing concern for the safety of our Supreme Court Justices and the safety of their families. This is shameful. A Supreme Court Justice should never have to fear for his or her safety or the safety of their families for doing their jobs. We, as elected Members of the Congress, are subject to public opinion. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be subject to public opinion and should never have to fear for their safety. The leak and the mob reaction should be condemned by both parties in the strongest possible terms, and yet there have been very few voices on the other side of the aisle addressing this matter. Certainly, the majority leader of the Senate has not said a word about the outrage of the leak or the mob protests, nor has the President of the United States. What happened to respect and care for our institutions? Instead of protecting the Court, our Democratic friends seem to be, whether inadvertently or not, legitimizing this attack on the Court by moving to consider extreme legislation which is out of touch with the mainstream of Americans. So now let me speak briefly about the legislation. It has been said that this is a mere codification of the Court's holding in Roe v. Wade. That is, in fact, not the case. Instead, the bill that we will be asked to move to the floor tomorrow is an attempt to expand abortion dramatically across this country, to expand abortion in a way that only a small handful of the most repressive governments on the face of the Earth permit. The bill would eliminate even the most modest protections for unborn children across all 50 States. It would force all 50 States to allow gruesome late-term abortions that even the political left all over Europe have long ago outlawed. As my friend from Indiana said earlier, some 47 European countries generally ban abortion after the first 15 weeks. Banning abortion after 14 weeks are our allies of France and Spain; banning abortion after 13 weeks, Finland; banning abortion after 12 weeks, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland--certainly not governments that are thought of as prisoners of the extreme right. The nation of Portugal generally bans abortion after 10 weeks. Of course, as we know, the Mississippi law that brought this case to the Supreme Court, the Dobbs case, has a slightly more permissive provision than even these friends that I just mentioned from Western Europe. It would be a 15-week ban. But this bill that we are asked to vote on tomorrow, which certainly will fail, would push America further outside of the global mainstream than we already are--and we already are way outside this mainstream. Because of scientific advances, we know that an unborn child's heartbeat begins at 6 weeks. We know a child can feel pain as early as 20 weeks. Many of us, including my wife and I, have put the sonograms of our grandchildren, have displayed them on our refrigerators in our homes. What we know about the development of children--their faces, their eyelashes--has brought about a change in the minds of many Americans. In 1996, 56 percent of Americans called themselves pro-choice. Only 33 percent said they were pro-life. But because of science and because of those sonograms and because of what we know about their ability to feel pain--their movements, their eyes blinking, their eyelashes--today the two sides are just about evenly split, pro-choice and pro-life. But even those who identify themselves as pro-choice are deeply opposed to late-term abortions. And make no mistake about it, if somehow the Schumer bill tomorrow were to pass, late-term abortions would be legal in all 50 States. Eighty-one percent of Americans think that late-term abortions should be illegal. Our friends on the Democratic side should think about that. This bill goes against 81 percent of American public opinion in that regard. Sixty-five percent say abortions should be illegal in the second trimester--not the third trimester, in the second trimester--65 percent of Americans. I hope our Democratic friends across the aisle think about that before they vote for this extreme piece of legislation brought by the Democratic leader, which would put us in league with the People's Republic of China with all of their respect for life, with North Korea with its deplorable record of respecting human life. With those two countries and five others on the extreme left, it would put us in league with them. That is not where the American people want us to be. If a State has a 24-hour waiting period, for example, the Schumer bill tomorrow would outlaw that. Taxpayer funding of abortion, the Hyde amendment, which prohibits this and has done so for decades and decades, would be abolished. The parental rights of teenage girls to have a say and to be able to counsel their daughters on the pivotal decision about having an abortion would be eliminated by this. Religious exemptions. A practicing Catholic, who deep in their soul understands this to be infanticide, would be required, if they are a physician, to perform an abortion with no religious exemption. Is that what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hoping for? It is what they would get if the Schumer bill were to pass. This is not a serious attempt at consensus building. This bill simply reflects, regrettably, the iron grip that Planned Parenthood has on one of our major political parties in this country. We will reject this effort tomorrow. I commend my colleagues who intend to stand with the American people and vote no on this attempt to rank us with the worst regimes on the face of the globe and impose late-term abortions on the entire country. I yield the floor.