Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I wish to recognize the outstanding career of Dr. Stephen Kress and his contributions to the restoration of seabird colonies in Maine and around the globe. For over 50 years, Dr. Kress has dedicated his life to preserving and reestablishing seabird colonies that had previously been decimated by hunting. His perseverance has been a driving force in the repopulation of Maine puffin colonies and various other seabird species throughout the world.

Dr. Kress's restoration of seabird populations began in 1969 when he started with the National Audubon Society's Hog Island Education Camp on the coast of Maine. It was there that he learned of the devastation the Atlantic Puffin had experienced at the hands of hunters. In 1973 Dr. Kress launched Project Puffin, a novel approach to translocate puffin chicks from a colony at Great Island, Newfoundland, to

Eastern Egg Rock in Maine. In the early years of Project Puffin, Dr. Kress hand-raised the chicks until they were fledglings. Under his leadership, the project grew to incorporate Seal Island National Wildlife Refuge in Maine, and he oversaw the translocation of over 1,000 puffin chicks over the next decade to both islands.

These efforts were an immediate success, but attracting the fledglings back to the island to nest proved difficult. Through trial and error, Dr. Kress discovered and adopted innovative practices using vocalization playback, decoys, and mirrors to attract the migrating birds to return to the island. These methods are now known collectively as social attraction and are employed by ornithological experts internationally.

Dr. Kress later applied social attraction techniques to seabird restoration projects across the globe, leading the way for the successful rehabilitation of colonies in Hawaii, Bermuda, Japan, China, and Taiwan. As of 2012, 128 seabird restoration projects had utilized social attraction and chick translocation techniques, for the benefit of nearly 50 species at locations in 14 countries. His work transformed ornithological conservation and preserved numerous species of endangered coastal birds, redefining the possibilities for seabird conservation. These projects are a testament to Dr. Kress's commitment to conservation, the environment, and ornithology.

Dr. Kress's research opened new doors for conservation and his contributions to the scientific community have saved countless seabird colonies. As a result of his work, Maine islands are now home to some of the largest and most diverse seabird populations in the Gulf of Maine. His legacy will live on in the hundreds of people he has mentored during his career and the seabird populations our State is home to. I join with the people of Maine in commending Dr. Kress for his extraordinary efforts to preserve and cultivate our State's wildlife.

Mr. President, as most of us here in the Senate know, this Chamber functions with a dedicated and able staff to support us. Because we are a relatively small body that has to oversee the actions of the far larger executive branch, we rely on specialists detailed from other Agencies throughout the government. It is really a two-way deal. When they come here, they learn about the intricacies of the legislative process and get to participate in it. In return, we benefit from their years of experience in the Agency they come from.

In my case as chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, we rely on the Government Accountability Office or GAO staff who specialize in nuclear and space systems to help us on the programmatic details of a multitude of programs in the Department of Energy and Defense, and every year, the committee sponsors one of them to spend a year with us.

For the past year, we were fortunate enough to have Ms. Camille Pease with us from the GAO as our detailee, and now, her year is up, and she is heading back.

Because of the way the Armed Services Committee works in preparing for a markup, members such as myself and Senator Fischer, our ranking member on the subcommittee, spend a tremendous amount of time with staff, including Cami, on hearings and briefings in order to build a legislative record and develop legislation for our annual markup of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. In every aspect, Cami was there to enrich us with her expertise on the National Nuclear Security Administration. In return, I hope she is wiser on how we work in this Chamber, and in the Armed Services Committee in particular, on a bipartisan legislative process that has managed to produce a NDAA for the past 61 years.

So we thank you, Cami, for spending time with us, and we wish you the best on your return to the GAO. We hope your time with us will help you in the years to come. I hope you take back to the GAO that, when it comes to the national security of this nation, and the NDAA in particular, this Chamber does work in a bipartisan and productive fashion, and it is my hope it will continue to do so in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Dana Totman for his 22 years of service at Avesta Housing and congratulate him on a well-deserved retirement. Under his leadership, Avesta Housing became northern New England's largest housing nonprofit and transformed the lives of individuals and families across Maine. Dana has been a tireless advocate for affordable housing and made it clear how drastically it improves lives and strengthens communities.

While Dana cares about the bricks and mortar that become the homes of many, he cares most about the people who get to call these places home. It is these individuals who drive his passion. The Maine Affordable Housing Coalition, created by Dana, exemplifies his vision by giving those in need a voice and the ability to advocate for themselves.

During the 2009 recession, Dana found a creative way to increase the supply of affordable homes through the development of a $50 million bond proposal. Known as the Green Affordable Housing Bond, this allowed low-income Mainers to obtain affordable, energy-efficient homes, and created jobs in the construction, architectural, and engineering sectors. Subsequently, when Maine seniors needed a voice for their growing housing needs, Dana created and promoted the $15 million Maine Affordable Housing Bond, the effort garnered support from 69 percent of Maine voters--one of the largest margin wins of a State bond initiative.

Throughout his career, Dana navigated through the many obstacles and challenges Avesta Housing faced. His humility and quiet demeanor brought people and organizations together to demonstrate how affordable housing significantly strengthens communities' well-being. His ability to work closely with neighbors, listen to concerns, and understand the whole picture, furthered Avesta Housing's mission of giving everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, age, or race, a chance to have a home.

Dana was raised on a Topsham dairy farm, and later lived in Brunswick, where he and his wife raised their two sons and were members of the school community as parents. Dana also volunteered to coach soccer and baseball teams, imparting many life lessons to the kids. He continues to mentor young people, inspiring future generations to dedicate their lives to giving back to their communities.

Maine's business community has recognized Dana multiple times over the years for his exceptional leadership and contributions to equitable housing in Maine. It is a privilege to join with his colleagues, friends, and the people of Maine in recognizing Dana for demonstrating innovation, true excellence in his work, and unwavering compassion to those seeking--and finding--a home.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize the outstanding contributions of an organization based in my hometown of Brunswick, ME. This year marks the 55th anniversary of Independence Association, and I could not be more grateful to everyone who has contributed to the organization's work to enrich our community by serving children and adults with developmental disabilities. For over half a century, Independence Association has helped individuals rise to their full potential, growing up and out as fully included, fully valued members of their communities. Their work, their creativity, and their contributions make all of us better.

The Independence Association we know today has changed over the decades. Its inception dates back to 1967--a time in which institutionalization was still prevalent--when five families founded the Youth Development Center to chart a different course for their children. The Youth Development Center immediately demonstrated that the right people, resources, and support made an inclusive and independent life a reality for their children, and they soon welcomed others with additional needs as well. That organization grew and, in 1977, became Independence Association; since then, its staff, volunteers, and parents have gone on to empower hundreds of people with disabilities to enjoy enriching lives in the Maine communities we all love.

Over the last 55 years, Independence Association has continued to be creative, collaborative, and comprehensive in supporting their clients' ever-evolving needs. Even during a pandemic, faced with severe staffing shortages, a challenging hiring environment, and stagnant reimbursement rates, Independence Association remains committed to the more than 400 clients they support and the hundreds of people they employ.

The staff, volunteers, and community partners of Independence Association

have expanded over the years, and they now offer a full range of services in nine Maine counties and more than 60 Maine cities and towns. Their services range from Spindleworks--a nationally recognized artist's collaboration, which created the State of Maine ornament for the White House Christmas tree in 2017--to single-level ``Aging in Place'' lifetime housing. Independence Association also provides transportation for clients who have jobs or volunteer commitments, skills training for community life, case management services, and boundless opportunities for growth and support.

As a champion of all people, Independence Association has grown and adapted with the ever-changing needs of their clients. Their vision of empowering people with disabilities has never waned, and our State is stronger because of their work. I join with the people of Maine in thanking Independence Association for its passionate caring, commitment, and unwavering service to our communities and look forward to their continued impact on our State.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business for debate only, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, today, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Joint Resolution Expressing Support For The People Of Ukraine which was passed overwhelmingly by the Maine State Legislature. Together, we recognize the importance of democratic institutions and values around the world, and we are resolute in fighting against the forces of authoritarianism. This joint resolution reiterates Maine people's support for peace, diplomacy, and the immediate end to the invasion.

Mr. President, as the chair of the Senate National Parks Subcommittee and on behalf of Senator Daines, the Ranking Member of the Senate National Parks Subcommittee, today, I wish to recognize Betty Reid Soskin, who recently retired as the National Park Service's oldest active ranger. Betty spent a decade and a half sharing her personal experiences as a ranger at the Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Front National Park in Richmond, CA. I want to thank Betty for her service and wish her well in her much-deserved retirement.

Betty had a long path before landing at the National Park Service. She grew up in a Cajun-Creole, African-American family in Oakland, CA. Her family was forced to leave their home in New Orleans after the ``Great Flood'' in 1927, and they moved to Oakland to join Betty's maternal grandfather. After graduating from Castlemont High School, Betty went to work as a file clerk in a segregated union hall, Boilermaker's A-36, during World War II. Later, she and her husband, Mel Reid, opened Reid's Records, one of the first Black-owned music stores; the store remained open until fall of 2019. Betty also worked for a Berkley city council member and as a field representative in West Contra Costa County for two members of the California State Assembly.

In the early 2000s, Betty was involved in the planning meetings with the city of Richmond and the National Park Service to develop the management plan for the Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Front National Historic Park. She also worked with the National Park Service on a grant to cover untold stories of African-Americans on

the home front during WWII, which led to a temporary position working for the National Park Service at the age of 84. Betty became a permanent National Park Service employee in 2011 and has been leading public programs and sharing her personal stories and observations with park visitors ever since.

Betty gained national fame in 2013, during the government shutdown, when media outlets wanted to interview her as the oldest National Park Service ranger, to get her take on the shutdown. Betty participated in numerous national television interviews but managed to stay out of the political fray, saying that she wanted to focus what little time she had left on getting back to work, sharing her stories of the WWII home front. In 2015, Betty was selected by the National Park Service to participate in the national tree-lighting ceremony at the White House and introduced President Barack Obama in the national telecast on the annual PBS special. In fall 2019, Betty suffered a stroke and spent months in therapy, returning to work just before the COVID-19 pandemic struck. Prior to her retirement, Betty started doing weekly virtual visits to continue to share her perspectives with visitors.

Like many park rangers, Betty's path to the National Park Service may not have been the most direct, but we have all benefited from her decision to dedicate herself to public service. Her firsthand experiences on the home front during WWII help provide critical lessons for all Americans, regardless of their age, and we are so thankful that Betty chose to spend so many years of her life sharing her experiences with us all. We will certainly miss her insights and passion, but she has earned this retirement. On behalf of myself and Senator Daines, I extend our best wishes to Betty and thank her again her service.

Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Wyoming will stay so we might have a discussion.

Why has the price of gasoline gone up? Why did it start going up about the same time that Joe Biden became President? Was it because of the cancelation of the Keystone Pipeline? No. Most of the oil going through the Keystone Pipeline was scheduled to be exported, so I don't think that was it. Was it a pause in leases that wouldn't have produced oil for 3 or 4 years? No. There are something like 8,000 leases that are currently in place that aren't being drilled upon, so I don't think that did it.

Do you know what caused gas prices to go up? The extraordinary recovery that the economy went through starting in early 2021, after Joe Biden became President--one of the quickest recoveries in our history from a recession.

If you look back to the recession of 2007 and 2008, you see a slow--I call it a lazy U. You see a downward of the recession, and then jobs and the economy came back very slowly over 5, 6, 7 years. The recession recovery from 2021, from the pandemic recession, is a V, and we recovered virtually all of the jobs that were lost during the pandemic in the last 14 months. GDP has grown as fast as it has in our history. The economy came back enormously rapidly.

Oil was down in 2019 and 2020 because of the pandemic. Demand collapsed--this is economics 101--demand collapsed, the price of oil collapsed, and then the recovery came, and the demand increased, but the production didn't increase.

Let's talk a little bit about oil in the United States. In 2021, half of the oil produced in the United States was exported. Did that do anything for our consumers? Did that do anything for the people who were paying higher and higher rates for gas?

The White House doesn't set gas prices. Presidents are always blamed for gas prices. I have never heard one given credit when gas prices are low. But the truth is, the price of gas depends upon the price of oil, and the price of oil depends on the world market, and the price of oil in the world market depends upon supply and demand.

I am old enough to remember the Arab oil embargo in the seventies. Why did prices go up so much? Because the OPEC closed down the source, and supply dropped, and the price went up. That is economics.

So what happened during 2021? The price went way up. The oil companies made the highest profits they have made in 8 years. What did they do with that money? Demand is resurging. There is a need for more oil. Prices were going up. What did they do? They put $100 billion into buybacks from their stockholders, and they put that much--the combination was $100 billion in buybacks and dividends.

They had a choice. Did they put the money into production, which would have reduced the price because we would have higher supply? No. They made a deliberate choice to give the money to their stockholders to bump up their stock price, which I suspect may have had a positive effect on the executive salaries, but they didn't increase production.

That is why we are in this problem that we are in now with high gas prices. Of course, the war in Ukraine has exacerbated that because we are cutting off purchases from Russia, which is one of the highest producers of oil in the world.

So if the idea is--you know, I keep hearing my friends on the other side trying to blame Joe Biden. If you want to blame him for anything, blame him for the quickest recovery from a recession in recorded history. And it was the recovery and the increase in demand that wasn't met by an increase in production that caused these high prices.

I read a quote this morning in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. There was an executive who said: We made a promise to our shareholders that we were going to be disciplined and we were going to return the money to them.

He said: I guess the choice came down to keeping our promise to our shareholders or being patriotic.

Well, we know what choice they made.

So all this talk about the Biden administration's war on oil and it is what is causing what is going on at the pump--no. What is causing what is going on at the pump is low supply and high demand. That is what happened in 1972, that is what is happening now, and that is what happens whenever you get supply and demand out of balance.

As far as exporting LNG to Europe, I am all for trying to help our European allies. I am all for it. But we have to do it with open eyes. The more we export LNG, the higher the price is going to be here in the United States. Seven or eight years ago, the Australians went big into exporting LNG, and their domestic natural gas price doubled, and that is about what has happened here in this country. Five years ago, we exported zero LNG production. Now, it is about 15 percent, but with the plants that have been approved, it is going to go up to 25, 30, or 35 percent. That is going to impact prices here. That is going to be great for producers, but it is going to kill the competitive advantage that low gas prices gave this country. If it is $13 in China and it is $3 here, where do you think it is going to go?

That is what is going on here. This is nothing but economics. We need to understand that what has happened is the oil industry made a conscious decision last year--and when I say ``conscious decision,'' I mean conscious. They had a choice: Do we invest in production and increase supply or do we give money to our shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks? They chose the latter, and we are reaping the fruits of that.

So I am tired of hearing that somehow a pause in leases on Federal land

that wouldn't have produced any oil for 3 or 4 years is somehow the cause of the high prices at the pump. That is nonsense. The cause of the high prices at the pump is a lack of supply, and last year--talk about energy independence--we exported half the oil that was produced in this country.

We had a vote here 4 or 5 years ago, and we were told: If you allow-- exports of oil were illegal until 4 or 5 years ago. We voted to allow it because we were told: Well, this won't really affect us because we have an excess of supply. It won't affect prices here in this country.

Well, that hasn't proven to be the case.

So what I would like to see is for all of us to work together, to think about--I am aware of policies involving pipelines and those kinds of things, and I believe that we have to make fuel available and energy available to all of our people. But let's be realistic about what is going on and not turn it into a partisan issue.

The only partisan issue here is that we have had a startling and extraordinary and, frankly, positive recovery of our economy. But we didn't have a recovery of the production of oil, which leads to the production of gasoline, which means a shortage, which means higher prices.

So I am delighted to engage in this debate, but I think we really ought to be trying to talk about the facts and talk about what is really going on here and what is really causing this problem.

I always want to learn more, and I learn from my colleagues. And I noticed that my colleague who just made the speech left, and he didn't seem to want to engage on this, which I think is unfortunate. I hope that perhaps here in the Senate we could actually have a debate and talk about what the issues are and what the reality is and quit just casting everything in a partisan way.

It has gotten to the point that, if Joe Biden walked out of the White House and walked across the Potomac River, the other side would say: The President can't swim.

Come on. Let's just talk about reality and not make everything about what is good for the administration or bad for the administration. Let's talk about what is really happening, and what is really happening right now is we have got solid demand in this country. The economy has come back, but we don't have enough production to meet that demand.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I certainly agree with the comments of the majority whip.

My friend from Wyoming will be surprised that I think we have some agreement on the issue of infrastructure.

When I was the Governor of Maine, we--we, the pipeline company but under the auspices of the environmental regulatory policies in Maine-- constructed a brand new pipeline for natural gas from Nova Scotia through New Brunswick and through Maine into Massachusetts. I believe one of the problems we have is a lack of gas pipeline infrastructure, and that causes higher prices than there should be in New England.

I think the Senator and I agree on that. Where we disagree is on the extent to which any policies of this administration have affected the price.

As the Senator just pointed out, the Keystone Pipeline wasn't expected to deliver for another year or 2, and the express purpose of the Keystone Pipeline was to take oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast for export. It wasn't designed to service production in the United States.

As I say, the problem right now is that the high price of gasoline is the result of the rapidity of the economic recovery, which is a good thing. What is not a good thing is that the oil companies made a choice last year to invest in their shareholders and their stock prices rather than in producing oil.

I understand that to some extent because they took such a beating during the pandemic. It dropped so fast that oil was actually trading in negative territory for a period of time. Yet, once it became clear that the economic recovery was on track and that demand was solid and likely to remain so, that is when, I believe, those decisions about buybacks and stock dividends should have been reexamined in light of the need--the obvious need--for additional resources in this country.

So I appreciate this discussion. It is a rare day when actual debate breaks out on the Senate floor. I am delighted to have been able to have participated in it, but I think we ought to continue to remember that the issue here is supply and demand. Politics can affect these things on the margins, but the decisions of the producers are what really determine whether supply will match demand. If it doesn't, prices are going to go up, and the question then is, What do you do with the profits? That is the decision that was made last year.

I deeply hope that the industry is reexamining that decision, particularly in light of current prices and the situation in Ukraine, and will ramp up production in a way that will bring prices down and allow us to enjoy the full fruits of the recovery that we have seen, not undermined by inflation, which has been led by the cost of fuel.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Judge D. Brock Hornby of Cape Elizabeth, ME. Last week, after more than 40 years of service on both Maine's State and Federal courts, Judge Hornby presided over his final proceeding at the U.S. District Court in Portland. I want to honor Judge Hornby's incredible career, thank him for his service, and wish him well in this next chapter.

Judge Hornby is a native of Manitoba, Canada, and earned his bachelor's degree in English and history in Canada before coming to the United States to attend Harvard Law School. The year after graduating from Harvard, Judge Hornby began teaching at my alma mater, the University of Virginia Law School--where I am certain he obtained the wit and polish he would carry throughout his career. He moved to Maine in 1974, became a citizen, and began to practice law in Portland at Perkins, Thompson, Hinckley, and Keddy.

In 1982, Judge Hornby became a U.S. magistrate judge, serving in Portland and Bangor until 1988. He then served on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court for 2 years. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush nominated him to the U.S. District Court, and the Senate confirmed him to this position by unanimous consent. At the district court, he served as chief judge from 1996 to 2003.

During his distinguished career, Judge Hornby has presided over thousands of criminal and civil cases. Some have grabbed headlines, others may only impact those involved, but in all his cases, his colleagues say that he brought a sense of fairness to the bench. Judge Hornby played a critical role in changing strict Federal sentencing guidelines, allowing judges to use their discretion in sentencing the defendants before them.

Through his career, Judge Hornby has been a fair and neutral arbiter of the law, offering respect to all who entered his courtroom. While we will miss his insight, intellect, and experience on the bench, he has earned this retirement. I extend my best wishes to Judge Hornby and thank him again for his unwavering service--the State of Maine is lucky to call him one of our own.

Madam President, I voted to proceed to the consideration of the Women's Health Protection Act today with some reluctance, not because of any doubts about the substance of the bill--I have been a strong supporter of reproductive choice throughout my public life--but because of concern about and disagreement with some of the provisions of its introductory ``Findings'' section.

Several of these provisions assert that opposition to reproductive services, including abortion, is rooted in racism and misogyny. I don't believe that this is true, and I do believe that it is unfair and insulting to the millions of Americans whose opposition to abortion is rooted in their faith and deeply held moral principles. While I disagree with their conclusion--that it is appropriate for the government to impose these beliefs on others who do not share them and thereby intrude into the personal medical choices of all women--I don't question their motives and strongly disagree with the language of the bill that does so.

My vote today was not a vote on the final passage of the bill, but only to bring it to the Senate floor for debate and amendment. Had the motion succeeded, I, along with many of my colleagues, would have voted to remove this inflammatory and unnecessary language from the bill.

Fundamentally, this issue is about who should have the power to make this most personal and difficult choice, the government or individual women in consultation with their doctors. While respecting the motives of those who disagree, I think that power should rest with the woman.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 599 and Calendar No. 693; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Senator, are you up for a question? Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I would like to direct a question through the Chair to the Senator from Indiana and ask the reason for his objection.

Mr. President, do I get a response from the Senator from Indiana?

Mr. President, we have two qualified nominees, reported out on a bipartisan basis by the Armed Services Committee at a moment of heightened international tension.

The Senator from Missouri--I said Indiana--I say the Senator from Missouri objected with no reason whatsoever. I asked him for his reasoning, and he did not respond; he walked out of the room.

I don't understand such an irresponsible action. This is a matter of national security. We have no reason for this objection. I understand that he is objecting to all nominees at the Department of Defense because he is upset about accountability for the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

We have taken action to deal with that question. In the National Defense Authorization Act that we just passed, there was a Commission created expressly to examine the issue of Afghanistan--how we got in, why we got in, what we did, how we left--on a bipartisan basis. I believe that was reported out by the committee unanimously in the National Defense Authorization Act after the committee's markup. So that is accountability.

In addition, the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, which I also serve on, had at least 10--I think it was more like a dozen-- hearings on the withdrawal from Afghanistan in the latter part of 2021, before the end of the year--a dozen hearings.

I was going to ask the Senator from Missouri how many hearings were held when he was a member of the Armed Services Committee and his party was in charge of the committee, how many hearings were held on President Trump's agreement to leave Afghanistan in Doha in February of 2020. That was the decision that led to President Biden effectuating the treaty--not the treaty but the agreement that the Trump administration had made with the Taliban that led to the evacuation of Americans and American troops from Afghanistan.

You know how many hearings were held by the Armed Services Committee on the Doha agreement, which was effectively guaranteeing we would leave Afghanistan with some minor conditions? Zero. Zero. Talk about accountability. There were no hearings or discussion in the committee that I can recall of the Doha agreement, where the Trump administration agreed with the Taliban that we would leave by May 1 of 2021, as long as the Taliban didn't attack our troops.

And now the Senator from Missouri is holding up nominees because of some--he doesn't like the way the evacuation occurred or he wants more questions from the Secretary of Defense.

We had hearings over and over. And what is going on here is a compromise

of national security because the Senator from Missouri has questions that, I guess, haven't been answered, although I believe he was at those hearings, had the opportunity to examine and cross-examine the Secretary of Defense and other officials of the Biden administration.

But here we are, at a moment of national tension--and that is putting it mildly--with nominees who are in charge of space and readiness. The Senator from Missouri today blocked consideration and confirmation of an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and for Space, two areas of critical national concern, for reasons that he wouldn't say. He walked out of the room. He walked out of the room. That is not accountability.

If you are going to do something that endangers national defense and block nominees who have been reported out by the committee on a bipartisan basis, accountability is standing in this room and telling the American people why he is doing it. Accountability means being responsible for your actions, not saying ``I object'' and then walking out, and that is what happened just now on this floor. I have never seen anything like it.

These are well-qualified nominations, reported out by the committee on a bipartisan basis, and we need them in these jobs. We need them now, today, in these jobs, and now that is not going to be possible because one Senator, for reasons that he refused to explain or expand upon, objected. That is not responsible. That is not responsible. That is endangering national security.

And to do so without any explanation is just, I believe, not appropriate for a Member of this body.

So we will renew these requests at a later date and hope that the Senator will have thought better of this action and allow these nominations to go forward as requested by a bipartisan majority of the Armed Services Committee.

I yield the floor.

You are young.

Will the Senator yield?

I am one who signed that letter.

First, let's talk about the letter itself. What it says is, ``We are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.'' I agree with that. The proposal that is going to be put on the floor today is one that will allow extended debate.

There are two points that have caused me to modify the position that I took on this letter. One is the nature of the issue that is before the body. If we were here talking about immigration or gun control or any of the other many issues that we consider, I wouldn't be taking the position that I am.

I believe that the rules of the Senate are important and that extended debate is an important part of the Senate process. However, we are talking about fundamental structural changes--not policy changes but structural changes--that I believe, in spite of your comments, that in many States across the country are compromising the ability of our people to express themselves in our democracy.

I consider that qualitatively different than a policy difference, and that is why I am here today to talk about revising the rules--not blowing up the filibuster but to get back to what the filibuster actually means, and that is extended debate.

I am all for extended debate until we are exhausted, until we have made a deal, until we have come to a compromise. But the problem is, the filibuster, as we define it today, is a distant cousin of the real filibuster.

The radical change in the filibuster isn't what is being discussed today. It was made in 1975 almost by accident. In 1975, they were debating whether it should be two-thirds of Senators present and voting or a lower number. And they compromised on 60 Senators, sworn Members. That was the focus of that discussion.

I have talked to Parliamentarians who were involved in that question. I asked the specific question: Did they really realize what they were doing by creating the mail-in, dial-in, no-effort filibuster? And the answer was no. They didn't discuss it. They didn't think of it.

So what I am talking about here today and what the proposal that will be on the floor later today is to do exactly what this letter says, ``extended debate''--``extended debate.'' And that is why I believe that what we are proposing today is in the deepest tradition of the U.S. Senate. What we are trying to scale back is the cheap, easy, dial- in from your office, 60 votes, de facto, supermajority requirement, which is not in the Constitution, which the Framers expressly did not agree to.

They put in a lot of checks and balances. Two Houses of Congress, two-thirds voting on treaties, two-thirds voting on an amendment, confirmation of the President--the President, the Congress, the independence of the courts, all those were checks and balances. One of them was not a supermajority requirement in the U.S. Senate.

Hamilton and Madison expressly said that that would turn democracy on its head. Democracy ultimately is about majority rule, and there should be minority rights. The minority should have every opportunity to speak, to offer amendments, to discuss--to offer germane amendments, I might add--and discuss and debate but ultimately not have a veto.

That is really what it comes down to here: Do you have a rule that says that the minority actually is in control of the legislative process? That is not what the Framers intended. It is antithetical to what the Framers intended.

In fact, one of the reasons for the Constitutional Convention was the dysfunction of the Articles of Confederation, and one of the reasons cited for that dysfunction was a supermajority requirement.

So, yes, I voted--what I supported 3 years ago, I still support. The language is ``full, robust, and extended debate,'' and that is what is going to be proposed later on.

If you guys will vote for it, this debate can go on, as it should, for weeks and perhaps months because it is that important. But I don't have any apologies to make. If I have to choose between a Senate rule, as it works now--which, as I say, is a distant cousin of the real filibuster--and democracy itself, I am going to take democracy every single time.

Mr. President, I came here 9 years ago opposed to modifying the rules of the filibuster. Indeed, I signed a letter a couple of years ago saying the same thing. I understand that it can and probably will boomerang, that an elimination of the filibuster--what is today's annoying obstruction could be tomorrow's priceless shield. I get that.

I understand that it can also be a spur to bipartisanship. We all saw that several years ago in the CARES Act. The Republican leader submitted a bill. It was voted down on a filibuster initially, and then there ensued a series of negotiations that improved the bill and made it a bipartisan bill that passed this body unanimously.

The problem is, if it is being used as a spur to bipartisan discussions, that works. We saw it work with the CARES Act. But if it is used simply to stop something, in other words, if one side or the other just doesn't even want to talk about the subject, what you are talking about is stone cold obstruction, and that is where we are today.

Unfortunately, part of this body just doesn't want to talk about the issue of voting rights. How do I know that? Because we brought up a motion to proceed three times, and it was voted down three times--a motion to proceed to have a discussion about this issue. The only reason we are having this debate today is that the majority leader found a rule that, frankly, I never heard of that enabled us to bring this to the floor. It wasn't because the other side said: Oh, let's discuss voting rights.

What we have now is not a filibuster. It is a second cousin once removed of a filibuster. It doesn't require any effort. It doesn't require any speeches. It doesn't require to hold the floor. All it is is a dial-in, no-work filibuster. Strom Thurmond would have loved this filibuster. He wouldn't have had to stand here for 24 hours. And I venture to say that if we had the rules that we have today, we wouldn't have the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, because it was too easy to stop anything.

That is the problem. We don't really have a filibuster. The real radical change in the filibuster rule was in 1975, when they wanted to go from two-thirds of those present voting to 60 votes, but, inadvertently, we created the no-effort filibuster, and that is what we have now.

I would submit that a talking filibuster, which is what we are going to be proposing in a few minutes, would be the real spur to bipartisanship because everybody would want to get it over with. The minority would want to get it over with, and the majority would want to get it over with, and get to a point where there would be discussion. And I believe, listening to the debate today, based upon the discussion today, that I think there may be some areas where we can find agreement.

The real spur to bipartisanship would be to return to the old filibuster. This is what we are going to be voting on today.

And, by the way, on bipartisanship, I came here to seek bipartisanship. I am all about bipartisanship. But it strikes me as one of the deep ironies of this discussion that we are elevating bipartisanship in this body to this exalted position while these laws are being passed entirely on a partisan basis in all these States across the country. I guess bipartisanship is an important principle in Washington, but in Atlanta and Austin, not so much. I don't get that. I think that is one of the real ironies of this situation.

So, Angus, if you came here opposed 9 years ago, why are you changing now? Because what we are talking about today isn't policy; it is structure. It is our democracy itself.

Policy can change. If they don't like the policy we pass, they can kick us out and vote other people in. If we change the structure that diminishes the right of people to vote, it is not self- correcting anymore. The system itself is being compromised. That is what we have to talk about.

And we are not only talking. All of the discussion or most of the discussion today has been about voter suppression. There is also what I call voter subversion--purging the officials in charge of elections.

This democracy, I would argue, was damn near saved by a guy named Brad Raffensperger in Georgia. They purged him--or they are going to. They have already purged him out of the system, and they are going to try to purge him out of his job. That is happening. And we talk about giving people in the legislature--a partisan legislature--the ability to dismiss voting boards because they don't like what they did? We are going to see more and more voting boards, voting commissioners, certification officials being purged because they don't want to get the results that they don't agree with.

The other problem here that really worries me about our democracy is that the former President's efforts to undermine confidence in our elections have already convinced two-thirds of one of our great political parties that the elections were illegitimate and were rigged. Two-thirds of one of our great political parties now believes that.

If these laws that are happening across the country--and they are going to continue happening. By the way, if we give them a pass today, it is Katy, bar the door, over the next 6 months. Then you are going to disillusion and anger and loss of trust among two-thirds of the Democratic Party and Independents, and you are going to have widespread distrust of elections as the way we solve our problems in this country. And if you can't trust elections, what do you do?

I would submit that we saw it on January 6. Those people had been told that something was stolen from them, and they couldn't trust elections. They couldn't trust the courts. They couldn't trust the media. So they took the law into their own hands. And, sadly, if this continues, we will have a broad widespread loss of trust in our electoral process, and that is when democracy starts to fall apart.

Finally--my wife says I say ``finally'' too much and it gets people's hopes up.

Finally, there are some deeper constitutional issues here. The Framers knew fractions. They said it takes two-thirds to pass a treaty. It takes two-thirds to impeach a President. It takes two-thirds to pass a constitutional amendment. It takes three-quarters of the States to pass a constitutional amendment. They knew fractions. They didn't apply any fractions when they talked about the passage of legislation. Why not? Because they knew it would be a disaster to have a supermajority requirement in one of the Houses of the national legislature.

How do I know that? Because Madison and Hamilton said it explicitly in Federalist 22 by Hamilton, Federalist 58 by Madison. Madison said:

The fundamental principle of free government [if you have a

supermajority requirement] would be reversed. It would be no

longer the majority that would rule: the power would be

transferred to the minority.

You can't have it both ways. It is either majority rule or its minority rule, and the filibuster was not part of the Constitution. In fact, they expressly and explicitly rejected that idea of a supermajority requirement. It flips democracy on its head.

I think we are at a hinge of history, Mr. President. I think we are at a hinge of history where our fragile experiment--and Senator Murphy is right, we are an anomaly in world history. The norm is pharaohs and Kings and dictators, and now we call them Presidents for life.

And once people seize power, look at what--and this isn't an academic discussion. This has happened in Hungary, in Turkey, and Venezuela--in Russia. It has happened right in our personal experiences. It can happen here, and it starts with undermining free and fair elections.

In the winter of 1891, the House passed a protection act for Black voters in the South. The bill was to deal with the egregious voter suppression that was then sweeping the South in the wake of the Civil War. The bill came here and died due to a filibuster. That filibuster echoed in this country for 75 years. It took 75 years to correct the mistake that this body made with that filibuster in the winter of 1891.

We are not talking about abolishing the filibuster. We are not talking about a carve-out. We are talking about allowing this body-- requiring this body--to debate, to argue, to make their arguments as long as it takes, and then, at the end, when the debate is exhausted, when all of us have had the opportunity to speak twice, then we have a vote, and we pass legislation on the same basis that it has always been

passed--by a majority. Cloture has nothing to do with the passage of legislation. It has always been by a majority.

I pray that we don't look back on this day and realize the level of the mistake that they made in 1891.

Abraham Lincoln's words ring today as they did when he came to this body in December of 1862.

He 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 another of us. The fiery trial through which we

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

generation.

``The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.''

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize LT Sean McDonald, U.S. Navy, for his outstanding work on behalf of the people of Maine and the Nation as a 2021 Department of Defense Legislative Fellow serving in my Washington, DC, office. Lieutenant McDonald has been integral to shaping my foreign policy and national security priorities and helped secure a number of provisions in the fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act--FY22 NDAA--that will make our country stronger and safer. Lieutenant McDonald's contributions, both to office morale and to our collective work product, are representative of his good character, competence, and strong work ethic.

Throughout his tenure in my office, Lieutenant McDonald demonstrated a level of professionalism and hard work I have come to expect--but that I do not take for granted--from Department of Defense Legislative Fellows. Indeed, Lieutenant McDonald follows a long line of accomplished U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officers who have made impactful contributions to my office and to U.S. national security policy. Over the course of the year, Lieutenant McDonald prepared and personally advised me on wide-ranging and complex matters under consideration before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Lieutenant McDonald brought his naval expertise to bear to help secure authorization for the procurement of additional Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the FY22 NDAA, a critical capability for the U.S. fleet and a boon to the Maine shipbuilding workforce. He also helped guide my work as chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces during my inaugural year in this position, helping craft policy on nuclear and strategic forces, missile defense, and space programs. Further, during the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Lieutenant McDonald provided clear-headed and thoughtful analysis on the withdrawal and liaised with representatives from the White House, State Department, and Department of Defense to convey my positions and concerns. His candor and honest assessments provided critical insights during this challenging time, and our Nation is better because of it.

On behalf of my colleagues and the U.S. Congress, I thank Lieutenant McDonald for his dedicated service to my staff, the U.S. Navy, and the Nation. I wish him all the best and know that he will excel in his next endeavors.

Go ahead.

I thank the Senator, and I particularly want to thank Senator Casey for his steadfast, dogged perseverance in pursuit of this issue. He has stayed with it. He has advocated for it. He has been persistent and persuasive, and I just want to thank you. You have really exemplified what this body should be all about. It should care about the American people and should take steps to alleviate their pain. When they are in trouble, they have a friend in Pennsylvania. The people of America have a friend in Pennsylvania, and I deeply appreciate it.

Madam President, I used to teach a course in college called Leaders and Leadership. I used case studies of different people, and it was a very eclectic group. It ranged from Ernest Shackleton to Joshua Chamberlain, to Winston Churchill, to Margaret Thatcher, and to a guy named Jack Welch who was the President of General Electric and one of the great business leaders of the late 20th and early 21st century.

One of Jack Welch's favorite quotes, which is also one of my favorites, is that ``the essence of leadership is to look reality in the eye and then do something about it''--``look reality in the eye and then do something about it.''

I want to talk about some realities this afternoon. The reality is that we are an aging population. Ten thousand people a day qualify for Medicare--10,000 people a day. We are an aging population. My State of Maine is, in fact, the oldest State in America. How old are we? Our junior Senator is 77. The State of Maine and the country are aging. That is a reality. We can wish it away and act like it is not really happening, but that is an enormous demographic wave that is coming at us right now. As the baby boomers retire and enter their sixties and seventies, this is a reality that we have--10,000 people a day.

Another reality is that more and more of these people require care. That is in the nature of our physical being. The older people get, they require care. So the real question is, How are we going to care for these people?

Thousands of them--hundreds of thousands--end up in nursing homes, in long-term care, and those facilities do a yeoman's work, and they take wonderful care of people. But 60 percent of the people in long-term care are paid for by Medicaid. Sixty percent of the

people in long-term care are paid for by Medicaid. That is important because I am going to be making the argument that the investments that we are making in this bill are, in fact, investments that will actually diminish expenditures in other areas.

Here's another reality. It costs about $26,000 a year to provide home- and community-based services for a person with disabilities or a senior who needs those services--$26,000 a year. Long-term care in a nursing home is over $90,000 a year, almost four times as much.

So let me add one more reality and then I will come to the conclusion--not the conclusion of the whole remarks. I don't want to get your hopes up, Madam President--but my conclusion on this point.

Part of the reality is that most seniors don't want to go to nursing homes until they have to. I used to go around Maine with my commissioner of human services with groups of seniors and say: How many of you want to go to a nursing home? No hands went up. Not that nursing homes don't give good care or provide an essential need, but most people would like to stay in their houses, in their homes, close to their community, close to their family as long as they can.

So if you take the financial reality that it is almost one-fourth, 25 percent or maybe 30 percent, as expensive to keep them in their homes, the taxpayers are paying 60 percent of the cost of nursing homes. People want to be home. All of that argues in favor of enabling people to stay home.

Every day that someone stays out of a long-term care facility it saves the taxpayers about almost $200, every day for each day. So if you can keep people in their homes longer, it is a good financial investment.

It also provides preventive care and services. That is one of the realities.

The other reality, as Senator Casey mentioned, is people with disabilities, people who are trapped.

As he was making his remarks, I was thinking about the fundamental promise of America and the Declaration of Independence--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abraham Lincoln once said that every political opinion he had derived from the Declaration of Independence. In my case, every political opinion I have is derived from Abraham Lincoln, but the Declaration of Independence talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If you are disabled--if you can't walk up these stairs and you don't have some help--you don't have much of a life, and you certainly don't have liberty. All we think of as liberty is to be able to walk out your door, go to the store, go to church, interact with our children. If you can't do those things, you don't have liberty, and you certainly don't have much happiness. So we are talking about the fundamental promise of America--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It simply means giving people the help they need, and they need it through no fault of their own.

It is nobody's fault when they get older. That is not your fault, and disability isn't your fault. The fellow who Senator Casey talked about who was injured while playing football in high school wasn't at fault. He wasn't at fault. This kind of thing can happen to anybody. So that is really what we are talking about.

The reality is that we have a demographic tidal wave coming at us, and the question is, Are we going to deal with it actively and confront it or are we simply going to sit back and say, you know, ``It is like it has always been''? It is not like it has always been. We have never had a demographic boom in the seniors like we are going to have in the next 20 years. Our generation--my generation--is the pig and the python of the demographics of this country, and we are going to have to confront it.

So how do we confront it? We confront it in a number of ways. We confront it in several ways.

The home care provisions of this bill are one of the ways to confront it. There is also a hidden economic benefit here. If people need care, they are going to get it one way or another. They may well, in many cases, be getting it from their children who then can't go to work. We desperately need workers in this economy right now, but they are locked up because they can't leave home. They can't leave their elderly moms. So to have the home-based services liberates people in order for them to participate in the economy.

What can we do about it?

We can do something about the wages of these people--of the people working in this industry who are providing this essential care--who are making $12 an hour. They are among the lowest paid in our society. How do we know that the pay is inadequate? When a 50-percent turnover in a home-based care company--in a home-based care exercise--in the community is considered good. To have 100 percent turnover in a year is not unusual. That tells you there is a real problem in the compensation of the workforce. So this bill provides funds to improve the living standard of the people who are providing these services. It provides training. It provides a career path. It provides hope for people, not only those who are giving the services but those who are needing the services.

I believe this is an investment. This is the right investment in the right people at the right time, and I deeply hope that our colleagues will come together to support this investment in a timely way and not wait until it is too late. Why wait until thousands of lives are restricted and constrained? Let's do the right thing now. We know what the reality is. This bill provides us a golden opportunity to meet it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have the responsibility and the privilege to be the chair of something called the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services.

Strategic forces is a euphemism for nuclear weapons, and it is one of the most serious threats that we continue to face. We face threats all over the world from pandemics, from terrorism, from a rising China, from a belligerent Russia, but one of the most serious that sometimes gets lost in the discussion is the unthinkable catastrophe that would be a nuclear exchange.

Throughout the last 70-plus years, our principle strategy for dealing with that threat has been deterrence, the idea that if you use nuclear weapons against the United States of America, you will pay the heaviest of prices, and that deterrence has worked. There hasn't been a use of nuclear weapon since 1945, and there are now several--I can't say the exact number for classification reasons--but there are a number of nuclear countries in the world, nuclear-armed countries, China and Russia among them. China is expanding its nuclear capability exponentially. Over the past several years, they have been embarked on an enormous buildup of their nuclear capability.

But I want to talk about a nuclear threat today in the context of the nomination that I am going to move in a few moments that, to me, is one of the most terrifying because it is a nuclear threat that deterrence doesn't work on--a nuclear threat that deterrence, the fundamental strategy of our prevention of nuclear conflict for 70 years, doesn't work.

What is that threat? The threat of nuclear terrorism. If you are not representing a country and if you don't care about dying, then the idea of a nuclear response doesn't scare you. It doesn't deter you from taking that kind of action.

How do we defend against that? What is deterrence 2.0 in the current world where international terrorism--although it has not been on the front pages recently--is still there?

ISIS-K, ISIS, al-Qaida, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula are all still there. Boko Haram in Africa--they are all still there. They are all plotting. They are all working on ways that they can attack the West and the United States of America.

If they could get ahold of the nuclear technology and nuclear building block, which is enriched uranium, they would use it. The terrorists who killed 3,000 people on September 11 would kill--would have killed 3 million if they could have.

And so keeping nuclear materials and nuclear technology out of the hands of terrorists is, to me, one of the most important functions that our government can perform.

And that brings me to the nomination of Corey Hinderstein for the position of Deputy Administrator for Nuclear Nonproliferation. She is immensely qualified and has worked in this field for almost 20 years; has worked on nuclear proliferation and nonproliferation issues for most of those years, both in the government and in the private sector. I would venture to say there is probably no one in the United States who knows as much about this subject as she does.

Ms. Hinderstein will be responsible for a major part of the budget-- $1.9 billion--but she is responsible for controlling the proliferation of nuclear materials, and that is so critical in light of the threat of nuclear terrorism. The only way we can keep them from attacking us is intelligence, knowing what is coming, and keeping these materials out of their hands; and that is why this job is so important.

She was approved by the committee and recommended to the Senate 40 days ago. It is time to move this nomination. Nominations can be held up for a variety of reasons and some policy reasons, and I understand that, but not in this case. And I am happy to report that it appears that this nomination will not be held up because I think all of our colleagues realize how important this function is in the government.

The most--the best nuclear strike is the one that doesn't occur. The only way to prevent that is to stop the proliferation of nuclear materials. This problem is only growing. We know that Iran is now enriching uranium to a much higher extent than they did under the JCPOA. We know that North Korea is pursuing its own nuclear ambitions. India, Pakistan both have nuclear programs. So this is a clear and present danger to the United States of

America, and that is why this nomination is so important.