Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I come to the floor today once again to make a simple point, and that is that the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has once again shown the world that he has no interest in peace. In Saudi Arabia, representatives of the United States and representatives of Ukraine are continuing to work in good faith toward a just end to the war in Ukraine. In the coming weeks, a Ukrainian delegation will travel to Washington, DC, for the same purpose. They will discuss with our leaders the future economic partnership between our nations, Ukraine and the United States. Both of our nations want to see an end to the war. Meanwhile, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin continues to show no real commitment to that goal. Today, the residents of President Zelenskyy's own hometown, a little village by the name of Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine, began a 3-day period of mourning. They are grieving yet another deadly, barbaric attack by Vladimir Putin. On Friday, President Putin launched drones and Iranian-made ballistic missiles into a residential section of that small city. These drones and missiles injured at least 68 people and killed at least 20 people. Among the dead were nine children. They were all noncombatants, ordinary civilians, living an ordinary day, visiting friends, stopping in shops, dining at restaurants, and playing at a children's playground. The attack on a civilian neighborhood is just the latest sign that Putin has no regard for life, but he underscored that fact by raining cluster munitions onto a children's playground. The brightly colored swing sets and jungle gyms, sites of play and joy, are scenes of devastation. The sandbox and merry-go-round are a testament to the Russian brutality. One of the slain children was a 3-year-old boy named Tymofii. He and his grandmother were walking home from the playground when the bombs fell. One moment he had been playing, as children should; the next, he was gone, killed by a Russian attack on a civilian residential neighborhood. The killing, like the entire unprovoked war, is an outrage, and it demands a response. And I want to quote someone who has not been quoted on the Senate floor recently about this topic, and that is former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. He put it well this weekend. The former Speaker said: Putin attacking Zelenskii's hometown and killing women and children is a deliberate insult to the United States and test of how much dishonesty[,] Brutality, and aggressiveness we will tolerate. He must be made [to] Pay for it. And, yes, it is a test of how much we are willing to tolerate, particularly in light of the discussions that were going on. The former Speaker is correct. Mr. Putin launched this attack on women and children in the middle of cease-fire negotiations. These aren't the acts of a leader who is interested in peace. The attack is an insult and a test, but it is also a test the United States must pass. We must not tolerate Vladimir Putin's dishonesty, brutality, and aggression. I believe the President of the United States, President Trump, shares the former Speaker's views. Early last week, President Trump signaled that he was displeased with Putin's refusal to make a deal, as well he should have been. At last week's NATO summit, Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the point. He said: President Trump will not allow the Russian dictator to drag us on in endless negotiation. He said: We will know soon enough, in a matter of weeks, not months, whether Russia is serious about peace or not. I agree with President Trump on his assessment. I agree with Secretary of State Rubio on his statement. But as it turns out, it wasn't in a matter of weeks or months. Putin showed us in a matter of days. Putin launched his attack the day after Secretary Rubio's words. The message was clear. He is not interested in peace. He would like a phony deal that buys Russia time to rearm. We must not allow Russia to waffle forever in negotiations. Vladimir Putin would prefer to. Maybe he thinks he can wait out the war forever. But let me tell you, Russia's economy and its industry show signs of cracking. A lot of the American people do not realize this, but the economy of Russia is crumbling. We must show resolve in the face of President Putin's growing weakness. We must not let him up off the mat, allowing him to shore up strength for another assault. President Trump and President Zelenskyy will work toward a deal that will be good for the entire free world--good for Ukraine and good for the United States, but for the entire free world. As they negotiate, we must all keep in mind exactly who their third negotiating partner is. And I say, as I said on the floor a few days ago: If Vladimir Putin keeps a promise that he makes to the United States in this regard, it will be the first time he has ever kept his word on any treaty, on any cease-fire. That is who we are dealing with. We have to deal with him, but that is who he is. Vladimir Putin has shown us again who we are dealing with: a man willing to murder children in an attempt to pressure President Zelenskyy and President Trump. I stand with President Trump and President Zelenskyy in facing down this murderous dictator. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. We certainly need a cease-fire in the Ukraine war. We are closer and closer to having an agreement between President Trump and President Zelenskyy about a cease-fire, and it is quite obvious that President Putin is not at all interested in peace. But this budget resolution is about $150 billion of investment in our military for shipbuilding, missile defense, munitions, innovation, taking care of our troops, and more. Passage of this amendment will make it harder to pass the budget, and for that reason, I hope we will reject the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote no. Vote on Amendment No. 1646

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

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, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Whitaker nomination be waived.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I have a little advice, really, of a parliamentary nature for the U.S. Senate. I hope it will be taken in the constructive spirit that it is intended. This week, the Senate is expected, once again, to vote on a budget resolution. It is among the most important actions we will take all year. Unfortunately, one unpleasant aspect of this process will be the so- called vote-arama. We just had one a few weeks ago. There is no specific mention of the vote-arama in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act. This process was never envisioned by the drafters of the budget law. But it evolved to its current form because the Congressional Budget Act allows debate up to 20 hours and does not restrict the number of amendments Senators can offer. Here is how it actually works. And you know this quite well, Mr. President, as a new Member of the Senate. On the day of the amendment votes, Senators will sit around on the floor and in the Cloakrooms and in the anterooms of the Chamber and stare at each other all day, make offers and counteroffers. Then late in the day, usually in the early evening, we begin debate. We make brief 1-minute speeches, and we vote over and over and over into the wee hours of the morning. One result is that the process is, by then, hidden, relegated to the darkness of nighttime. Most Americans are already asleep when we get down to business in the vote-arama. What they miss, though, is mostly political theater. In this production, the roles never change. I have been in the minority at times during my tenure in the Senate. I have been in the majority, as I am now. But the roles stay the same. The minority party has one job: to offer amendments--germane or not, pertinent or not--that put the majority in an uncomfortable position. As a Member of the minority party, I have done that. The majority party has the job of defeating every amendment, if possible. It doesn't matter what the merit of the amendments are. The majority party often defeats each one. Why? Because otherwise, we would delay the important work of actually, finally, getting to passage of a budget reconciliation bill, which will come later. The vote-arama hardly ever has any budgetary substance. The vote- arama is merely a messaging process. Every Member of the Senate, minority and majority, knows this. Americans at least deserve to hear this debate during the light of day. Both parties can achieve their goals without running this process into the wee hours of the morning, which is what we always do. Over the last few weeks, I have talked with Members on both sides of the aisle, my Republican colleagues and our Democratic friends. I floated the idea of a unanimous consent agreement to conduct these votes during the light of day. I simply say, Mr. President, there is widespread support among the rank and file for getting this done during working hours. So I would urge the leadership of both parties and all Members of both parties--because it takes unanimous consent--to adopt a unanimous consent agreement that avoids the political theater of a dead-of-night vote-arama. The American people deserve better. And I would like to think the U.S. Senate is better than the process we have come to practice. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following law clerks on Senator Capito's staff be granted floor privileges until April 4, 2025: Camryn Runyon, Megan Banke, and Harry Kazenoff.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to offer some remarks on the situation in Europe and the prospects for peace in Ukraine. We should start with recent positive developments. President Trump and President Zelenskyy have demonstrated remarkable resolve and remarkable wherewithal. Just this week, we heard news from the peace talks in Saudi Arabia. Ukraine publicly expressed openness to prisoner exchanges, a welcome development. Notably, Russia did not express such willingness. We should applaud Ukraine's overtures. An agreement is in reach that reflects the common cause of the United States and Ukraine. Separately, much ink has been spilled on the economic investment deal. Less has been said about why the United States is interested in an investment deal with Ukraine. President Trump recognizes that America is better off when Ukraine is free, strong, and industrious. The economic investment deal shows that our President wants peace and that he wants an honorable peace, one that ensures the prosperity and protection of Ukraine and the United States. This peace will require that Russia put down its weapons in an enduring and verifiable way. It is clear that Vladimir Putin does not share President Trump's desire for peace. As Putin's representatives prepare to sit down with American diplomats, President Putin has ordered salvo after salvo of missiles and drones to strike Ukrainian apartments, killing noncombatant women and children. These are not the gestures of a statesman who wants to negotiate peace. We are dealing with a tyrant who speaks the language of war and terror. We have to deal with him, but that is who he is. In recent decades, several successive U.S. Presidents have extended the hand of peace to Mr. Putin. Each one of them had different tactics, but none of them achieved the outcome they desire. In this series of failed diplomacy, the common denominator was not the American Presidents, regardless of party. The common denominator was and is Russia's dictator, Vladimir Putin, a war criminal. So we need to remind the American people exactly what kind of strongman we are dealing with here, the kind of strongman we are trying to negotiate with, the kind of strongman we are forced to negotiate with. Vladimir Putin, regrettably, is not interested in peace. He is interested in a phony deal. He has shown this with his words, his acts of violence, and the peace agreements he has shredded. Dictators frequently tell us who they really are. In 2007, Putin stood before the Munich Security Conference, and he rejected a world in which nations cooperate. In his other writings, he has publicly mourned the collapse of the Soviet empire, and he dreams of its resurrection. In 2021, President Putin wrote an essay laying the groundwork for his invasion of Ukraine. This was a year before the recent invasion. In it, he rejected the very right of the Ukrainian people to exist as a distinct and self-governing nation. In writing, the essay is full of lies. It would have made Adolf Hitler proud. But it shows one thing is true: Mr. Putin is a Russian imperialist to the core. Here is a man who believes the greatest historical tragedy of the last 40 years was the collapse of the Soviet power and influence over Eastern Europe. Putin publicly proclaims his delusions of grandeur but has not stopped at words and speeches. He has used any means necessary to continue his decades-long political warfare against NATO, and he has ruthlessly worked to achieve the empire he craves. In the year after his Munich speech, Vladimir Putin and his army invaded their neighbor, the Republic of Georgia. In the year after his essay about Ukraine, he invaded Ukraine. Mr. Putin no longer technically works for the KGB but still thinks like a KBG agent--the kind who uses chemical weapons to poison people in Russia and all over the world, exacting revenge on his critics without regard for international borders. He jails reporters and activists. Why does he do this? Because dictators actually live in fear of their own people. Putin has imprisoned scores of Americans in Russian gulags. He has killed and kidnapped American citizens across the globe. His commandos have targeted our soldiers in Afghanistan. He has no respect for our country or for human life in his country or any other country. And he has the weaponry to back up his threats. Mr. Putin sits atop the world's largest and most diverse nuclear arsenal. And I might add that this arsenal is postured specifically at us to destroy the United States. In another perverse action--I have to say this--Mr. Putin has tried to co-opt Christianity, if you can believe that. He has twisted a religion of repentance into a propaganda machine. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow professes to lead the Russian Orthodox Church. In reality, Kirill is a puppet of Vladimir Putin. His father baptized Vladimir Putin. And now Kirill follows his father's footsteps by sanctifying the dictator's crimes. Kirill has blessed the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, absurdly claiming that the Russians are fighting against evil. As patriarch, he blessed the invasion. As Russia bombs Ukrainian women and children, Kirill invokes God's name to justify Putin's butchery. Kirill is the very definition of the Prophet Isaiah's portrait of corruption. Isaiah condemned men like him, those who ``call evil good and good evil.'' Shame on this phony patriarch. President Putin has publicly shared his imperialistic dreams. He violently pursued those goals even in God's name. Along the way, he has torn to shreds every cease-fire deal he has ever signed. Before World War I, the Kaiser's regime in Germany called a treaty ``a mere scrap of paper.'' Well, Vladimir Putin feels the same. He has no regard for the Budapest Memorandum. He has no regard for the INF Treaty. He has no regard for the Minsk agreement. In each case, Putin has lied, stolen, and misdirected to further his empire-building ambitions. And that is what he is trying to do with negotiations today. President Trump is interested in peace. President Zelenskyy is interested in peace. Putin values peace as little as any piece of shredded paper he would deceitfully sign. Many people do not realize that Ukrainians have been valiantly and steadily weakening Putin's forces. Half a million Russian soldiers-- half a million souls--have either been killed or injured so severely that they cannot return to the battlefield. That is half a million Russian moms without sons, wives without husbands. That total is steep, and the blame rests upon one person, the man who ordered the invasion: Vladimir Putin and his imperialistic vision. Russia is barely managing to sustain this war. And I think the American people do not know this, but Russia is barely hanging on. They are struggling from heavy battlefield costs and economic sanctions. We should not support a peace deal that could let Russia up off the mat and reconstitute its army. Both the previous and the current Secretaries General of NATO expect that Russia will not be ready to threaten NATO conventionally for 5 to 7 years. The wrong deal with Russia could allow them to be off to the races sooner. And Russia wants just that, as we have seen this week. Putin is trying to work the peace process deceptively to skew it in his favor. This week, his office has pushed out messages from the peace talks in Riyadh. Putin's officials maintain that the United States is prepared to lift a number of sanctions, sanctions the West imposed after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I certainly hope that is not true. These Kremlin officials claim that we will soon readmit Russia to SWIFT. SWIFT, of course, is the global financial system that Russian depends on for global trade. Putin relies on trade to finance his war machine. Russians also think we are prepared to grant sanctions relief for any company that ships goods on vessels flying the Russian flag or they could claim any ties to food production, shipping, and securities. Such a deal would be full of loopholes. Such a deal would be designed to let Russia, which is on the ropes, off the mat. Mr. Putin's men asked for all of this. Yet they offer little in return. They won't even talk about prisoner exchanges. That is breathtaking, especially when Ukraine has publicly expressed openness to a cease-fire. They are the ones that have publicly said they will agree to a cease-fire. Mr. Putin and his negotiators have never proclaimed that. The Ukrainians, who have been ruthlessly attacked, have extended the hand of peace. Russia still has not even though it demands so much. Putin says he is willing to work toward peace, but his demands show that he is lying. His demands make it clear he intends to use the sanctions relief to rearm. It would be a mistake to grant sanctions relief to Russia without reciprocal support for Ukraine. Doing so would devastate the prospect of a lasting peace. Let me repeat. Mr. Putin has never agreed to a cease-fire, to a treaty that resulted in a lasting peace. As we negotiate in Saudi Arabia, the United States must remember that Russia is barely managing to sustain this war. The economic and battlefield price is very costly for Mr. Putin. Undoing these sanctions would instantly lower Putin's cost. It would evaporate the leverage his financial penalties have given to the United States and the free world. As I close, let me reiterate, many have tried to negotiate with Vladimir Putin on his terms. I think President Trump is beginning to understand that peace comes through American and Ukrainian strength; that dictators respond to power because it is the only thing they respect. We need to see this Russian dictator and war criminal for what he is: a murderous dictator who hopes he can back us into a corner during the peace process and thus pursue another invasion. If Vladimir Putin lives up to a cease-fire or peace treaty with Ukraine, it will be the first time ever. Vladimir Putin has a long track record, and it is filled with lies, violence, and treachery. That is whom we are dealing with. We have to deal with him, but that is whom we are dealing with. Getting a deal with him will be a challenge. We must bear history in mind if we are to reach a settlement that benefits the free countries of the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall votes.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I have the greatest respect for the previous speaker and also for the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee. If she gets her way this afternoon or later tonight, the government will shut down. We would have to call the House back in. It will be a long period of uncertainty in a shutdown. That is the choice we are faced with. The Speaker of the House has been faced with a very, very slim margin in the House of Representatives. He has had to do a deal that none of us likes, but he has decided that we have a responsibility to govern, and the better choice is to keep the government open. The previous speaker has had 6 months to try to negotiate the deal which she says we can do now in 30 days. It is not going to happen. We are here to make tough choices. Today, Senator Collins and I and others will make tough choices. We don't like the choices before us, but that is the way you have to govern.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Let me talk about an easy choice that the Senate will soon have to make, and that is the nomination of Mr. Stephen Feinberg, President Trump's choice to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Here is the reason it is going to be an easy choice for us in just a few moments. He was reported from the Armed Services Committee by an 18-to-9 vote--a bipartisan overwhelming vote--and he will do a good job. The Secretary of Defense focuses on policy, on the overall policy. The Deputy Secretary of Defense--the position that Mr. Feinberg will hold if he is confirmed, as I am sure he will be--this person oversees the day-to-day operations of the vast Pentagon by leading its budget process, managing its people, and driving crucial internal reforms. Steve Feinberg is the exact person for this. Now, under normal circumstances, the Deputy Secretary of Defense requires exemplary skills in management, budgeting, and problem- solving, but today's extraordinary environment requires even more than that--a manager of the highest caliber in that role. So let's look at just two or three items from Steve Feinberg's resume. He has been founder and cochief executive officer and chief investment officer of Cerberus. He founded and cofounded other Cerberus affiliates and Cerberus funds. He managed separate pools of capital for Gruntal & Company, and he also had high responsibilities in Drexel Burnham Lambert. He knows how to manage huge, billion-dollar operations and to manage people. He is also a perfect person for this role. He is well-spoken. He is calm. He is understated. He will be largely invisible. But he is the man to help us rebuild the military, reform the way the Pentagon does business, and turn this unaudited Pentagon bureaucracy around. He will get a resounding bipartisan vote on the floor, I predict, as he did in the committee. I congratulate the President on this nomination and on the bipartisan vote that we will soon get on a vote that is relatively easy compared to some of the harder votes later on today. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WICKER. I am simply responding and not attempting to prolong this. The negotiation process is underway. It may be that the negotiators are in different cities and in different continents at this point. But the matter is very sensitive. We should be very careful not to interfere with something that may make us all proud and give relief to thousands of millions. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, my friend in Maryland and I participated in a bipartisan delegation on Friday morning last where we met with the President of Ukraine before what we hoped was going to be a signing ceremony. There were a number of Democrats that met with President Zelenskyy. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I participated and chaired that meeting. The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee was also there and the President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate was also there, along with quite a number of Democrats. We were wishing for the very best because we thought a significant agreement was about to be signed that would move us toward a reconciliation of this terrible war. I was distressed--I was devastated, even--when I saw the conversation that took place later on that day. I wondered if the damage could ever be repaired. Thankfully, the damage is being repaired, and we have had very hopeful signs of progress being made. I made the statement to the public and to members of the Armed Services Committee at a hearing just yesterday. It is time for those of us in the political realm who are not part of this negotiation to be silent; to take a deep breath and not do anything that could interfere with the excellent news that we saw coming yesterday with a very fine statement from President Zelenskyy, with the quoting of that statement with approval by the President of the United States last night. This is not the time for elected Members of the House and Senate to be passing resolutions. Take a deep breath. Let the negotiators do their work. And for Heaven's sake, not do anything that might, in some way, be interpreted as being belligerent or counterproductive. For that reason, I do object.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, the Book of Ecclesiastes, in the Old Testament, has provided mankind with some of the greatest words of wisdom ever imparted. In chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes, the words say: For everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven. It goes on to say there is ``a time to speak and a time to be silent.'' Now, I have spoken, perhaps, not as eloquently but, perhaps, as often as my friend from Connecticut about this war--about who is to blame and about what should happen. I have been disappointed, over a 3-year period, at the previous administration for what I viewed as a slow- walking of aid which might have given us a different situation currently on the ground in this European country. But we are at a point where there are delicate negotiations going on which might save lives, which might lead to peace--and lasting peace-- with a backstop by the United States and our allies in Europe. This is the Ecclesiastical time to be silent and let the negotiators do their work if they possibly can. For that reason, I object.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, on behalf of the people of Mississippi, I commend Bo Ladner, who has devoted his career to developing homes for Mississippians. Bo has spent his entire life on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. He has not only made the region his home, but he has provided the same feeling to countless Mississippians. As the owner of Paramount Contracting, Bo has sought to make homebuilding accessible to a wide range of customers. His company blends innovative design techniques with traditional, high-quality craftsmanship. It is clear that Bo's customers appreciate his work. In 2014, Paramount Contracting won the Best of Mississippi Home Builder award. Bo has given back to his community when it needed him the most. When Hurricane Katrina devastated the gulf coast, Bo used his skills to provide relief. He helped homeowners with storm prevention, becoming a leader in building homes with extra reinforcement in areas susceptible to high winds and rain. Of course, homes are more than concrete and wood. Bo has created a space for families to thrive and communities to come together. I join my fellow Mississippians in thanking Mr. Bo Ladner for providing homes--and the feeling of home--to so many in our State.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose it. There is no greater supporter of Ukraine in this Senate than I am, but this is not the right vehicle. This is a budget to add for national security investment, missile defense, shipbuilding, munition, cybersecurity, taking care of our troops, and protecting our borders. There is a place to talk about Ukraine. It is not this budget. But passage of this amendment, though Members might wish to, will make it harder to pass this very valuable budget, and that is what this is about. That is why even I, a huge supporter of what we are doing in Ukraine, have to vote no on this, so we can pass a good budget. I urge a ``no'' vote. Vote on Amendment No. 299

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Americans and guests, on September 19, 1796, President George Washington published an open letter to the American people. The immediate purpose of this message was to notify his fellow citizens that he would not seek a third term as President. Beyond that, George Washington chose the occasion to provide profound parting advice to his countrymen. In what has become known as George Washington's acclaimed Farewell Address, our first President gave advice and counsel regarding a wide range of issues: foreign policy, accumulation of debt, excessive partisanship, the separation of powers, and the role of religion and morality in public life. Of course, this was not the first time President Washington had let go of power. Just down the hall from where I stand right now, in the Capitol Rotunda, hangs a painting by John Trumbull. It depicts George Washington resigning from his commission as general of the Continental Army. This took place on December 23, 1783. In the painting, General Washington is dressed in full military garb. He is an image of strength and commanding presence. He had led a small army to victory against a powerful empire. If he had wanted to, the American people, no doubt, would have given him power for life. Instead, the painting shows Washington with a hand outstretched, giving his resignation letter to the Continental Congress, relinquishing power. Almost 250 years later, Trumbull's painting remains in the Rotunda. Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Justices, and Cabinet officials have passed it as they have gone about the business of the country. Generations of families and school groups have craned their necks to gaze at this 12- by 18-foot depiction of humility. Today, it might strike viewers as odd that we devote an entire painting to that moment. But in the late 1700s and certainly in the history of the world at that time, this was rare. Most leaders did not voluntarily relinquish power. The Senate's annual reading of this letter can keep us from taking Washington's decision to step down from the Presidency for granted. I am a huge fan of Lin-Manuel Miranda's famous musical ``Hamilton.'' Miranda put it well when he wrote that George Washington was to ``teach them how to say goodbye.'' By his actions and his words, he did teach Americans how to relinquish power. He also charged us to stay the course in this great experiment of self-government. I am grateful to my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to read these words to you today. Pursuant to their invitation, I do read the words of George Washington. Mr. WICKER, at the rostrum, read the Farewell Address, as follows: To the people of the United States: Friends and Fellow-Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country--and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country you will not disapprove my determination to retire. The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself, and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me, still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise and as an instructive example in our annals that, under circumstances in which the passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts-- of common dangers, sufferings, and successes. But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole. The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South in the same intercourse, benefitting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort--and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value! They must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other. These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands. In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--northern and southern--Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen in the negotiation by the executive--and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate--of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government and in the Atlantic states unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens? To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate Union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. Towards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions, that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country, that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable; liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume. It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felic- ity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall counsel. Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rival-ship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world--so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed--in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them--conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another--that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character--that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish--that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism--this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated. How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them. In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the 22d of April 1793 is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. After deliberate examination with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take--and was bound in duty and interest to take--a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it with moderation, perseverence, and firmness. The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government--the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers. Geo. Washington. United States, 19th September 1796.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I come to the floor to direct Members' attention to a very important article on the front page of yesterday's Wall Street Journal, February 10, 2025, by Thomas Grove. The headline states ``Be Cruel,'' how Russia tortured Ukrainians. This is a most disturbing bit of news, and it demonstrates who we are dealing with in hoping somehow that there will be a negotiated settlement of Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion of a smaller neighbor that he thought was weaker, in violation of every international law dealing with this. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the article by Mr. Grove printed in the Record.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, it starts out by saying that in the beginning of this war, which now has lasted almost 3 years, word came down from the leadership of Vladimir Putin's dictatorship in Russia to prisoners of war captured by the Russian soldiers, from Major General Igor Potapenko: ``Be cruel, don't pity them,'' the Ukrainian prisoners. We all know that war is hell. There is no question about it. We also are finding out that Russia has learned this. They thought that it would be a 1- or 2-day excursion and that they would be welcomed by pro-Russian Ukrainians as they rolled their tanks in. They found out very differently soon, and 3 years later, we have seen how the Ukrainians have fought and died for their own homeland. Also, once a combatant has been captured, there are very important international rules and regulations and a matter of international law-- which can be punished by life imprisonment, which can be punished by the death penalty--about treatment of prisoners of war. This is what we are learning about what Major General Igor Potapenko told the Russian prison officials that they could do: ``There would be no restrictions against violence'' against these prisoners of war. ``The body cameras mandatory elsewhere in Russia's . . . system would be gone. The guards would rotate . . . serving a month at a time in prisons before other teams took their place. Across the country, other units . . . received similar instructions.'' We are not finding this out, by the way, from some international reporter that somehow got into the system and saw this. This is information given by former Russian prison guards who were so disturbed by these orders that they defected to the West. Three Russian prison guards are telling The Wall Street Journal and Americans and anyone who would listen about the horrors. This resulted in nearly 3 years of relentless torture. Guards applied electric shocks to prisoners' genitals until the batteries ran out. I am almost reluctant to speak these words in public. They beat prisoners to inflict maximum damage, experimenting to see what kind of material would be most painful. Then, when there were medical problems, as there would surely be, medical treatment was withheld to allow gangrene to fester, forcing amputations. Three former prison officials told this reporter how Russia planned and executed what United Nations' investigators have described as widespread and systematic torture. Their accounts were supported by official documents, interviews with Ukrainian prisoners, and a person who helped the prison officials defect. Thank God they were able to defect. This is also borne out by a former prisoner of war, Pavel Afisov, taken prisoner in Mariupol early in the war. He was among the first Ukrainian prisoners detained in Russia. For 2\1/2\ years, this 25-year- old combatant, who was entitled to the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions, was, instead, moved from prison to prison before being released just last October. He said beatings were the worst when he was transferred. After arriving at a penitentiary in Russia's Tver region north of Moscow, he was led into a medical examination room and ordered to strip. Guards shocked him repeatedly with a stun gun while shaving his head and beard. When it was over, he was told to yell ``Glory to Russia! Glory to the Special Forces!'' and then, still naked, he was ordered to sing the Russian and Soviet--and Soviet--national anthems. When he said he didn't know the words, the guards beat him with fists and batons. This is hard to read, but what did the former guards say--Russian citizens--who thankfully have been willing to defect and come forward and tell the truth about the vicious, brutal, illegal regime of Vladimir Putin? The former guards described a staggering level of violence directed at Ukrainian prisoners. Electric shockers were used often, especially in showers; that officers complained they were running out of batteries too fast. Can't do this anymore because the batteries have gone dead. The guards used police batons until they broke. Officers tested other materials, including insulated hot water pipes, for their ability to cause pain and damage. This is Putin's Russia. This is the regime that some people are hoping we can somehow negotiate with in good faith and depend on them to keep up their end of the bargain. The guards intentionally beat the prisoners at the same spot on their bodies every day, preventing bruises from healing and causing infection, and at least one person died of sepsis because of this type of brutality. The guards enjoyed their brutality. According to these Russians who were guards at the facility and who defected rather than countenance what their own government was doing, Ukrainian former POW Andriy Yegorov recalled how guards at a prison in Russia would force prisoners to run 100 yards through the hallway, holding mattresses above their heads. The guards stood to the side and beat them on the ribs as they ran by. When they got to the end of the hall, they would be forced to do sit-ups and push-ups, and each time they came up, the guards would punch them or hit them with a baton. I would say to my colleagues that this is not a bunch of prison guards gone rogue; this is a bunch of prison guards in Vladimir Putin's dictatorship and Vladimir Putin's illegal regime that were following orders from a high-ranking major general. There are differences about the United States' interest in Ukraine, but I will tell you that the countries around Ukraine--in the neighborhood--know what they are facing, and they know, if Vladimir Putin succeeds in his illegal war to take over a neighbor, that it will not be the end of it. One can only listen to what we are hearing out of neighboring countries--out of the Republic of Georgia, out of neighboring Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Russia intends and the war criminal Vladimir Putin intends to return to as much of the old Soviet Union dictatorship as he possibly can. I hope this war ends. Frankly, I have hoped for 3 years under the Biden administration that that administration would provide the freedom fighters inside their own country to have the necessary equipment, the necessary ammunition, the necessary permission to defeat this illegal invasion. But I simply, at this point, want to alert anyone who is listening--my colleagues, anyone who is listening to the sound of my voice in any way--to the reality of the utter cruelty, of the unspeakable conditions that Russia uses in violation of every international law. If Vladimir Putin comes to the negotiating table and agrees to a cease-fire, we need to bear in mind that he is the gentleman who has countenanced this outrage that I have barely been able to speak about today. Any negotiations we have with the Russians and with the current leadership need to be done in light of the facts as outlined in this independent report. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, the Committee on Armed Services has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 119th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Ranking Member Reed, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, on behalf of the people of Mississippi, I commend Mary Schaub, an educator in Hattiesburg, MS. Through her five-decade career as a speech-language pathologist, she has devoted her life to giving children a voice. Mary was integral to the creation of the Children's Center for Communication and Development at the University of Southern Mississippi (USM), and she has faithfully served the center for many years. After completing her education at the University of Wyoming, Mary identified a crucial gap in Mississippi's education system: preschool children who needed language intervention before entering kindergarten. She designed a program to fill that divide. The initiative was first called the Preschool Language Program and served six local preschool-aged children in a small office space on USM's campus. Since those humble beginnings, the program has blossomed. Now called the Children's Center, it serves an average of 140 children every year, from infants to 5-year-olds. The children benefit from comprehensive services that include speech therapy, special instruction, social work, audiology, auditory-verbal therapy, physical therapy, and occupational therapy. In short, Mary has revolutionized the treatment Mississippi's children receive when they are struggling with complex communication disorders. Mary's work continues today. She is helping facilitate the growth of the center through a position on its advisory board. She also teaches as a professor in the School of Speech and Hearing Sciences at USM's College of Nursing and Health Professions. Mrs. Schaub's career is a testament to the impact one educator can have on countless lives. I join my fellow Mississippians in thanking Mrs. Mary Schaub for her half-century of work in the classroom and for the gift of speech that she has given to thousands of children.