Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, Calendar No. 475; that the Senate vote on the nomination; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session, all with no intervening action or debate.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I want to talk about the national defense bill, but first I do want to respond just in one particular to the comments of the gentlelady from Tennessee because I have heard this before, the idea that the infrastructure bill isn't infrastructure.

I don't get how anybody is making that claim. Here is the list: roads and bridges, highway safety, public transit, rail, broadband, ports, airports, the electric grid, water, and Superfund cleanup. Yes, there are some items for EVs and for the facilitating of the electrification of our transportation system, but the vast bulk of it is what anybody would call infrastructure.

Infrastructure is something you can kick. Infrastructure is something you can feel. And that is what we are talking about here--roads and bridges, ports, airports, rail, broadband. That is the infrastructure of the 21st century. This is an infrastructure bill, and it ought to be recognized as such.

There are plenty of things we can argue and differ with around here, but this shouldn't be one of them. And people are confused about it because they are being given confusing information. They are being told it is not an infrastructure bill; there is no infrastructure. I have heard that. It is simply not true. So let's argue about the things that, you know, we have genuine policy differences, but let's not talk about things that just aren't the case. Ports, bridges, railroad, public transit--and, yes, public transit is infrastructure. It may not be in Tennessee. It may not be so much in Maine, although I suspect there is some in Tennessee and there is some in Maine, but public transportation is critical to our citizens.

Broadband, airports, electric grid, water--that is infrastructure.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, my recollection is--and we have passed this bill, as we both have recognized, every year for the past 60 years, including over the last 4 or 5 years--in the last several years, there weren't that many amendments.

There were a few, and it was always agreed in advance. There was a package, just as we had the other night, but everybody didn't get-- there wasn't an unlimited number of amendments or votes on amendments. There was generally an agreed-upon number of amendments, and it wasn't very many.

Is that correct?

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.

I want to make two basic points at the beginning and then discuss some of the specifics of the bill.

The first is the word ``deterrence.'' The cornerstone of our defense policy is deterrence. The best battle is the one that doesn't occur. The best war is the one that doesn't occur. And there are those who will say that this bill authorizes a very large amount of expenditures. I can assure you that war would dwarf the expenditures in this bill.

And deterrence is the whole idea of having a force that would convince any potential adversary that attacking the United States is a losing proposition, that it would cost them more than they would ever gain.

That has been our strategy for many years. It is our strategy going forward, and I will talk about it in some specific terms with regard to this bill. But it is important to understand that that's why we are doing this defense bill, is to provide and strengthen and ensure that this country has the forces and the weapons that are necessary to deter any potential adversary.

The second concept that, generally, I want to discuss is consensus. When I go home to Maine, people are amazed that we do anything together, because all they see on the TV news and read in the newspapers is about conflict--bickering, arguing, differing. Why can't they get anything done? What they don't know is that we do get a great deal done, and a lot of it is by unanimous consent, by consensus.

This bill is a good example. This is the 61st year that the National Defense Authorization Act has come to Congress, and we hope it is going to pass this year. For the past 60 years, every single year, we have passed a National Defense Authorization.

And we usually--well, not usually, not almost always--we always pass them on a bipartisan basis. This bill came out of the committee 25 to 1. That is pretty close to unanimous. And we always get substantial support in our committee, the Armed Services Committee, but also on the floor of the United States Senate.

Why?

Because the Members of this body, just as the people across this country, are committed to those who serve in uniform, and they are committed to the idea of peace and the idea of deterring adversaries and avoiding conflict and war.

They all think that all we do is argue, and this bill is proof that that is not the case.

When I first got here, my first two chairs of the Armed Services Committee were Carl Levin and John McCain, Senators who represented, in my mind, the best of the tradition of this Senate. They argued fiercely in favor of their positions, worked hard to resolve conflict within the committee, and were absolutely committed to the values of the United States of America.

Despite all the partisan differences that exist in the country, this bill is an example that we are still united when it comes to the defense of the United States.

It comes on the heels of Monday's signing of the historic bipartisan infrastructure bill. I think it is interesting that the bill has in its name--it has a name, I am not even sure what it is, but everyone refers to it as the ``bipartisan infrastructure bill'' because it was supported by bipartisan majorities in both Houses. And in this bill, we are coming together to do something similar, to support our country and, particularly, to support those who put their lives on the line to defend this country.

And I want to stop there for just a second. We all go through life getting various jobs, signing up for jobs, applying, and then you sign a form and you join the company. There are very few jobs in our society when you sign on the dotted line, you are literally putting your life on the line. Members of the military and first responders are the only people I can think of that do that. It is something we need to remind ourselves. In addition to all the other responsibilities that you are taking on when you join the military, you are literally signing to commit your life, if necessary, in defense of this country.

I believe this bill is essential to protecting our servicemembers, the industrial base which serves the defense of our country, and, collectively, our national security. The Armed Services Committee has produced a bill that will make our Nation safer and stronger.

For example, taking care of our servicemembers: 2.7 percent pay raise for military servicemembers and the Department of Defense civilian workforce. That pay raise is important, and if this bill doesn't pass, it won't happen. So that is one of the immediate reasons that we need to pass this bill, to provide a pay raise to our military personnel.

They will also receive 12 weeks of parental leave for birth, adoption, and foster care placement of a child.

One of the provisions that I am interested in is that there is substantial support in this bill for our naval infrastructure. It authorizes funding, for example, to Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which Bath Iron Works in the State of Maine will be able to compete for, and this, in furtherance, supports our Navy's ability to deter adversaries around the world.

It is no secret that the Pacific is an important area of potential conflict. And the Pacific is an ocean and it requires ships in order to project power, and those ships are built here in America. And this bill demonstrates Congress' intent to support the Navy, to support shipbuilding, and to support the industrial base.

One of the things the bill does is provide for a new--what they call a multiyear contract, where the Navy commits to buying more than one ship at a time, which gives them a better price per ship. That is good for the taxpayers and also gives some assurance to the industrial base that the jobs will be there and the work will be there in order to maintain the support.

We often forget that the companies that do these--produce these amazing products cannot be turned off and on like a switch. I have visited shipyards. I visited in Norfolk; I visited in Maine, Portsmouth, and at Bath Iron Works many times. And these are amazingly complicated pieces of machinery. I believe that the destroyers built at Bath Iron Works are quite possibly the most complex product built in America.

And the people who build them have to know that they are going to have a job a year from now and 2 years from now. We can't go herky- jerky from one year to the next. Once you lose a welder who goes somewhere else, it is hard to get them back.

So the maintenance of the industrial base, whether it is in shipbuilding, aircraft, humvees, whatever the vehicles are, whatever the platforms are that support our military, it has to be done on a consistent and predictable basis so that those factories, large and small--and, by the way, there are thousands of small businesses that support these larger industries. They have to know that there is some future, and that is why things like a multiyear procurement is very important. This industrial base is not something that you can turn off and on.

There is a research provision in this bill that is very important. University of Maine is one of those universities that provides vital research to the military, because we always have to be thinking not about the last war or the last conflict, but the future. And everybody in this room knows that the future is going to be based upon newer and newer and newer technologies. So research is an essential part of building the strength of this country.

I worked for the last 2 years on something called the National Cyberspace Solarium Commission. Our job was to come together to form and recommend--recommend--a national strategy in cyberspace to defend this country, which we did in March of 2020. A number of the recommendations of our commission were enacted last year, either in the National Defense Authorization Act or in other areas of legislation that we passed. And, this year, there are some really crucial ones in this year's National Defense Authorization Act--crucial provisions to defend this country in cyberspace.

The next 9/11 will be cyber, and if we are not ready for it after all the warnings that we have had, shame on us. Worse than shame on us; it will be destructive of this country. And that is why I am so proud that there are provisions in this bill that will help us to respond, that will help us to understand what is going on, will help the private sector and the Federal Government to work together to meet and defeat this 21st century challenge.

In many ways, cyber is a new manner of conflict. We have to reimagine conflict. Traditionally, we think of conflict and war as Army versus Army and Navy versus Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard, and now the Space Force.

But cyber is all about the private sector. Eighty-five percent of the target in cyberspace is in the private sector, and they are not going to have their own army. So that is where there has to be a new relationship of trust and confidence between the private sector and the public sector in order to successfully defend this country in cyberspace. And, indeed, there is a provision, hopefully, that will enter this bill through the manager's package that will deal exactly with that subject.

This bill also secures the future of the nuclear triad. Strategic forces, otherwise known as nuclear weapons, are hard to talk about. They are hard to think about because they are so horrendous.

But to go back to the beginning of my remarks, the issue here is deterrence, and we have had a deterrent strategy virtually since 1945, and it has worked. Thank God there has not been a use of nuclear weapons since 1945.

Why?

Because of the strategy that every adversary knows that they will pay an awful price, if they attack us, using nuclear weapons.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, we have had hearings, we have had discussions, we have had readings on how do we successfully modernize our nuclear triad--bombers, submarines, and missiles--in such a way as to ensure the vitality of the deterrent strategy.

The problem is that all three of those legs of the triad have basically been

unattended to for 30 or 40 or sometimes 50 years. And as they degrade in capability, so also degrades the capability of our deterrence.

If the adversaries look and say, ``They are trying to fly 50-year-old airplanes, or they are trying to defend themselves with missiles that they are unsure of whether they will work,'' then the adversary says, ``Well, maybe we can get away with an attack.''

And therein lies a path to a horrendous nuclear conflict, which has to be avoided. The best way to avoid it is to be sure that our deterrence is credible. The only way to make it credible is to be sure that it is modernized. That is exactly what this bill contemplates.

Another provision of this bill that, I think, is critically important is a substantial change in the military code of justice, with regard to sexual assault, that puts in place an independent prosecutor system to take the decisions about moving forward on sexual assault claims out of the chain of command and puts it in a special professional prosecutor's decision.

I think that is important not only for the practical effect, but for the message that it sends to soldiers and sailors and airmen and guardsmen that we are serious about this; that they can feel comfortable reporting violations; that they can come forward and that there is no danger that the complaints that they make will be swept under the rug.

I think this is an important provision of this bill, and I want to commend my friend Senator Gillibrand, who has spent as long as I can remember--as long as I have been on the committee, which is 9 years, working on this issue, and, in many ways, this is the culmination of her work.

Another provision of this bill that I am particularly interested in is that we learn the lessons from 20 years in Afghanistan. Senator Duckworth has proposed the creation of an Afghan war commission, an independent commission, not made up of generals, not made of people who were in Afghanistan, but of people who can take a clear-eyed look at the successes and mistakes concerning our engagement in Afghanistan. I think this commission is an important idea. I was delighted to support Senator Duckworth's proposal.

Another provision that we hope will be included within the National Defense Authorization Act this year is the United States Innovation and Competition Act, which we have already passed here in this body, but if we put it in this bill, it will then go to the other body, and there will be consideration there.

This is a critical piece of legislation to enable competition with China. And make no mistake, we are in competition with China. So passing that bill as part of the national defense bill, to me, makes total sense because we are talking about national security, and being competitive in areas like AI and chips and quantum computing is as much a part of national security as bombers and submarines.

It also includes a provision about competition in the Arctic, which is one of the areas of the world that is opening to competition and, potentially, to conflict. We don't want that to happen.

Finally, the bill reasserts the fundamental congressional responsibility--I almost said ``prerogative,'' but it is not. It is a responsibility of Congress to make the decision as to when this country is committed to war.

In recent years--well, a little history. The last time the Congress declared war was in 1942. We have had AUMFs, authorizations for use of military force. This bill will repeal two of the early AUMFs that have been used as a kind of blank check by the executive to deploy troops and engage in conflict around the world. In 1991 and 2002, there were AUMFs involving Iraq.

If you go back to the debates of the Constitutional Convention, I think it was--I want to say--August 17, 1787, when there was a debate about the war power, and there were those who said the Executive has to have the power to declare war; Congress is too cumbersome; the Executive can only do that.

There were others who said: Wait a minute. We rebelled against the King of England because we didn't like the King and the prince being able to unilaterally take us into war.

The compromise was to divide the responsibility. The President is the Commander in Chief, but Congress has the responsibility to declare war. This power has not been usurped by modern Presidents. It has been abandoned--it has been given up--by modern Congresses. This bill is a step away from what, I think, is a serious gap in our adherence to the fundamental purpose of the Constitution.

So there is plenty of good in this bill; there is plenty to celebrate. I am delighted to be able to support it. I have only just scratched the surface, but it is a kind of truism that you will never be successful in a military context if you are fighting the last war. You have to think about conflict in the future.

In Maine, sometimes people say: We have never done it that way before.

I am sure the Presiding Officer hears that in Colorado, and you hear it all around the country: We have never done it that way before.

If that is our attitude, we are sunk. We have to think about what is coming at us, about what is in the future.

Cyber will be part of any kind of conflict we may become engaged in, and I hope we never become engaged in a serious conflict. Again, that is the entire purpose of this bill. It is to deter any potential adversary from thinking that they can successfully attack this country.

This bill defends the interests of America. It defends the interests of our military and our wonderful military people who are deployed around the world and, as I say, who are putting their lives on the line for this country.

We can come together, hopefully, in the next few days, in a bipartisan way, to pass this bill, to pass the word, in the words of President Kennedy, ``to friend and foe alike,'' that we will accept the burdens of leadership and that we will meet our responsibility to John McCain, to Carl Levin, to all those who have come before us, and to the people of the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my military fellow, Sean McDonald, have floor privileges during the consideration of the fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act and any consideration of matters pertaining to national security.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the outstanding career of a leader in economic development in the State of Maine. Steve Levesque, of Greenville, ME, is retiring after 41 years of professional experience in the areas of economic and community progress, land use planning, and environmental services in both the private and public sectors, including when I was Governor as commissioner of Maine's Department of Economic and Community Development. Most recently, Steve has made an indelible mark in his position as executive director of Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, MRRA. From his first days in economic and community development in Maine, Steve has held a number of leadership positions in which he has led and advocated tirelessly for local, regional, and State economies with consistent messages of the quality of the business environment in Maine alongside our quality of life as Mainers.

In 2005, there were indications that the Naval Air Station Brunswick, NASB, would be disestablished and Steve, at that time, led the Brunswick Local Redevelopment Authority, charged with overseeing the successful completion of the Reuse Master Plan for NASB. He has been MRRA's only executive director since its formation in 2008. In 2011, when NASB officially closed, there were persistent doomsday forecasts about the hole that was left behind. Steve brought his own brand of fervency to MRRA to realize a dream of the adaptive reuse of the former base, now known as Brunswick Landing. He started by assembling a passionate and hard-working team and began carefully cultivating what would become critical and dedicated partnerships, developed over the years with so many groups: the Navy, the towns of Brunswick and Topsham, the State of Maine, all of Maine's congressional delegation, the FAA, and especially the impressive list of businesses and private developers who have invested in the vision to convert a former Navy base into an economic engine that

today holds more than 2,400 jobs, surpassing the $150 million former Navy payroll.

When you read the list of other benchmarks at Brunswick Landing, over only 10 years--the creation of TechPlace, a manufacturing business incubator with 35 resident businesses; attraction of over a half billion dollars in private sector capital investment; property sales to more than 20 new property owners, including more than 650 units of workforce housing; more than $150 million in new valuation and $3 million in annual property taxes generated for the Towns of Brunswick and Topsham; more than $40 million in upgrades to Brunswick Executive Airport's--BXM-- infrastructure and buildings; more than $100 million invested in new building construction and infrastructure projects owned by MRRA; creation of Brunswick Renewable Energy Center, including ownership of former Navy electrical grid with 3.5-megawatt load and 2 megawatts of on-site renewable electricity generation; 10 percent annual growth in air operations, based aircraft, and aviation fuel sales at BXM; environmental stewardship and wildlife habitat preservation, including transfer of more than 1,200 acres of open space and trails to the town of Brunswick and local land trust--it is no wonder Steve's leadership has been recognized, not once but twice, as a recipient of the Association of Defense Contractor's Community Leadership Award as well as by many other State development organizations. I join them wholeheartedly in recognizing Steve for demonstrating innovation and excellence in his work.

Even in his volunteer time, Steve serves on a number of industry and economic development boards, including the Loring Development Authority of Maine, Moosehead Lake Region Economic Development Corporation, Owls Head Transportation Museum, and the Maine Spaceport Leadership Council, to name a few. Steve has also served his country in the U.S. Marine Corps as an aircraft mechanic.

Due to Steve's commitment to economic development and ability to secure funding for a variety of initiatives throughout the years, there has been continued high quality service for new and expanding businesses here in Maine. His ability to coordinate programs and foster partnerships were critical factors in his success, whether it be at the local, State, or national level. As a champion of economic development, I join with his colleagues, friends, and the people of Maine in thanking Steve for his unwavering service to the economic development of our State.

Mr. President, with regard to the comments of the esteemed Senator from Texas, I say to the Senator: I would suggest, if your colleagues are interested in election reform and election laws, that we have a dialogue and that we have some discussion. I would welcome a proposal from your side of the aisle on election laws and how we deal with efforts to suppress the vote in other parts of the country, and also to change the Electoral Count Act.

Is the Senator interested in those and entering into such discussions?

Not to prolong the discussion, but Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that the responsibility for election administration is a joint one between the States and the Congress, and that the Congress, at any time, can alter regulations or the efforts to control the vote in a particular State.

That has been true ever since the drafting of the Constitution. It was true at the time of passage of the 15th Amendment. It was true at the time of the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

So I look forward to the possibility of working with any colleague on protecting the sacred right to vote in this country.

I will have further comments on this legislation today.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the United States of America is an anomaly in world history. We are a 245-year experiment in self-government, which is based upon an idea that was radical in 1776. It was tested at Gettysburg, Antietam, Shiloh, and the Wilderness. It was defended at Anzio, Iwo Jima, and Normandy, and was reaffirmed in 1965. It is an idea that the people--all the people--are the ultimate source of power and can govern themselves through their elected representatives. That was a radical notion in 1776.

The historical norm is just the opposite--kings; pharaohs; dictators; czars; warlords; emperors; and, more recently, presidents for life. Throughout most of human history, and right up to the present day, in most countries, the people have little or no say in the decisions that determine their fate. And these rulers are rarely, if ever, beneficent. In fact, again, the historical norm is just the opposite--pervasive corruption, the pursuit of power for its own sake, the crushing of dissent, sham elections, and the abuse or even elimination of anyone not sufficiently loyal or useful to the leader. That is the historical norm.

There is nothing surprising about this because it reflects human nature. History fairly shouts at us that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Given the consistent history of this experience--of warlords, dictators, czars, and the abuse of their authority--it is clear that what we are doing, this experiment, is fragile. It is not the norm. It is an anomaly. What we have and take for granted is in no way guaranteed. As has been the case for democratic experiments throughout history, it can fail. Rarely can it fail from external attack. Almost always, democratic experiments fail from erosion from within.

On the surface, our democratic system protects us by resting upon our ingenuous Constitution, the primary purpose of which is to establish an effective government while at the same time dividing and dispersing power, and in Madison's evocative phrase: Obliging the government to control itself.

And of all the safeguards built into the Constitution--and there are many; two Houses of Congress, vetoes, division of the war power, advise and consent, enumerated powers, Federalism, the Bill of Rights--of all of those protections, the most fundamental and essential is regular elections, the clearest expression of the people's will.

For most of my life, I have not really thought much about how elections actually work. You go to the town office or the school gym, they cross your name off on a list, hand you a ballot, and you go into a booth and make your

choice. You then put the marked ballot into a box or hand it to a clerk--usually it is a volunteer doing their civic duty in my hometown--and then they run it through a counter. Or you can get a mail-in ballot from your town clerk, mark it at home and send it in. Or in my town you can drop it in a drop box anytime of the night or day. It is out in the front of the town office.

That is it until later that night, when the results--either from automatic counters or from hand counting the ballots themselves--are announced, precinct by precinct, town by town, city by city, and State by State.

And then you go to bed, happy or unhappy, energized or discouraged, either reveling in the victory of your preferred candidates or determined to work harder next time. And thanks to the Framers, there always is a next time, usually in 2 years hence.

The next day, you go about your business trusting--trusting--that the system was operating according to the rules and that the announced vote count accurately reflects the preference of you and your fellow citizens. The key word is ``trust.''

The miraculous result of this entire process is something we completely take for granted but is exceedingly rare--exceedingly rare-- in human history: the peaceful transfer of power, whether it is the city council, the Congress, or the Presidency itself.

But two interrelated things are happening right now with regard to this system that are unprecedented in my lifetime and have caused me to worry as I never have before about the future of my country. These two things are profoundly dangerous to our fragile Republic.

One is the breakdown of trust in the system itself and the other is an overtly partisan attempt to use this loss of trust as a pretext to change the results of future elections by limiting the participation of voters deemed unworthy--although that is rarely said out loud--or unlikely to vote for your particular political party.

This discussion is usually framed in terms of election integrity--the prevention of widespread voter fraud--which it is argued is tainting the outcome of our elections.

Unfortunately, these so-called election integrity measures almost invariably end up limiting the participation of a substantial number of voters, many of whom have historically been denied the right to vote by one device or another for over 100 years. It is limiting that participation either as inadvertent collateral damage or, more likely, as stone-cold partisan voter suppression.

When I used to interact with the main legislature either as a private citizen for many years or as Governor, the inevitable first question from the chair of the committee was: What is the problem we are trying to solve here? You want to change the law; what is the problem we are trying to solve? In this case, is the problem really voter fraud, or is it election results the party in power in a particular State doesn't like?

The implicit burden that this question puts upon those who would change a law is to demonstrate by some reasonable and credible evidence that there is a problem in the first place. And simply saying--or endlessly repeating--that there is a problem doesn't make it so. To put it another way, repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Every objective study to try to detect widespread voter fraud in this country has failed to produce credible evidence of anything but scattered and vanishingly rare cases. I am not saying it doesn't exist, but they are scattered and vanishingly rare cases.

Even the overtly partisan so-called ``audit'' of the votes in Maricopa County, AZ, failed to find what they were so desperately looking for--failed to find what they were so desperately looking for.

The key question is not whether such fraud exists at all but whether it is so widespread as to change the results of an election involving a substantial number of voters.

In the wake of the 2016 election, the President convened a commission to assess this very question, but the commission was disbanded within 8 months with no published finding of significant election fraud whatsoever. That was their mission--to find fraud--and they couldn't find it.

Further, as I mentioned, I know of no objective study that has ever concluded that such widespread fraud exists anywhere in our country.

Even more compelling is that in spite of Herculean efforts by the former President and his supporters over the course of the months following the 2020 election, no credible evidence has yet been produced to support his allegations, and all of the allegations have been rejected by every court--more than 60. They have been rejected by every court that has considered it. The only fraud here is the allegations themselves.

In other words, not only is there no evidence of substantial fraud, what evidence there is reaches the opposite conclusion. But here is the problem; here is what is chilling. Fully, one-third of Americans and two-thirds of members of the Republican Party now believe that the 2020 Presidential election was not legitimate, that there was widespread fraud, and that the election was somehow stolen--not based upon evidence, because there isn't any, but based upon the repeated assertions of the former President and his supporters.

The problem with this goes well beyond the wave of voter suppression legislation that is sweeping the country. The deeper problem is the massive and unprecedented erosion of trust in the electoral system itself, the beating heart of our democracy. Of all the depravations of the former President, this is by far the worst.

In relentlessly pursuing his narrow self-interest, he has grievously wounded democracy itself. And, by the way, I mean ``narrow self- interest'' quite literally. He doesn't give the slightest damn about any of us, about any of us in this body. He will cast any or all of us aside whenever it suits his needs of the moment. Everyone in this room knows this to be true.

The reason this is so destructive is that if you can't trust elections, what are your options? What are your options for making the transcendent decisions upon which our society is based?

One is to change the rules to discourage your perceived enemies from voting. Check--that is in the works.

Another is to change the rules to give partisan legislators the power to override election results they don't like. Check--also in the works.

Another is to contrive pseudo legal arguments to justify the corruption of the counting of electoral votes and then to pressure the Vice President, who presides over the counting of the electoral votes, to join in the scheme. Check--we now know this was very much in the works in the days leading up to January 6.

Or, finally, tragically, try to change the results if you don't trust elections through violence or threats of violence. Check--January 6 and death threats to election officials of both parties across the country.

January 6 was not a random day on the calendar. It was the day appointed by law to finalize the results of the November election. Many of those who came to Washington that day were not there to protest but were there with the explicit purpose of disrupting and stopping this crucial final step in our democratic process.

The rallying cry that day was not ``protest the steal.'' It was ``stop the steal.'' And that is exactly what was attempted in this room on January 6.

It is important to remember that most failures of democracy, as we look at history, started with legitimate elections. But once in office, the leader manipulated the electoral process to consolidate their hold on power, just as was attempted last winter. And once power is seized, the control and reach of the modern surveillance state is truly terrifying, truly terrifying. Ask the Uighurs in China or members of the opposition in Russia, if you can find any alive.

Russia, Turkey, Venezuela, and Hungary are all examples of the slide from democracy into authoritarianism that has happened just in our living memory, just in our lifetimes. This is not a theoretical threat. We have seen it already happen in our lifetimes. Those countries still have elections, but they don't mean much.

And what if the current wave of voter suppression legislation succeeds and keeps tens or hundreds of thousands of

people from voting in 2022 or 2024? Or what if in 2024 a partisan legislature in a swing State--and they are giving themselves this power right now--votes to override the election results in their State and send their own preferred set of electors to Washington? Then it won't just be Republicans who distrust elections, and we will be left with a downward spiral toward a hollow shell of democracy, where only raw power prevails and a peaceful transfer becomes a distant memory.

There has been a great deal of talk in recent weeks and months of a possible constitutional crisis in 2022 or 2024. We don't have to wait that long. We are in the midst of such a crisis right now. One of our great political parties has embraced the idea that our last election was fraudulent, that our current President is illegitimate, that they must move legislatures across the country to ``fix'' the results--to ``fix'' the results--of future elections.

Here is the part that I think is the most tragic. A substantial portion of our population has lost faith in our democratic system because they have been repeatedly told that something important was stolen from them, even though that is untrue. And that portion of our population seems prepared to accept some version of authoritarianism. All but the most extreme sources of information have been devalued, and violence bubbles just below the surface.

But it doesn't have to be this way. We in this body, perhaps more than anyone else in this country, have the power to change direction, to pull our country back from the brink, and to begin the work of restoring our democracy, as we did in the Revolution, as we did in the Civil War, and as we did in the civil rights struggles of 60 years ago--first, by simply telling the truth and then by enacting a set of basic protections of the sacred right to vote.

It won't be easy, and it will involve risk. I am aware of that. I understand that. It will be particularly difficult when we are asked to speak hard truths that many of our most ardent supporters don't want to hear. But the alternative is worse, worse even than losing your job in this body. The alternative is the loss of our identity as a people, the loss of the miracle of self-government, the loss of the idea of America.

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that we are at a hinge of history, that circumstances have thrust us--those of us in this body-- into a moment when the fate of the American experiment hangs in the balance.

We are the heirs and trustees--I emphasize ``trustees''--of a tradition that goes back to Jefferson and Lincoln, to Webster, Madison, Margaret Chase Smith, and, yes, our friend John McCain. All of them were partisans in one way or another, but all shared an overriding commitment to the idea that animates the American experiment, the idea that our government is of, by, and for the people--all the people.

Lincoln thought that the most important word in the Declaration of Independence was ``all.'' ``All men are created equal''--all, all the people.

Now is the moment that we are called upon to reach beyond our region, our State, our party, ourselves to save and reinvigorate the sputtering flame of the American idea.

Yes, democracy is an anomaly in world history. We have to remember that what we have is unusual. It is rare, and it is fragile. It rests upon the Constitution and laws, to be sure, but it also rests even more on the trust our people place in our democratic system and in us.

Deliberately undermining that trust for short-term political advantage, which is exactly what is happening right now--undermining that trust for political advantage in the short term is exactly what is happening right now--is a tragic and dangerous game.

No election, no endorsement, no Senate seat, no Presidency is worth it. Nothing is worth destroying what our forebears fought and died for--nothing.

Several weeks ago, a bipartisan group of us went to Gettysburg and walked the battlefield with two leaders from the Army War College. I have been there before but have never been so moved by the experience as I was on this trip. The stories of valor and supreme sacrifice--the 20th Maine on Little Round Top, you know that I would mention that; the 1st Minnesota at the exposed center of the Union line; the Iron Brigade on the first day; the colossal losses on both sides, unimaginable losses on both sides in a matter of 3 days--were a sobering reminder of what it took to preserve this country.

But we learned something else that day--that it was a near thing. If a Union officer named Strong Vincent had hesitated in moving those three regiments to the top of Little Round Top, or if an officer from Minnesota named William Colvill had hesitated in leading the 1st Minnesota on a suicidal charge--82-percent casualties, a suicidal charge--into the teeth of the Confederate advance, our country would have been lost. It was a near thing. It never had struck me so hard as it did at Gettysburg several weeks ago.

And so it is today--a near thing--only, the test is not on the battlefield, and no one here is being asked to give up their lives. We are simply being asked to tell the truth, to recommit to the ideal of democracy, to keep faith with our history and our inheritance. And if we hesitate, all could be lost. This is not speculation. All could be lost.

And we now know from the events of January 6 and the relentless attempts to subvert the results of the 2020 election in the last days of the prior administration, it was and still is a near thing.

That is what is so chilling and frightening. As it is in the old Protestant hymn I remember from my youth, so it is today:

Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide.

I believe that this is that moment for each of us. The concluding words of Lincoln in his message to Congress in the dark winter of 1862 have never been more apt. They are eerily applicable to us today. Here is what Abraham Lincoln said:

Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this

Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite

of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance,

can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which

we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the

latest generation.

In honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. Indeed, destiny has placed us here at one of history's fateful moments. Our response to it will be our most important legacy. Of all the other things that we have done, this moment will be our most important legacy.

I believe we all know our responsibility. And whether we like it or not, history will record whether we--each one of us--meets that responsibility. Madam President, may God, working through each of us, save the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the Department of Maine, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Maine VFW. Maine VFW was founded in 1921 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to serving U.S. veterans of overseas conflicts, advocating for all veterans, their families, and their communities, and recognizing the sacrifices America's servicemen and women have made for this great country. Maine VFW, alongside its sister chapters across the United States, represents the oldest war veterans' organization in America. Every year for the last century, it has made a positive and tangible impact for Maine veterans. Maine VFW deserves not only our admiration, but also our gratitude.

Since its founding, Maine VFW has secured an array of remarkable victories for its membership and the many communities it serves. Through the Veterans Affairs office at Togus, Maine VFW helps recoup more than $5 million in earned benefits every year. Maine VFW also advocates for veterans and their families at the State and National level and has helped shape national security and veterans' policy for generations of Americans. In 2020, for example, Maine VFW helped expand the VA's list of conditions for which there is a presumptive service connection for veterans exposed to Agent Orange and has made important strides to support veterans exposed to toxic chemicals in the first Gulf War and the Global War on Terror. Additionally, Maine VFW has worked tirelessly to improve mental healthcare for American veterans and successfully advocated for the John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act, landmark legislation to increase the VA's mental health workforce and strengthen rural veterans' access to care, which was signed into law last year. Pursuant to its commitment to patriotic service, stewardship, and education, Maine VFW also spearheads a variety of community advocacy initiatives, food and blood drives, and Homeless Veterans Stand Downs to respond

to the needs of Maine's most vulnerable populations.

On the national level, Veterans of Foreign Wars and each of its State chapters have played a central role in the passage of nearly every important piece of veterans' legislation over the last 100 years, including the GI bills that have helped millions of veterans pursue education and training opportunities since 1944. VFW champions several major youth education and scholarship programs, such as Voice of Democracy, a competitive audio-essay scholarship that awards nearly $2 million annually to students in grades 9-12. VFW and Auxiliary members participate in thousands of community service initiatives and major philanthropic campaigns each year. VFW also performs important work abroad, advocating for prisoners of war and servicemembers who remain missing in action.

Throughout our Nation's history, America's veterans have put themselves in harm's way overseas so that we may enjoy freedom at home. A testament to Maine's dedication to this cause is the number of veterans per capita in our State, which consistently ranks as one of the highest in the Nation. Day in and day out, the Maine VFW works to support these veterans and their communities and has done so for a century. On behalf of a grateful nation, I would like to honor and thank the Maine VFW for these 100 years of service. Its steadfast support for servicemembers, veterans, and their families continues to change the lives of Americans at home and abroad.

Madam President, I have comments today about an extraordinary member of the Federal workforce, but before I do, I would like to

respond to a few of the comments that I heard as I entered the Chamber with regard to Afghanistan.

The first is, nobody I know of in any way is denigrating the service of the men and women who served in Afghanistan for 20 years. They served honorably. They served well. They served bravely. They made great sacrifices, and some of them made the ultimate sacrifice. There is no dispute about that. But I think the question of the leaving of Afghanistan is worth a little bit of a broader discussion than what we just heard.

No. 1, the decision to leave Afghanistan was made by the Trump administration. Then-President Trump entered into an agreement in February of 2020 with the Taliban that we would leave by May 1 of 2021; all troops would be gone. I have read the agreement. In return, the Taliban said that they would not attack our troops. They also said they would enter into discussions with the Government of Afghanistan and try to effect a peaceful transfer of power. Of course, that didn't happen.

But I think it is very important for the American people to realize that the fundamental decision to leave Afghanistan was made almost a year before Joe Biden entered the Presidency. When Joe Biden entered the Presidency, he had a decision to make, and the decision was a very straightforward and very profound one. It was whether to honor the agreement that his predecessor had made and keep the word of the United States or whether to stay in Afghanistan, tear up that agreement, subject our people there to attacks by the Taliban, and then almost inevitably reescalate the conflict.

We were down--at the time of the agreement in February of 2020, there were something like 15,000 American troops. By the time President Biden came into office, there were only 2,500 American troops. If he had decided to stay, it wasn't a question of, we will just stay with our 2,500 troops; we would have been at war with the Taliban, and we would have inevitably--he, the President, Biden, would have inevitably been in a situation to increase our presence in Afghanistan once again after 20 years.

President Biden decided that our mission there was complete. The original mission, of course, was about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. And he decided that the American people were not prepared to commit to a war that essentially had no end. So that is point one.

Point two: There is no question that the leaving was chaotic and difficult and dangerous, but I think it is important to understand some of the surrounding circumstances. For example, I was one who stood on this floor in June and berated the administration for not moving aggressively enough to get those who helped our troops out.

The Presiding Officer, I think, took that position. Many of us took that position. We were hammering the administration. But then the President met with President Ghani on June 25 in person, and Ghani specifically said: Please don't start that evacuation in a major way because that in itself will lead to the collapse of our government; it will lead to a loss of confidence. So please don't do that.

So then the question became, when, if we withdrew our troops, would the Afghan Government fail? And we are going to be having hearings here this week, next week, the week after, to discuss that very question: What was the intelligence? I am a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and I can't talk about what I learned from the intelligence officials leading up to August of 2021. But the question is, Did the administration expect the Afghan Government to fall in a matter of days--8 days, I believe? I think clearly they did not. Should they? Was it a failure of intelligence? I don't believe so.

Intelligence is about data. It is about how many troops, how many guns? Who has the arms? Who holds what territory? The most difficult intelligence questions are psychological: Will the Afghan Army fight? Will they have the will to fight? Indeed, the Afghan security forces have fought for years and lost thousands. But when President Ghani fled the country, the government simply collapsed, and the Afghan security forces essentially said: Why should we fight if the government has gone?

I have heard it said that we left--I think my colleague from Wyoming said we left over 200 Americans or 150 trapped. A hundred or so have left in the last few days, left on a charter flight a couple of days ago. Yes, it is more difficult for them to get out, but the administration is working to get them out. The question is, Should the administration have stayed and triggered a possible conflict with the Taliban and attacks by terrorists, which did occur at the gate of the airport, versus the evacuation of everyone? And it was very difficult to determine, A, who these people were, and B, whether or not some of them wanted to leave. They were dual citizens. So that was a difficult decision.

My understanding is that the military advice to the President was that it was in America's interest to abide by the August 31 deadline and continue to work diplomatically to enable American citizens to leave. In fact, my understanding from public reports is the Taliban has essentially said: If you are an American citizen, if you have the paperwork, we will let you leave. So those people weren't trapped.

What bothers me about this conversation is the ignoring of the fact that 124,000 people were evacuated in 18 days, the largest airlift in history--124,000 people, including about 6,000 Americans, people from NATO, our NATO allies, and thousands of Afghans who were those people who assisted us.

Did we get them all out? I doubt it. But I can remember, as I am sure the Presiding Officer can, earlier this year, we were talking about 18,000 of those SIVs. We got out 124,000 people. It was a logistical-- it was an incredible logistical and diplomatic achievement.

There are plenty of questions left. There are questions to be answered. My problem is concluding that it was a disaster, concluding that the President did it all wrong, concluding and reaching conclusions without the facts. Let's have our hearings. Let's find out what actually happened. What was the intelligence? What did the administration know? What was the basis of the military advice to leave on August 31?

But also, part of the facts is what was achieved: 124,000 people who are now being housed and fed and vetted and treated for, examined for medical conditions. It is an amazing logistical achievement.

If you are talking about the armed services, let's talk about ready, aim, fire, not ready, fire, aim. Let's hold our fire until we understand what actually happened. I believe that is what we should do in this country responsibly rather than immediately going on the offensive and declaring the President incompetent and a disaster and should resign and all of those things.

We ought to understand what actually happened, and we will. That is our role. We should work through the process of gaining the facts before we draw the conclusions that I have heard drawn over the last week.

Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend from Mississippi, I don't consider this a friendly amendment. I consider this a major departure from the agreed-upon structure of this broadband section of the bill that we are talking about.

This, as we all know, was a heavily negotiated bill. There are provisions in it that I don't like. There are provisions in it that I wish were there that aren't there because of the negotiation.

This provision, which appears innocent, to reinsert the Administrative Procedure Act into this process would bureaucratize the process, slow it down, and would not assist in the process.

Here are some points that I think need to be made:

The first is I consider the broadband section one of the crown jewels of this entire bill. And the fact that it is structured in such a way that the grants will go to the States and the States will decide how best to administer those programs because of their knowledge of their needs in their States--yes, they are going to use maps--updated maps, I should say--from the FCC, but this is, really, a State-driven process.

The Administrative Procedure Act is principally a regulatory process, and we are not talking about a regulatory process here. We are not talking about the issuance of a lot of long and detailed regulations. We are talking about a grant program to States, and so the burdensome administrative requirements of the APA are really not necessary in this case because it is not a regulatory process.

There is already significant oversight built into the statute. There are 68 pages that have all kinds of requirements for public notice, filing online, public disclosure, comment, and involvement of communities of other providers, of all of those interested parties in this process. So it is not like it is some kind of closed process.

There is no doubt that this will slow down the process. There is no doubt that this would restrict the ability of the NTIA to tailor programs to fit individual States.

As I said, that is one of the beauties of this whole provision, is that it has the flexibility to meet the needs of States as they define them. It would hamper that State flexibility, and it would make it more difficult for the States to follow through on a timely basis to make this tremendously important.

Where the Senator and I agree--and I know how hard he has worked on this, as have I. This is, I think, one of the most important things that we can do in this bill, to get Americans connected. I don't need to make that argument. Everyone in the Chamber knows that.

The other piece, unfortunately, that this amendment would do would be enable and, in fact, invite lawsuits. There would, undoubtedly, be challenges to the regulations, challenges to the--if indeed the APA said you have got to do this by regulation, you are building a whole new bureaucratic process, and the bill already provides for the kinds of protections that the Senator is talking about.

So I think this is an unnecessary amendment. I certainly, as one of those

who worked on the negotiation of the bill, don't consider it a friendly amendment, and I believe that it is a major change in the agreement that would not have been agreed to in the negotiation; and I hope my colleagues across the aisle who have supported this agreement will oppose this amendment because it is not something that was in the negotiation and it would not have been accepted by those who were negotiating it on this side of the aisle.

So with that, I strongly oppose this amendment. It is a--I don't think I can say it. It makes this a bureaucratic process that is unnecessary, will only slow and impede the distribution of these desperately needed funds to connect the people of America.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 2146

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

Mr. President, I am beginning my comments with my mask on for a very specific reason. If you can tell what is populating the mask, they are America's favorite crustacean: the North American lobster.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 335, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the adoption of this resolution.

The American lobster, the North American lobster, is a staple, an iconic product of the State of Maine. It supports our coastal economy; it produces well over $1 billion a year of economic activity; and it supports thousands of families along the coast of Maine.

Some people occasionally refer to the lobster industry, but in reality it is a series of small, sole proprietorship businesses. Almost all lobsters are caught on boats owned by individual owners, with, perhaps, what we call a sternman on board, but it is a series of, as I say, small, independently owned businesses, and that is one of the things that is so special about this industry.

So it is a treat for me to be able to move this resolution, to have it agreed upon unanimously by the U.S. Senate. September 25, 2021, will officially be National Lobster Day.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize and congratulate COL Brad Boyd on his outstanding service to our Nation both as a member of my defense and foreign policy team, and as a U.S. Army infantry officer with 30 years of combined military experience in both the Army and the Marine Corps.

Colonel Boyd selflessly devoted the last 4 months of his time in service to working in my office as a defense and foreign policy adviser and as the lead staff member assigned to the Cyberspace Solarium Commission. During this service, Colonel Boyd made several major policy contributions that will affect how the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security will defend the United States and its interests in the future. Prior to joining my office, Brad served as the Director of Joint Warfighting for the Department's Joint Artificial Intelligence Center. Colonel Boyd also previously served as a senior military fellow at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, where his research addressed cyber- and AI- enabled information warfare and national security strategy. Before Stanford, Brad served as a liaison officer to the British Army, as well as in a number of infantry and overseas assignments: as deputy commander of a 4,000-paratrooper brigade ready for short-notice worldwide contingency operations; as commander of a battalion in the 82nd Airborne Division tasked as the U.S. Army's Global Response Force--a unit of 800 paratroopers ready to deploy and operate anywhere in the world within 18 hours' notice; and as commander of a rifle company as part of a task force that played a key role in the hunt for Saddam Hussein.

On behalf of my colleagues and the U.S. Congress, I thank Colonel Boyd for his dedicated service to my staff, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, and the Nation. What truly makes the U.S. military the greatest in the history of the world is the fact that servicemembers like Colonel Boyd decide to dedicate their lives to service and sacrifice for their country. I wish him all the best and know that he will excel in anything that he chooses to pursue in his next endeavors.