Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am here today to speak in support of the nomination and confirmation of Christopher Lowman to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment. We are in a fight for the free world and that requires maintaining a robust military presence of our allies, including and especially NATO countries.

Any U.S. mission also needs a strong logistics chain. That means being able to move troops, medical supplies, fuel, tents, anything else throughout the world at any given time. And this is no longer an abstraction. We have seen what happens when it isn't in place. We are seeing it in real time with Russia's equipment and training problems in Ukraine.

And that is why we have an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment to lead on logistics. As we are watching the Ukrainians bravely push back this unprovoked Russian war, part of the reason that they are having success is that the Russian logistics chain is absolutely broken. We, in the United States, and our Armed Forces take logistics extraordinarily seriously. But we don't have the person in charge of that confirmed to lead the Department on logistics.

This position is left unfilled because Josh Hawley is blocking Mr. Lowman's nomination. Senator Hawley apparently disagrees with the Biden administration policy on Afghanistan, and so he is punishing our servicemembers and our NATO allies while a war in Europe is raging. It is worth repeating. Senator Hawley is mad about what happened 6 months ago in a different part of the world, and in response, he is harming the Department of Defense and our national security.

I will not yield.

Mr. Lowman is well-qualified for this job, and no one is disputing that. He is a Marine Corps veteran who spent nearly four decades working for the Army. He has the exact expertise necessary to help support our logistics chain and help to make sure that our military remains the best fighting force on the planet. It is time for Senator Hawley to release this hold and move the nomination forward.

This is preposterous. You can do a hold. Members do a hold. The Presiding Officer has done a hold. I have done a hold. I voted no on nominees. I retaliated against Democratic and Republican administrations when I disagreed with policy. But a blanket hold on the Department of Defense and holding the person in charge of our logistics chain is absolutely inexcusable.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination, Calendar No. 777, Christopher Joseph Lowman, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense, and that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Is there an objection? Does he object or not?

Will the Senator yield to a question?

Will the Senator yield?

I am asking, will the Senator yield.

What Senator Hawley wants is an excuse to go through his litany of criticisms of the Biden administration. And the truth is that every Senator has that right without blocking the logistics guy from the Department of Defense.

He could have brought his floor charts out here and given a withering speech about all of the things that he thought went wrong. But he is doing a very specific thing: He is damaging the Department of Defense. We have senior

DOD leaders, we have the Armed Services Committee coming to us and saying: I don't know what to tell him. I don't know how to satisfy him, but he is blocking the staffing of the senior leadership at the Department of Defense.

This comes from a guy who raised his fist in solidarity with the insurrectionists. This comes from a guy who, before the Russian invasion, suggested that maybe it would be wise for Zelenskyy to make a few concessions about Ukraine and their willingness to join NATO. This comes from a guy who, just about a month ago, voted against Ukraine aid. He is saying it is going too slow. He voted no. He voted no on Ukraine aid, and now, he has the gall to say it is going too slow.

And this final insult is that until--what--Secretary Austin resigns? That is not a serious request. People used to come to me during the Trump administration all the time: Do you think Trump should resign? Do you think Tillerson should resign? That is stupid. Of course, I think all the people I disagree with should quit their jobs and be replaced with people I love; of course, I think they should all resign. That is not how this world works. That is not a reasonable request from a U.S. Senator: Until the Secretary of Defense quits his job, I am going to block all his nominees. That is preposterous--and coming from a person who exonerated Donald Trump for extorting Zelenskyy for withholding lethal aid.

They withheld lethal aid until--unless--Zelenskyy would release false smears against Joe Biden's son, and then he voted to exonerate President Trump for this. So spare me the new solidarity with the Ukrainians and with the free world, because this man's record is exactly the opposite.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

This is not the right way to get at the fentanyl problem. This gives the Secretary permission to shut down all asylum seekers from a country on the basis of any type of drug, no matter how much is in possession, how frequently that drug is possessed, what country they are coming from. We are calling for essentially a complete shutdown of the asylum program because there might be fentanyl somewhere. But it also gives the Secretary authority to stop asylum seekers coming from any country for any drug at any scale.

Now, title 42 authority is a serious thing. It is a blanket authority to block anyone presenting themselves for asylum. We have seen the horrific images in Ukraine. We know between 4 and 5 million people are already refugees, and we know that the United States, as the indispensable Nation, wants to take a leadership role in accommodating these refugees in Europe and, if necessary, in the United States.

People presenting themselves for asylum, escaping their dangerous home country--that is actually part of the American dream. That is, in a lot of ways, how many of us arrived, right? There may not have been this statutory framework, but the principle involved was not just that you came from some other place far away to make a better life for yourself--sometimes it was that, but sometimes it was to escape the pogrom, as was the case with my grandparents, from Kyiv to Odesa, actually to Canada, and then to Hawaii.

And so this authority is no small thing. And to give the Secretary of HHS this blanket authority to essentially shut down all asylum seekers because we are afraid--appropriately afraid--of a specific drug is just a little ham-fisted.

And I appreciate the Senator's remarks. I think there are better ways to work on this, and therefore I object.

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

Mr. President, today we lost a towering figure in American and world history. Madeleine Albright was one of the smartest, strongest diplomats that we have ever had. She came to America as a refugee and helped move the country closer to the promise that it was founded upon. She made the world a better place.

Madeleine Albright was born in the former Czechoslovakia in 1937. When the Nazis took power, her family was forced into exile, ending up in London, where they survived the Blitz. After World War II, they returned to Czechoslovakia but were again forced to seek refuge, this time from communism.

As an 11-year-old, she arrived with her family at Ellis Island. She became a U.S. citizen, graduated college on a full scholarship, and went on to earn a Ph.D. while raising her three daughters, Alice, Katie, and Anne.

She worked here in the U.S. Senate on the Foreign Relations Committee under Edmund Muskie, then at the White House National Security Council, before becoming a renowned professor at Georgetown University. In 1993, President Clinton nominated her as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. She was the second woman to hold that position.

In 1997, she became the first woman in our Nation's history to serve as a

Secretary of State. As Secretary, she was a strong supporter of NATO, encouraging the alliance to add new members and to protect vulnerable populations. She urged military intervention to save lives in Kosovo. She worked to prevent rogue States from getting nuclear material and supported the Kyoto Protocol. And she strengthened American alliances across the planet.

But Madeleine Albright is not the sum of her accomplishments. Madeleine Albright is something more. She embodied the ideals of our country. She was a constant light in the struggle between freedom and oppression, relentlessly advocating for people to have rights that she knew didn't exist under authoritarian regimes. She broke the highest glass ceiling in her field and then spent the rest of her career fighting for opportunities for other women. We will remember her as a diplomat and a trailblazer.

But I will also remember her as something else: family. My oldest brother Jake is married to her daughter, Katie. When I first became a U.S. Senator, she was thrilled to have a politician in the family and wanted to be helpful without casting a long shadow, so she discreetly called Barbara Mikulski and told her to look out for me.

We were fast friends--not acquaintances, not friends in the political sense, but actual friends.

She was a tireless and sharp political strategist. She was the kind of person who would watch C-SPAN for fun and was endlessly fascinated with politics at all levels, from municipal elections, State elections, Hawaiian politics, the United Nations--she loved this stuff.

She was also a trusted confidante. We had long talks about everything but mostly about our two shared loves: family and politics. And it was always over a meal, which she would occasionally let me pay for.

But most of all, I will remember her as Grandma Maddie, someone who was kind and curious with my kids. She was one of the most decent human beings whom I have ever known. May her memory be a blessing.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I respect my colleagues' desires to take care of the people and the needs of their State, and I agree there is a need--not just in this State but for a number of States that have been impacted by disasters in recent years.

We must pass a disaster supplemental to provide funding for States fairly and based on need. We wish that the supplemental were in this bill, but it was not agreed to by Republicans in the House and the Senate. Looking ahead, we ought to pass a bill to provide $2 billion and permanently authorize the CDBG-DR program.

As for pay-fors--this is an important point--the spectrum sale funds that my colleagues suggested as a pay-for are already spoken for. That has already been used as a pay-for in previous bills, so we can't double count; and so, unfortunately, I urge my colleagues to vote no. Thank you.

Mr. President, I have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on armed services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2022, at 8 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on energy and natural resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on foreign relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on homeland security and governmental affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2022, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on The Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2022, at 9 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting.

select committee on intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2022, at 12 p.m., to conduct an open hearing.

select committee on intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2022, to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. President, a year ago, there was an attempted overthrow of American democracy right here in this building. You know, we spend so much time here arguing about things that are unknowable-- about the future, about our ideology, about opinions--that we have become accustomed to treating floor speeches in the Senate as not primarily about facts.

But I was here. And by ``I was here,'' I don't mean I was here in the Capitol. I mean, I was right here at this desk. And so no one needs to characterize it

for me or pontificate about it or tell me what I think happened. I was right here. It wasn't theoretical. It wasn't a debate. It was a physical siege on the U.S. Capitol.

I was already angry that day. The idea that American--American-- democratically elected politicians would participate in a process so foul as to be worthy of our most autocratic adversaries had me in a sour mood. The electoral college certification is supposed to be the functional equivalent of a swearing-in. It is where the thing gets made official, but it is not like any decisions are supposed to be made that day. But Senators Hawley and Cruz and others, with their unlimited ambition, their big brains, and their supposed expertise in the Constitution, were dancing on the edge of overturning democracy itself.

But I actually had no idea how bad it was, that there was an ongoing organized conspiracy to steal the election for real, not in a ``Russian hacking'' kind of a way or not in a ``too many of the people I don't agree with voted'' kind of way--actually overturning the whole thing.

So no one needs to tell me how to interpret this. I was there when they yelled: ``Lock down, lock down.'' I was here when Mike Pence was ushered off the floor. I was here when Chuck Grassley and anyone else with a personal protection detail was rushed to safety, and the rest of us were just locked in here and told to stay in our seats.

I was here when Senator Todd Young made himself ready to physically confront the violent traitors. I was here when we were finally moved to an undisclosed location and Lindsey Graham yelled at the Capitol Police leadership for not having a plan to handle such a moment.

And I was here when Reverend Black pulled us together in unity. And I was here when all but a few of us decided enough is enough, and we were collectively determined to finish our work and finish the count that evening.

We were perilously close to losing everything that night. And some did. Police officers were maimed and killed. Custodial workers and Senate staffers were hiding, with zero protection.

The insurrectionists were explicit. They wanted to kill the Speaker of the House.

One year later should be a simple, solemn commemoration of what happened and a collective, unified determination to never let anything like that ever happen again.

But I am even more worried now because that moment of unity is gone, and, most importantly, that moment of moral clarity of collective, patriotic outrage is fading. It went from Republicans being apologetic about their President to voting to exonerate him. It went from Republicans being angry at him and denouncing him to voting against putting a bipartisan commission together to get all of the facts out.

It went from 99 percent of the public being crystal clear about the moral threat to the right rewriting history and, in some cases, the left going along with it by telling us that some issues poll better.

To be clear, the litmus test for both political parties is, to greater or lesser degrees, the extent to which one is loyal to the President--fair enough. That is how the modern two-party system works, for better or worse.

But Donald Trump is now defining fealty to him by one thing and one thing only: Are you willing to install him into power regardless of the vote count?

And so now every Republican politician and elected official-- secretaries of state, county election commissioners, U.S. Senate candidates--have to promise to put Trump above democracy itself. And many are doing it. They are now organizing the next coup in plain sight.

Now, I don't know the economics or the psychology behind it. Maybe, it is ratings. Maybe, it is just the natural tendency among the chattering class to not want to sound too wild-eyed--that being unworried is what passes for savvy in this town. But everyone, including those who consider themselves patriots, seem so chill about what is going on that I am genuinely alarmed. They are installing loyalists across the country in order to cheat, and they are not being subtle about it.

Meanwhile, the cocktail set in Washington is busy policing our tone and talking about Democratic overreach, and so the defining question this week and this year is this: Are we willing to face the challenge in front of us?

Yes, there is COVID. Yes, there is climate. But democracy itself is at risk in a way that we haven't seen in centuries, and we are standing around as a country arguing about mostly nonsense.

And I think here is the problem for all of us, and here is why this is so hard emotionally: If we take a moment to realize what is at stake, we might realize what is required. It will require Republicans to stand up to an autocrat. It will require Democrats to stop arguing amongst themselves. It will require reporters to write stories that get fewer clicks than whatever BS is driving the news of the day. It will require citizens to understand that democracy in this country is not what we have. It is what we do, and it is never guaranteed.

So, this week, we commemorate the fallen. We thank everyone who came to democracy's defense across the country and in our great Capital City. But we know that this was round 1. We know that authoritarians rarely give up, and we know that they aren't doing their preparation for the next coup in hiding. They are doing it all in plain sight, and they must be stopped.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged and the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1760.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2514.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 182, H.R. 1192.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 142, S. 2551.

I ask unanimous consent that the Peters amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3437, introduced earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 202, H.R. 1664.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 483, 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.