Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, there are already significant taxpayer mandates in the bill, as it is limiting award size, prohibiting funds from going to so-called foreign entities, such as China, and clawback provisions. Why do we need chips? We need chips for Javelin missiles. We need them for--major weapons systems contain thousands of chips. The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer includes 250,000 chips. It would make it much harder for Americans to produce these chips if the Sanders amendment were to pass. I urge a no vote, and I join my friend from Ohio in urging a no vote.

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise this evening to urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination of Alvaro Bedoya to be a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Recently, the Commerce Committee deadlocked on this nomination, with all Republican members voting no and all Democratic members voting yes. So it will take a discharge petition here on the Senate floor to move Mr. Bedoya's nomination further. If our Democratic colleagues are successful, Mr. Bedoya will become the fifth tie-breaking Commissioner of the FTC. Let me just observe, as someone who has been on the Commerce Committee for years and years here in the U.S. Senate, that the Federal Trade Commission, which is where Mr. Bedoya would become a member, has always approached issues and addressed the public in a spirit of bipartisanship. Unlike with the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, where we are used to the vote being 2 to 3, in a very partisan manner--that is the FCC for you--we haven't had that, over time, with the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission has had a tradition of bipartisanship. They have had a tradition of issuing policy statements with all five of them participating and issuing statements to the Commerce Committee, before testimony, with the one statement speaking for the entire Federal Trade Commission. Mr. Bedoya's records show that he would bring that sort of partisanship that we have had at the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission, and I hope we can avoid that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bedoya has publicly supported eliminating the longstanding bipartisan policy statements, and he has advocated for excluding minority party Commissioners from Agency investigations. This would be a troubling step for a Commission that has been bipartisan. Mr. Bedoya has a long history of divisive social media statements. For example, he called for the elimination of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. He has called for the elimination of ICE. That is how extreme and out in left field this nominee, Alvaro Bedoya, is. He has called on local law enforcement agencies not to cooperate with ICE. So, if you are a local police department, just don't cooperate with the Federal Agency in charge of immigration and customs enforcement. He has accused Cabinet-level Departments of committing human rights abuses. He has even demanded that several of our colleagues here in the U.S. Senate resign. He is a hothead, plainly said--more appropriate for a talk radio host of the far left rather than the fifth vote on the Federal Trade Commission. Additionally, as the Judiciary Committee continues to consider a Supreme Court nomination, I think it is instructive to recall that, in the fall of 2020, this nominee, Mr. Bedoya, urged Senate Democrats to boycott the Judiciary Committee's hearings on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the Supreme Court. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be outraged if Republican members of the Judiciary Committee actually refused to attend the committee's hearings which occurred last week. This is exactly what Mr. Bedoya, the FTC nominee, called on the Democrats to do just 18 months ago. Clearly, he is out of the mainstream. This is not the temperament we need to send to the FTC, particularly at a time when the Agency's current leadership has pursued a more partisan agenda as of late. We need to get away from that trend. Then, beyond temperament, Mr. Bedoya has demonstrated a lack of experience and a lack of knowledge on the major policy areas that he would be responsible for regulating as an FTC Commissioner. Although the FTC is the Nation's premier regulator of consumer privacy, Mr. Bedoya's experience on the topic of privacy comes from his time on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee. There, he largely dealt with issues of government surveillance, which falls outside the FTC's jurisdiction. So even the limited experience Mr. Bedoya has gives him no help in dealing with Federal Trade Commission issues. Through the Commerce Committee's vetting process, Mr. Bedoya has also shown a limited knowledge of the competition and antitrust issues that are at the heart of today's major policy debates at the FTC. I don't want the FTC to lack a tie-breaking vote forever--that is not the reason every Republican on the Commerce Committee voted no--but I do want the Agency to be able to tackle these important issues: to rein in Big Tech's dominance of so many marketplaces; to support a 21st century economy that spurs innovation; and to protect consumers from fraud and other unfair and deceptive business practices. I want the FTC to return to its traditional standing as an Agency driven by bipartisanship and as an Agency that can be counted on to use its broad authority with a steady hand and a measured approach. I do not believe Mr. Bedoya is the right person to do this. I do not believe someone with his temperament and lack of experience and lack of knowledge about the issues will be able to put the Federal Trade Commission back on track. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support any effort to discharge Mr. Bedoya's nomination from the Commerce Committee to the Senate floor. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WICKER. And perhaps we can proceed in colloquy form.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I thank my dear friend from Ohio, and I see that we have been joined by my friend from Connecticut. We did have a bipartisan American delegation in Poland and on the Ukrainian border this weekend. I don't recommend, for tourism purposes, a weekend trip to Eastern Europe and back. It is pretty hard on the anatomy. But I think we flew the colors for the United States, for the U.S. Senate, and made a bipartisan point. And my colleagues can speak for themselves about exactly where they come down on these issues, but it was clear from the statements we made that the United States can do more and should be doing more. And I call on the administration tonight to listen to the learned words of the distinguished Senator from Ohio. Yes, I support the MiGs from Poland and from other Eastern European countries. I think the debate got awfully heightened. I don't know why we needed to have an international discussion among allies about that rather than just do it. And maybe that should be a lesson to us on other decisions, which I hope we are about to make, but there are certainly other weapons that we can facilitate in delivering. Does it make any sense to say that smaller weapons delivered from the United States are OK to fire against the Russian aggressors in Putin's war, but more effective MiG aircraft from NATO somehow would be escalatory? Listen, our friends are in a war against the remaining dictator and tyrant on the face of the Earth; and if we are not willing--as we are not--to get involved directly in that war, yes, we ought to give our friends the weapons they need to win. Let me say this: I hear debate in the newspaper and on the media-- even today--about an off-ramp, what Putin would agree to, to simply quit fighting: If we give him some of the territory that he thinks he has already conquered, Ukraine would get to have part of their country, and everything would be OK. It makes me feel like, somehow, I have been transported to 1938 and 1939, hearing talk about what Adolf Hitler might agree to, to avoid a world war. Madam President, it is my understanding that the distinguished majority leader has a unanimous consent request, and I am willing to defer our debate at this point to accommodate some administrative matters that need to be taken care of.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Absolutely.

Mr. WICKER. Which is often.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for working with the distinguished minority leader and with Senator Graham for bringing this important legislation to the floor tonight. It says what many of us have been saying for a long time and which I wish the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief, would explicitly say tonight or tomorrow: that Vladimir Putin is a serial war criminal and that he should be investigated by the war crimes authorities internationally, brought to justice, and made to pay not only for his genocide and war crimes of the last 2\1/2\ weeks but also for Aleppo and Grozny and the tens of thousands--tens of thousands--of innocent civilians that he has killed by his desires out of some other century to conquer his neighbors. I was mentioning 1938 and 1939. When Hitler went into the Sudetenland, he told naive Western governments: That will be the end of it. If we get that, we will have peace in our time. And some leaders of the allies were convinced that that was true. Vladimir Putin hasn't even said he is going to stop with Ukraine. So who in the world thinks that if he gets away with this, he will stop there? I don't believe he will, and here is why: Not only Aleppo, not only Grozny, but this is a man who, without question, poisons his political opponents. When they leave the country to get medical treatment, he causes them to be charged for breaking the terms of their parole and puts them in prison. That is his political opponent, Mr. Navalny, who had the temerity to be a candidate for President against Mr. Putin. We are talking about the Vladimir Putin who authorizes the assassination of former members of the Russian Government because they have the temerity to oppose him. We are talking about the very same person in Vladimir Putin who jails persons for years and years who dare to oppose him or disagree with him publicly, who invents enormous lies and gets some people even in the West to believe it when he broadcasts the enormous lies through his monopoly of the media. This man can be stopped in this Ukrainian war, and we are going to hear tomorrow morning from a courageous leader who has risen beyond the expectations of so many people in the free world, President Zelenskyy, and I intend to be there along with my colleagues wishing him the best. I think I can say for our delegation that we might have nuances on how these things can be done, but we are united on ideas, like getting the Polish MiGs somehow into the hands of the Ukrainian fighter pilots who can then use them to win the war, the equipment from other NATO countries and European countries enhancing Ukraine's air defense, and sending more troops to harden the borders and the eastern flank of our NATO Allies. I would say to the President of the United States: Mr. Biden, you have been too risk averse, too late from time to time, from step to step on all of the sanctions that we have needed, on the delivery of weapons. We brought the administration along, but they have been a day late or a couple of days late or a week late. It is time for us to show international leadership on this. Even today, almost 3 weeks into the war, we have not yet dropped the full load of sanctions on Russia. We need to do that, and I call on the President and the administration to listen to those of us who were just in Eastern Europe. History shows that weakness breeds war, instead of pacifying tyrants, weakness emboldens tyrants like Vladimir Putin. The good news is that with the help of NATO and Western arms, the Ukrainian military has defied all expectations. The intelligence reports that we have heard on the public media--this is nothing secret--was that in 3 or 4 days the Ukrainian military would be overrun by this vast Russian military behemoth. That has not happened, in fact. These people, defending their homeland, defending their country, through the leadership of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have shown courage. They refuse to flee, and they have rallied the American people and the entire world in a lesson of leadership. If President Zelenskyy survives until the morning, I will be cheering him from Capitol Hill on his remarks, just as the British Parliament did last week. This war is far from over. Suffering and dying refugees will continue every day, and I call on President Biden to recognize that Vladimir Putin is not simply at war with Ukraine, but they are at war with the entire free world, and this is our best opportunity to stop him. Our Baltic allies in NATO understand this. They know they can be next on Putin's kill list. Now is our moment to make sure this is the last time that Putin and his band of war criminals invade a sovereign country. We watched it happen with the Transnistria. We watched it happen with the Republic of Georgia, in South Ossetia, and in Abkhazia. We watched it happen with the Donbas and with Crimea. It is time to stop Vladimir Putin's expansionism. We should be enabling the Ukrainians to defend their own airspace, and we have not yet done all we can do. We need to be creative, but we need to take calculated risks because the future of the rules-based world order is at stake. Western deterrence has so far failed, and now Putin is thinking he can succeed in shredding the rule book of the post-Cold War international order. It is up to us, and it is up to our Commander In Chief to restore faith in that order and to protect the free world. And I am glad to be joined on the floor with my friend the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut and was honored to join him and our other colleagues on the trip this last weekend to Eastern Europe.

Mr. WICKER. The Senator from Connecticut is correct to commend the massive efforts to prevent the humanitarian suffering in Ukraine and in Poland. The dozens of nongovernmental organizations, such as the World Food Kitchen, the USAID Agency, a part of our Federal Government, the World Food Programme, the diplomatic corps, both of the United States and our allies, and certainly our American military, the 82nd Airborne. But let me conclude by making this profoundly important point: What we have heard tonight on both sides of the aisle are bipartisan calls for us to do more. In this system that we have under our Constitution, we have one Commander in Chief at a time, and we have heard from Democrats and Republicans tonight on the floor of the U.S. Senate that we need to do more. This administration needs to do more. This Commander in Chief can do more and needs to do more to help this small country preserve their freedom, to win against this war criminal and his unprovoked aggression, and to preserve the international order that has governed civilized nations for decades and decades. I hope the administration is hearing the bipartisan message that we bring back from our observations and that we are hearing from our constituents. I yield back to my dear friend from Ohio.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise today during this Black History Month to call attention to two remarkable daughters of the State of Mississippi, two basketball legends: Lusia Harris and Ruthie Bolton. These two Mississippi athletes took women's basketball to new heights. And they continue to inspire countless young girls to follow their dreams in sports.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. For all who are looking for encouragement about the future of our country, I want to call attention to the Fall 2021 issue of ``Public Service Review,'' produced by the Stennis Center for Public Service and available at www.stennis.gov. ``Public Service Review'' features rising young leaders across the country sharing their own experiences, insights, and aspirations as they engage in public service, both in their communities and around the world. The commitment of these future leaders to keeping our Nation strong and free is truly inspiring. The eight authors featured in the fall 2021 issue are Alexis Eberlein of Ohio University, Sarah Glaser of the University of South Florida, Hannah Krawczyk of Auburn University, Mia Robertson of Mississippi State University, Alanna Cronk of Georgetown University, Katie Medford of Harvard University, Preeti Chemiti of Princeton University, and Amitoj Kaur of Miami University. ``Public Service Review'' provides young leaders a platform to share stories of both challenge and hope as they focus on causes that draw their unique passions. Their stories are hopegiving to those of us currently engaged in public service and offer valuable perspectives for younger students looking to become involved. On behalf of my colleagues and fellow members of the Stennis Center Board of Trustees, U.S. Senator Chris Coons, Tom Daffron, U.S. Representative Terri Sewell, and former U.S. Representatives Martha Roby and Gregg Harper, I commend the Stennis Center for this excellent publication and encourage its wide distribution to audiences of all ages.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, a few years back, I was watching a television news show and I saw video that struck me as strange. It was a video taken by a security device outside of a residence. Basically, someone is knocking on the door--multiple doors at this particular apartment--and the person knocking on the door basically said this: I am a volunteer for the Democratic Party, and I am here to collect ballots from those who wish to vote Democrat in the next election. I found that strange until I learned that that practice called ballot harvesting is perfectly legal in the State of California; in other words, it is all right for me as a volunteer for my party to go and knock on the door and say: I am here to collect your absentee ballot but only if you are voting for the candidate I am for. That is perfectly legal. That is called ballot harvesting. I hope my colleagues can see the opportunity for abuse in this particular practice. I think most State legislatures that have prohibited this sort of practice see the opportunity for abuse. What is to stop me from saying, ``Knock. Knock. Knock. I am a volunteer for party X, and I am here to collect ballots for people who like to vote for candidates of party X,'' getting those ballots and then perhaps forgetting to turn them in or perhaps losing them or not turning them in at all? That sort of practice is rife for abuse, and I think it is the reason that most States prohibit that. Soon we will be taking up a bill, which I am told, if it comes to us in the form that it is in now, would allow that sort of ballot harvesting. To me, if California wants to try this, that is their right. I think it is rife for abuse, and I wish they wouldn't do it. But to impose these sorts of requirements on the rest of the Nation-- our friends on the other side of the aisle propose this week to vote on destroying a provision that has served this Senate and this Republic well for over two centuries, and that is what is known as the filibuster but what I call the consensus-building, 60-vote rule. This is a time-honored way that this body has been unique, and it has enabled us to craft some of the most long-lasting and widely accepted legislation in the history of this Republic. The Civil Rights Act of 1994 was passed with consensus because this Senate had to have 60 votes or more. In that case, it may have been a 66-vote rule. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed with that consensus-building technique. Medicare, Social Security--time-honored legislation that has served this Republic and its citizens has been passed with this consensus- building tool. And the leadership of my friends across the aisle would bring a measure to the floor later this week to repeal that and make us just like the House of Representatives, make us just like every Parliament in socialist countries around the world: majority rule, 51 votes--you get it--destroying that one tool that makes us come together and reach compromise. And it wasn't just bills passed decades ago. In recent years, during your term and mine, Mr. President, we passed major--major--veterans legislation with Johnny Isakson on one side and Bernie Sanders on the other side coming together to build more facilities for veterans, to provide more choice for veterans. Senator Murray of Washington and former Senator Alexander of Tennessee came together with a major rewrite of an education bill. And we did it with the filibuster in place. We had to come to an agreement. We had to get over 60 votes, and the bills were better because of that. For that reason, in April of 2017, when a Republican President--a President I voted for--said we ought to think about abolishing the filibuster, 28 Republicans signed a letter saying, ``Let's don't do that.'' They were joined by 32 Democrats and by 1 Independent who caucuses with the Democrats. If I might take the time to read the two short paragraphs: To Majority Leader McConnell and Democratic Leader Schumer: We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions as they pertain to the right of Members to engage in extended debate on legislation before the United States Senate. Senators have expressed a variety of opinions about the appropriateness of limiting debate when we are considering judicial and executive branch nominations. Regardless of our past disagreements on that issue, we are united-- Said these 28 Republicans and 32 Democrats and 1 Independent-- [we are united] in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor. And now I am told, unless I have been sadly misinformed, that every Senator from across the aisle, save two--save two--are prepared to go against what was specifically said in this letter and, on election laws, say that we are going to make all the decisions in Washington, DC, and take that away from the States. I heard the distinguished majority leader say earlier today--and I had to ask about it. I heard the distinguished majority leader say Georgia has, of all things, made it a felony to give water to people standing in line to vote. I sat listening to the majority leader in astonishment. How could that possibly be? It turns out that if a charitable group or if a neutral person wants to come and give somebody water in line in Georgia, that is all right. What is against the law in Georgia is for me as candidate X to come up with a bottle of water that says ``Vote for Candidate X'' and give it to somebody in line. Apparently, the people in Georgia in a decision-making role had decided, once you get in line to vote, you are no longer fair game. Politicians should leave you alone once you get in line to vote. It is not a matter of giving somebody water; it is a matter of electioneering: Hi. I am Roger Wicker, running for Senator. Here is a bottle of water. I hope you will remember me in another 50 feet when you get into the polling place. The people of Georgia, in their wisdom, have decided that is going too far. And I am told--and perhaps the distinguished majority leader could come to the floor and correct me and I would stand corrected if he did--I am told that it is against the law in New York to do the same thing. Once you are in line in New York, somebody comes and hands you something that advocates for one candidate or another, that is forbidden not only under Georgia law but under New York law--and I can see the wisdom in that. Two months ago, there were two amendments to the New York Constitution that were presented before the voters--the November 2 election, 2021, in the State of New York. One would have deleted the current requirements that a citizen be registered to vote for 10 days. In my State, you have to be registered for 30 days. In New York State, it is 10 days. The law is you have to be registered for 10 days or you can't vote. A proposition was put on the ballot to eliminate that, allow same-day registration. Guess what the voters of New York did on that proposal a short 2 months ago. They voted 56.3 percent no against that. Are we to assume that the voters of the State of New York are Jim Crow on steroids, as the President of the United States would suggest or can we possibly assume they thought a 10-day period before voting was appropriate and that we should keep it that way? I choose to think that we want 30 days in Mississippi. If Maine wants same-day registration and if the voters of New York say 10 days is all right by a double-digit margin, they have the right to do that. And, again, if the distinguished Democratic leader can prove me wrong, I would accept that and apologize to him for that. There was another issue on the ballot, and I hope not to take too much more time because I see my distinguished colleague from Louisiana here. The amendment would have deleted the requirement that an absentee voter give an excuse, and these are the excuses you have in New York right now. You have to be able to--unable to appear because of absence from the county or because of illness or physical disability. That is a requirement in New York. Somebody put on the ballot: Delete that requirement. Guess what the voters of New York decided. They decided to keep that requirement by a vote of, again, double digits--55.03 percent of New Yorkers voted no on that. I don't condemn them for doing that. I am sure they had a reason for doing that. But I think the leadership of the State of New York and the voters of the State of New York had a right to do that and I don't condemn them for doing it and I would not--I would certainly not break a two-century, consensus-building provision that has withstood the test of time to tell New York they can't do that, to tell all the 50 States that they must conform to an election law that we devise here in Washington, DC. This is a pivotal week. This is a week that will decide the future not only of the Senate but of the future of our government--our representative government--and the future of our Republic. I urge my colleagues to think twice about this. Sometimes, I have had to stand up to my party and say: I can't vote with you on that one. I know you want me to. I know I will suffer some reproach for not going with the team, but I am begging Members of both parties to search their hearts and decide in this case we are going to preserve the one consensus-building, compromise-encouraging provision that has withstood the test of time. I hope that happens. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise this afternoon in support of the freedom-loving people of Ukraine, our friends and our allies in Europe, and in warning to my fellow Americans, to my colleagues, about a threat coming from Vladimir Putin's Russian regime. I rise in support of this American ally whose right to democracy is being threatened. Its right to self-determination is being threatened. And I rise at this moment, when there are negotiations going on in this building between Republicans and Democrats as to how to urge the President of the United States to respond to a buildup of 90,000 to 100,000 Russian troops on the border of this sovereign country who is our ally. The world has watched in recent weeks not understanding, not knowing what Vladimir Putin has in mind. But there is no question about it, there is the amassing of troops. They are moving in place all the supplies and troops it would need if they decide to launch an invasion of this Member of the United Nations, of this Member of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, this sovereign nation who wants self-determination. Our Ukrainian friends are sounding the alarm. They warned us that Russia could be ready to invade their country by land, air, or sea as early as next month or February of 2022. I heard their concerns along with a bipartisan delegation of Senators who attended the Halifax International Security Conference just a couple of weeks ago in Nova Scotia. These are concerns that were voiced today at a bureau meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co- operation in Europe. The threats are serious. The troops are there on the border of Ukraine, and we have a right to be worried and mindful about Mr. Putin's latest move in his long campaign to undermine Ukraine's freedom and sovereignty. We should never forget what happened in 2014, when troops that he disavowed but were clearly under his direction invaded the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Since then, Russia has provoked a shooting war in Eastern Ukraine which has cost the lives of more than 13,000 people. More than 13,000 human beings have died because of the war Vladimir Putin has caused Russia to make against the people of Ukraine. Moscow tries to deny and obfuscate the truth, but the world knows the truth. The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly plainly spoke overwhelmingly in a resolution that Russia had violated every precept of the final agreement of the Organization for Security and Co-operation. Now is the time--and I know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with this--now is the time for the President of the United States to send a strong signal to Vladimir Putin and his oligarchs, his ruling inner circle, that there will be serious consequences not so much for the Russian people, there will be serious consequences for Mr. Putin and his henchmen on day 1 if he goes ahead with this invasion--on day 1. And it troubles me to hear that our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle and my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle would like to pass an amendment on the NDAA that makes this clear and sends a clear message that on day 1, sanctions will be imposed by our Chief Executive--by the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces--and yet we are stuck on language that might have unintended consequences. The purpose of my statement this afternoon is to urge the leaders of the Armed Services Committee, of the Foreign Relations Committee, on both sides of the aisle, to get together and get the language right so we make it clear what our consequences will be on Nord Stream 2. I think Nord Stream 2 should be disallowed on day 1 when Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine. And I think we can stop this. I don't want a war with Ukraine and neither do my colleagues and neither does the President of the United States. The clearest way to prevent an invasion of our friends in Ukraine is for the United States to stand strong, to be resolute, to send a signal to the world that Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine will not be tolerated and that intolerable consequences will be meted out upon the Putin regime if this takes place. We are not where we need to be on the language. There are negotiations, and I am hopeful the NDAA will be on the floor for amendments. But the way it is positioned right now, is that a Democratic amendment will be offered, and it will not pass because we think there are holes in it. A Republican amendment will be offered on Ukraine on sanctions. It will not pass because, for some reason, the White House believes it is improper or inadequate. This doesn't have to happen when a clear majority of this body wants to send a strong signal to Mr. Putin. I hope that happens, and I urge that on the leadership of this Senate and on the leaders of these two very important committees. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I congratulate my friend from Montana for his passionate and analytical and, in my view, correct assessment of this issue. I rise this afternoon in support and encouragement of the public officials and the attorneys who will bring this case before the Supreme Court in argument tomorrow. I rise, as does my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Hyde-Smith, in appreciation for the State legislature, where she and I both served before coming to Congress, and in appreciation for the Governor and the legislature enacting the Gestational Age Act, which is the subject of this Dobbs case which will be argued tomorrow. This is a serious issue. It is an issue that will determine whether millions of American children have an opportunity to be born and to enjoy the good life in this, the greatest system of representative government that the world has ever seen. It is a serious issue. I am happy today. I am encouraged and hopeful today. One of the reasons that I am so encouraged is that the American people steadily over the decades have been moving in the direction of protecting life. This has not always been the case. As my friend from Montana so accurately pointed out, we just know so much more. Science knows so much more today in 2021 than science knew and Americans knew and the world knew back in 1973, so we see more and more people becoming pro- life. Since 1995, the share of Americans who identified themselves as pro- life has jumped to 47 percent from 33 percent. You say: Well, that is not that great. Of course, it leaves some folks undecided. But when you sort it out and become more specific, two out of three Americans support a ban on second trimester abortions. This is what the Mississippi law does. This is the law that will be allowed to stay in effect if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mississippi based on the argument tomorrow. Four out of five Americans oppose late-term abortions. My friend the distinguished Senator from Montana encouraged people within the sound of his voice to take their smartphones out and type in ``15-week-old baby.'' I did that. I don't know if the rules quite permit that yet on the floor, but I dare say it is not the first time that has been done, so I did that. I clicked on ``15-week-old baby,'' and that very picture, along with other photographs, came up. As the gentleman says, it is every much, every bit a human baby--no question about it. I am encouraged that the American people are moving in the direction of life because they have seen these pictures, because they listen to the science, and we know more than we did in 1973. The Supreme Court knows more than it did in 1973. After 15 weeks, an unborn baby has more than 90 percent of its body parts that it will ever have. They have been formed, and almost every organ is functional at the 15-week period. That is a baby. That is a human, American baby. The child's heart is pumping 26 quarts of blood per day at 15 weeks and has already beaten approximately 15.8 million times by 15 weeks. That is a human. That is a baby. Babies at this stage respond to touch and taste, and a dominant hand begins to emerge. We know at that point--15 weeks--whether that baby is right-handed or left-handed. And, of course, we know that baby can feel pain. That baby deserves the constitutional rights that the gentleman from Montana mentioned of life and the pursuit of happiness as an American. I do want to congratulate our friends across the sea for actually being ahead of us on this. We like to think that sometimes we know best and we are ahead of the curve, but it happens that almost every European country has legislation in place, rules in place, that are very much like the Mississippi law that will be in question tomorrow in the hearing. Germany and Belgium have banned elective abortions after 14 weeks. Now, this law in Mississippi has set that at 15 weeks, but Germany and Belgium, 14 weeks. Denmark, Norway, France--a very ``live and let live'' country if ever I heard of it--draws the line at 12 weeks--12 weeks. So when the Supreme Court hears this case tomorrow, they will have an opportunity to decide to place the United States of America in the broad mainstream of international thought on this. There are so many reasons why I am happy today and encouraged today that we have this opportunity to make a case based on the facts. I will say this: My heart and my thanks go out to the millions of Americans right this minute who are doing what some think is a quaint thing--performing an act that many people are skeptical about at this point. But I stand with those millions and millions of Americans who are right at this moment praying for the Supreme Court, praying for wisdom in these nine appointed and confirmed figures. They are praying for the right words to be said by the attorneys, and they are praying for the future of our great country. This is our opportunity, and we have every reason to believe that we are on the right side of history. I stand with the people who are bringing this case, and I stand with the people of Mississippi and the millions upon millions of Americans who are praying for the right decision. I yield to my good friend from across the river, the junior Senator from Louisiana. I know that my friend from Mississippi is also waiting to speak.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, this Saturday, the International Criminal Police Organization, better known as INTERPOL, will begin its annual General Assembly in Istanbul. INTERPOL is a vital global law enforcement network that helps police from different countries cooperate with each other to control crime. Unfortunately, it has also become a tool in the hands of despots and crooks who seek to punish dissidents and political opponents in an effort to turn other countries' law enforcement against the rule of law. Rooting out this sort of abuse should be the top priority going into the INTERPOL General Assembly. These abuses make a mockery of INTERPOL and are threatening its continued existence. INTERPOL's Constitution cites the universal declaration of human rights as the basis for police cooperation. Importantly and significantly, Article 3 of that declaration forbids INTERPOL from engaging in any ``activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.'' All 194 member nations have committed to uphold Article 3 and the entire INTERPOL Constitution. So it is troubling--as a matter of fact, it is even worse than troubling; it is egregious--that INTERPOL chose to host this year's General Assembly in Turkey, a country that has become one of the worst abusers of INTERPOL's Red Notice and Blue Notice systems. Turkey has repeatedly weaponized INTERPOL to persecute and arrest government critics on politically motivated charges. Journalist Can Dundar is a prime example. Mr. Dundar is one of Turkey's most prominent media personalities and has received international awards for defending freedom of the press. In 2018, Turkey demanded that INTERPOL issue a Red Notice for Mr. Dundar's arrest. What had he done? He simply criticized his government. He had reported on the Turkish Government supplying arms to an Islamist group in Syria. He was charged by a Turkish court with espionage and aiding a terrorist group--the group was never named--and sentenced to 27\1/2\ years in prison in absentia. Thankfully, Germany has refused to extradite Mr. Dundar, but this is the sort of thing we see from this year's host of the conference. In June of this year, Turkish media reported that INTERPOL had rejected nearly 800 Red Notices sent by the Turkish Government. A Swedish human rights group reported that in 2016, after the failed coup in Turkey, the Turkish Government filed tens of thousands of INTERPOL notifications targeting persons who were merely critics and political opponents of the government. Some of these people were stranded in international airports, detained and handed over to Turkey, where they ended up in prison. There are also alarming signs that Turkey is trying to leverage this year's General Assembly to further its own authoritarian goals. This past June, Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Yavuz Selim Kiran openly asserted that the General Assembly in Istanbul ``will be an important opportunity . . . [to] explain in detail . . . our rightful position regarding our fight against terrorist organizations and our rejected Red Notices.'' Translation: Turkey plans to use this high-level event to mislead and lie to the international community. They will no doubt try to explain why President Erdogan should be able to hunt--hunt--down his critics in foreign countries, using foreign law enforcement through INTERPOL. This will be a travesty--one that indeed threatens the legitimacy and future viability of INTERPOL. Of course, Turkey is not the only offender we could talk about. Russia, China, and Venezuela have routinely misused INTERPOL to oppress their critics. The case of Bill Browder, a fierce critic of the Putin regime and advocate for the Magnitsky Act, is probably the most well- known example of such abuse. Vladimir Putin has issued no fewer than eight INTERPOL diffusions seeking to have Bill Browder extradited--none of which, thankfully, have been obeyed. These abuses should not be allowed to go on. INTERPOL needs protection on behalf of countries that actually believe in human rights, that believe in open dissent and the rule of law. Providing that protection is why I have introduced the Transnational Repression Accountability and Prevention Act, or TRAP Act. This is a bipartisan effort, with four Republican cosponsors and four Democratic cosponsors. This bipartisan legislation would fortify U.S. systems against INTERPOL abuse and would require that we use our influence to push forward due process and transparency reforms at INTERPOL. American law enforcement should never be doing the work of foreign crooks and dictators. I hope that I can count on my colleagues in this Chamber to support this much needed legislation, and I invite my colleagues to be added to the cosponsor list.

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, when we looked at the news this morning and we saw the evening news last night, when we tune in to the cable channels and we hear the radio, we see the astounding news of the voices of the voters on Tuesday of this week not just in Virginia and not just in New Jersey, but in the State of New York and throughout the Midwest and on over to the west coast. The American people sent a strong message of disapproval to the Biden administration this week, and I hope our Democratic friends and the Biden administration will heed the message of the voters. I normally don't bring the New York Times to the floor and quote it with approval, but it says here in the New York Times this morning: ``Bruised at Polls, Democrats Look at Their Missteps.'' I hope that is true. I hope our Democratic colleagues and our friends in the Biden administration are looking at their missteps because they are many and they have been harmful. The Washington Post this morning, November 4, said: ``A sharp turn looms in Virginia.'' Yes, Virginia went from the three constitutional statewide offices all being held by Democrats to a Republican sweep, not only there but in the State General Assembly. But then I see this other headline at the top of the page: ``Democrats race ahead on fiscal proposals.'' Presumably, our Democrat friends are not hearing the message that the American people in State after State after State sent just Tuesday of this week. Even vastly underfunded GOP candidates, like the candidate for Governor in New Jersey, came within a hair's breadth of being elected. Vastly underfunded GOP candidates for legislative positions actually prevailed over candidates with millions and millions of dollars on the Democratic side. The American people have sent this administration and this Democratic majority in the House and this tiny Democratic majority in the Senate a very unmistakable message. They are rejecting the malaise that we are under. And the Biden administration must understand that this election was the direct result of the President's failed agenda. By all measures, our economy should be roaring by now. We are coming out of the pandemic. We should be back to the good news of February 2020, the month before the pandemic hit. The Trump and Republican tax cuts were in place. The unemployment rate was an astoundingly low 3.6 percent, something that we were told in our economics classes was impossible in the United States of America. When I was taking kiddy economics, they said it couldn't go below 4 percent. The unemployment rate in February of 2020 was 3.6 percent. Employment was up among women. Employment was up among minorities. Employment was up among veterans. Our economy was roaring. And then the pandemic came, and we acted in a bipartisan way. But we are coming out of the pandemic now, and the administration acts as if we need a huge dose--$4 trillion, $5 trillion worth--of socialism. The pandemic is in full retreat, and from the beginning of the administration this year, the Biden administration blew it. On day one, the President canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline, killing thousands of jobs, and almost in the same breath, he told the Russians to go ahead with their pipeline. I mean, can Americans even grasp that? I think they sent a message Tuesday about that sort of thing. With the stroke of a pen, the President declared war on American energy. The result has been that fuel has become scarce, and, of course, because of its scarcity, it has become more expensive. After 4 years of relief under the last administration, U.S. energy producers are once again looking down the barrel of a hostile EPA. This is a self-inflicted energy crisis. Coal and nuclear plants are shutting down as reliable natural resources are taken off the table, replaced by its administration's fantasy dream of green-only energy. Taxpayers are being told to stomach higher gas prices while, at the same time, being asked to pay billions of dollars to subsidize wind, solar, and electric vehicles. There is a place for that, but they are all three unreliable. And, predictably, gas prices have soared. Instead of reevaluating his own policies, it seems that the President is attempting to double down on them, and he has even gone to questionable governments across the sea in the Middle East asking them to produce more oil because we won't do that in the United States. It makes no sense at all. Perhaps this administration should listen to the election results and hear the voices of the people from Tuesday. But the economic damage is hardly limited to energy. Inflation spurred on by the administration's reckless spending is burning a hole in the wallets of Americans, and we simply can't get around it. The Consumer Price Index shows one thing, that prices have gone up 5.4 percent over the last 12 months. Well, I will tell you, Madam President, I was speaking to a manufacturer from my home State of Mississippi just yesterday, and he said that figure is understated quite a bit. He said his costs have gone up around 20 percent in being able to manufacture goods for American people and hire Americans and hire Mississippians. Meanwhile, the gears of our economy are slowing down, causing fears of stagflation, something we have not seen since the 1970s. And I do want to agree with my friend from Wyoming about the gentleman from Illinois' point about the Climate Corps. This manufacturer in Mississippi said he has got 2,000 positions that need to be filled. Perhaps some of these people that the Senator from Illinois would like to employ in the Climate Corps can come to manufacturers like ours in Mississippi and take a good-paying job manufacturing things for Americans that we can sell in our country and all around the world. GDP growth just slowed to 2 percent. Employers still cannot find enough workers, just like the manufacturer from Mississippi told me yesterday. Our supply chain is jammed up with endless delays, causing concern. But, to me, one of the most serious and dangerous policies of this administration is the Biden administration's unprecedented and unconstitutional vaccine mandate on two-thirds of the private-sector workforce. We are being told that every employer with over 100 employees must comply with a Washington-mandated and unconstitutional vaccine mandate. This is exactly what the President said 11 months ago he didn't want to do. Joe Biden was asked in December of 2020: Should vaccines be mandated? And he said: ``No, I don't think they should be mandatory.'' The President was right when he said that to the press, and he is 180 degrees wrong today and taking his cues from the most radical advisers that he has. As a result, the American people, on Tuesday, have said: Enough. Now, I know a little about American workers. I know a little about American service men and women. I was one. We have been raised in a free country, in a free land, and we are not accustomed to being told by Washington, DC, by the Chief Executive of the United States of America, what we must put in our bodies. And I can tell you, this is a looming economic crisis for this country. Millions and millions of hard-working American taxpayers are going to be forced to leave their jobs because they will refuse, as free Americans, to be told that they must take a vaccine that they do not feel good about. Madam President, the Chief Executive of our land has grossly miscalculated the American people on this issue, and a looming economic crisis because of a lack of workers and mass layoffs and mass firings is about to occur. The Biden administration should pause, do what the New York Times said this morning and, as they are examining their bruises, look at their missteps because they are many and they are hurting the American economy. I would urge the Biden administration to let these tax cuts stay in place, to let these soft-touch regulations stay in place, to pause and listen to the clear voices of the American people as they voted in strong numbers this past Tuesday. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Rounds and I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes each before the vote.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, it gives me no pleasure to stand on the Senate floor today and talk about President Biden's ill-advised and chaotic withdrawal; to talk about the consequences for the people of Afghanistan, who trusted us and who took our side for 20 years; and to talk about the tremendous harm it has done to America's reputation. The President, I think, believes that the cost of this debacle has been only a few weeks of bad press. I think he is, sadly, wrong. Perhaps the President is banking on the American people forgetting that the disaster took place on his watch, but it turns out this is a disaster of historic proportions. We will be reeling from this debacle for years and decades to come. The President may try to change the subject, but the cold truth is that our Nation will be paying the price when we are dead and gone and these pages are in the position of senior leadership in this country. Last week, my colleagues and I, on the Armed Services Committee, heard directly from our Nation's top military leaders who had been advising the President on Afghanistan. Their testimonies made clear what we had known all along, that President Biden not only ignored their advice, which he has the power to do as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, but that he then misrepresented that advice to the American people. In a national TV interview, when asked whether top military advisers had recommended leaving a small troop presence behind to keep a lid on the situation, which would have kept all hell from breaking loose, the President insisted that no one, to his knowledge, had made that recommendation. We know that statement by Joe Biden was not true. The President got good advice, and then incredibly pled ignorance. He also got good advice from Democrats. And I would point out my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, when this was first broached in an open meeting and the administration was explaining what was going to take place, Senator Whitehouse said this sounds like it is going to be a lot like the fall of Saigon in April of 1974. Senator Whitehouse, as the son of a Foreign Service Officer, had an all too close recollection of the disaster that occurred in Saigon back in the seventies, and he warned the administration officials that this might happen again. And yet the President said no one, to his knowledge, made this recommendation or gave these warnings. This is a President who promised to shoot straight with the American people, who said in February: ``You can handle anything as long as you are told the truth.'' I wish the President actually believed that and subscribed to that and lived by that. The American people can handle the truth, and they need to be told the truth. Here is one bit of hard truth from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley: ``Our exit from Afghanistan was a `strategic failure.' '' From the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: ``It has caused `damage' to America's credibility.'' That is from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I appreciate him leveling with the committee and leveling with the American people. That damage was on full display this past weekend, when the former Afghan Ambassador, Adela Raz, was asked by Axios: Do you still trust the United States? Her answer was simple, bleak, and understandable: ``No. Sorry.'' That was her answer: ``No. Sorry.'' She does not trust the United States anymore. This loss of trust extends far beyond Afghanistan. As General Milley noted, ``Our credibility with allies and partners around the world and with adversaries is being intensely reviewed by them.'' And he said, yes, ``damaged'' is the correct word. Simply put, when we abandon our friends, our partners around the world start to wonder if they can trust us, if we will have their backs. This hurts our ability to cooperate with our allies to deter threats and to provide security for the American people, and it emboldens our adversaries to act more aggressively. We have already seen this from China in the past week. China has been signaling to Taiwan by ramping up their air missions near Taiwan. They have been signaling to our friends in Taiwan that America is an unreliable partner. Even before our troops had fully left Kabul, Chinese media wasted no time predicting that we will also abandon friends in Taiwan if and when China invades that country--a matter of concern. Will this embolden Iran? Terrorist groups in Pakistan who support the Taliban remain a serious concern. But perhaps the worst breach of trust in this dark chapter was between our government and our own people. During the withdrawal, President Biden assured us on national television--and I quote the President's grammar--``If there is American citizens left in Afghanistan, we're gonna stay to get them all out.'' ``If there is American citizens left in Afghanistan, we're gonna stay to get them all out.'' Days later, that promise went out the window. The President dismissed those Americans staying by saying many of them wanted to stay in Afghanistan. This repeated pattern of broken promises and our failure to own these decisions will only further weaken our country, our alliances, and our national security. Sadly, we must get about the business of rehabilitating our reputation with our allies and the way our enemies and adversaries look at us. I stand with my colleagues today who are committed to holding this administration accountable. Thank you.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, it is my honor to recognize Mr. Mitchell Waldman for his long and exceptional record of service on the occasion of his retirement at the end of the month. Mr. Waldman has served our Nation for more than 42 years in various national security roles across the executive and legislative branches of government and in the private sector, providing counsel to Senators, Secretaries, CNOs, and CEOs. For the past decade, Mr. Waldman has served as executive vice president of Government and Customer Relations for Huntington Ingalls Industries, America's largest military shipbuilding company. At Huntington Ingalls, Mr. Waldman has been responsible for leading the company's engagements with the legislative branch, the executive branch, business and trade associations, and think tanks. Before this appointment, Mr. Waldman served as vice president for business development of advanced programs and technology for Northrop Grumman's aerospace systems sector. Before joining Northrop Grumman, Mr. Waldman served as national security advisor to my good friend, former U.S. Senator for Mississippi Trent Lott, as well as a national security consultant in the office of the Senate majority leader. Mr. Waldman has held a number of executive positions for the U.S. Navy, including Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Ships), Director of Cost Engineering and Industrial Analysis for Naval Sea Systems Command, and Deputy Program Manager for Amphibious Warfare Programs. Mr. Waldman received a bachelor of science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Florida and a juris doctor from Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law. He is also a graduate of Yale University's executive management program and the defense systems management college program managers course. He has been honored with the U.S. Navy Distinguished Civilian Service Award, the State of Mississippi Distinguished Civilian Service Award, and the D.C. City Council of Engineering Societies Architect of the Year award. Mr. Waldman's contributions also extend to his service on the board of directors for the Shipbuilders Council of America, the National Bureau of Asian Research, the Armed Services YMCA, the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation, and the Naval War College Foundation. Additionally, he is a member of the external advisory board for the University of Florida's Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. I would like to express a heartfelt ``thank you'' to Mr. Waldman for a career marked by the utmost devotion to our country. I would also like to wish him good luck as he begins a new phase in life; may the new journey be as fulfilling as his career has been. It is with sincere respect and kindest regards that I wish Mitch Waldman, his wife Debbie, and his daughter Emily: ``Fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Baldwin amendment. I appreciate Senator Baldwin's interest in making sure that the Coast Guard has adequate icebreaking in the Great Lakes. I will note that there is currently no funding for the Coast Guard in the Democrats' budget resolution, and I hope that the vote we are about to have will show support for icebreakers. And perhaps Democrats will regret their decision to exclude the Coast Guard from the Commerce Committee's allocation of over $80 billion. But I do support the amendment. The ranking member of the Budget Committee also supports the amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 3648