Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 277, S. 2123.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments 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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5681, which was received by the House and is at the desk.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 6, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court; that at 11:45 a.m., the Senate execute the previous order with respect to the O'Brien nomination and vote on the confirmation of the nomination; finally, if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. President, I just wanted to take a few moments to respond to some of the remarks made by my colleague from Wyoming.

I think we all saw a jump in big gas prices when Putin invaded Ukraine. Then this body called upon the President, in a bipartisan manner, to say that we don't want to import any Russian oil into the United States because we don't want our dollars going to Putin to help fund his war. That was the right thing to do. That also increases gas prices.

We also know that there are thousands of leases on public lands that are not being used today and drilled by oil companies that have those leases. In fact, the Senator from Massachusetts, the Presiding Officer, has said we should have a law saying use it or lose it. And I support that position because instead of using it, you see oil companies exploiting the current situation to have windfall profits and use those profits not to reinvest in war production but to engage in stock buybacks to help their CEOs while they keep the prices high.

Ukraine

Mr. President, I am here today on the floor as we mark day 27 of Vladimir Putin's unprovoked war against Ukraine.

Each day that the war grinds on, Putin's brutality exceeds the last. As his advances against major cities like Kyiv have slowed, his barbaric war crimes have mounted. Americans have seen the harrowing images of Russian strikes hitting schools, hospitals, maternity wards, and designated humanitarian quarters, indiscriminately killing children, women, and men.

The horror of each day is amplified by the fact that this is not a war of necessity. This is a war of choice, a war chosen by Vladimir Putin. And that choice grew out of Putin's fear of democracy, his fear of freedom of expression.

Just today, Putin's crony court sentenced Russian democracy activist Alexey Navalny to 9 years in a maximum security prison. First, they tried to poison Navalny; now they want to silence him with 9 more years in jail.

So you see the lengths to which Putin is willing to go to silence one man. You can imagine how he fears a democracy of 44 million Ukrainians on his border. He is scared of the example it sets to the Russians that he keeps under his authoritarian thumb. He wants to extinguish--snuff out--the flame of liberty in Ukraine before it catches fire in Russia.

So he started a war, a brutal war. Now, Vladimir Putin has shown the world who he really is: a scared tyrant who thinks he can snuff out democracy and freedom by brute force. But he is wrong. He can kill a lot of people, and he has; but whether it is a matter of weeks or many months, Putin will not be able to kill the aspirations of the people of Ukraine. We see proof of that fact every day in the defiant words and heroic actions of Ukrainians everywhere.

Amidst the horror, the blood, and the misery, we have seen amazing strength. The people of Ukraine are fighting for their homeland, for their freedom, and for the power to control their own destiny. Ukrainian men and women of all backgrounds and ages have joined in this cause, blocking the path of Russian tanks with their bodies, making Molotov cocktails, tending to the wounded, and taking up arms. Their courage speaks to the very best of the human spirit.

Like most Americans, I am deeply inspired by their resolve and their fortitude, and the whole world should learn from their determination because the stakes in this war go far beyond the borders of Ukraine. This is a fight for the future of democracy itself.

As President Zelenskyy said in his address to Congress last week:

Russia has attacked not just us, not just our land, not

just our cities. It went on a brutal offensive against our

values . . . against our freedom, against our right to live

freely in our own country, choosing our own future--against

our desire for happiness, against our national dreams--just

like the same dreams you have, you Americans.

That was President Zelenskyy last week before Congress. He spoke of self-

determination. He spoke of individual liberty and freedom. Those are values enshrined in America's own founding documents.

So Putin is not just trying to take over Ukraine; he is, as President Zelenskyy said, trying to destroy the notions of democracy and freedom that we hold dear. Putin wants to see freedom fade and democracy fail, and he is not alone in that effort.

Just before the Winter Olympics in Beijing, Putin traveled to China and met with another autocratic leader, President Xi Jinping. Putin and Xi signed an agreement stating that relations between Russia and China had ``no limits,'' ``no limits.'' On that day, they formed a pact of autocracy. And, today, China's state-run media parrots Putin's lies as Russian tanks encircle Ukrainian towns.

President Xi is watching closely to see if Putin's model of autocracy by conquest might work in other places, might work in Asia. China has already violated its international obligations by stomping out freedoms in Hong Kong. Now, the Chinese Communist Party is eyeing their own democratic neighbor, Taiwan. As Beijing weighs the risks of trying to forcefully unite Taiwan with mainland China, its leaders are monitoring Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and they are watching closely how we and the world respond.

Mr. President, the good news is the United States has rallied our NATO allies and partners in Europe. Even partners beyond the West have responded with unity and resolve, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, and Singapore. One hundred forty-one countries voted at the United Nations to condemn Putin's war.

Support has come not only in words and votes but also in deeds and help. Last week, President Biden signed the $14 billion emergency Ukraine legislation passed by the Senate and the House. The United States, our NATO partners, and others are supplying Ukrainians with the weapons they need to fight Putin's army. We are providing millions of Ukrainian refugees in Poland, Romania, and other neighboring countries with humanitarian assistance, and we are delivering aid to the millions more displaced within Ukraine itself.

The United States has also worked in concert with our allies to unleash sweeping, punishing sanctions at a speed the world has never seen; and these sanctions are aimed right at the heart of Russia's economy, at Vladimir Putin, and at his cronies. We have cut off Russia's financial system from the world. The ruble is in shambles. The ill-gotten gains of the oligarchs are being seized at this very moment.

The unity we see today among democracies in the face of Putin's aggression marks a double triumph. Not only does it allow us to form a united front against Putin, it also undermines his strategy of weakening democracies. He has long conspired to erode support for NATO from within its member countries. He believes freedom means unending chaos, and he wants to see us bicker ourselves into oblivion. When NATO and our key democratic allies are divided, Putin and authoritarians can win. When we are united, we win.

When it comes to Putin and Russia, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have known this for years. Even when the former President attacked NATO and belittled our democratic partnerships, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle united to reaffirm our support for the alliance. In 2018, a bipartisan group of Senators reestablished the NATO Observer Group to keep an open line of communication with our NATO partners. I am proud to be a member of that group.

In 2019, the Senate passed a resolution reaffirming our support for NATO in the face of the former President's attacks. That same year, Speaker Pelosi invited NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg to address a joint meeting of Congress. She did that on behalf of a bipartisan group. That was the first-ever such address by a NATO Secretary General.

President Biden pledged that he would strengthen that tradition of unity, rebuild U.S. relations with our allies, and stand up for democracy, and that is what he has done. On day 1, he got to work repairing our tattered alliances after the beating they took during the last administration. He organized the first of two summits for democracy last December to rally global partners, and the Biden State Department organized dozens of diplomatic missions to countries around the world to foster democracy.

So let's be clear: This speedy, severe, and synchronized response from the United States and our partners did not come about by chance. It wasn't random. Our unity came from the deliberate strategy of this President and his administration. President Biden understands that there is a global contest between autocrats like Putin and Xi, who want democracy to die, and those like Zelenskyy, who want it to flourish; and he has shown that democratic unity is the strongest instrument we have against the forces of autocracy.

Mr. President, that unity was on full display in February when I traveled to the Munich Security Conference with a bipartisan group of lawmakers from both the House and the Senate. We met in Munich on the eve of Putin's invasion. And because President Biden had the foresight to share our intelligence about Putin's intentions with the world, NATO, the European community, and members of the G-7 had time to prepare and coordinate our response. It allowed us to plan the rapid delivery of weapons and the imposition of unified, crushing sanctions-- unity in action.

I hope we can maintain that unity of purpose here at home. There was, as the Presiding Officer knows, a time in American life when politics stopped at the water's edge. I realize that era is for the most part over, but I hope--I hope this country is strong enough and wise enough to put aside our politics at least for the purpose of making common cause to support democracy and stand up against Putin, as long as it takes.

That unity will be tested. I already see divisions in Congress over the administration's response to this invasion. Sometimes Members of the Senate or the House will have an idea to help Ukraine or an idea to punish Putin that they want implemented immediately. I often have the same impulse. But let's be clear: The success of the President's strategy has been the rapid coordination of our steps with our allies, whenever possible. That is how we pack the biggest punch.

There are also some measures where the President has asked for immediate action and Congress has delayed. Five days ago, the House of Representatives passed a bill to strip Russia of its most-favored- nation trading status. It passed 424 to 8. When is the last time we saw a vote like that in the House of Representatives?

That bill is sitting right here in the Senate right now. We should and could pass it today. We should certainly pass it before President Biden leaves Wednesday--tomorrow--to meet with NATO allies and leaders from the European Union and G-7.

Sometimes around here, if the President announces a sanctions measure a day after somebody else thinks about it, he gets criticized for it being too late; but here, the Senate has been sitting for days on the House bill, and every day that goes by is another day that Russian producers and exporters make more money, make more dollars. Every day that goes by provides some relief to Putin's cronies and the Russian economy. So let's stand together in this Senate and act on that legislation now.

I also appeal to my colleagues--especially on the Republican side--to speak out against those here at home who are spreading Putin's propaganda. A case in point has been the fast-spreading lie that the United States and Ukraine have bio labs in Ukraine to help develop bioweapons. That is just flatout false, but that lie has been fueled in part by some in the rightwing media.

On March 3, the Kremlin circulated a memo to Russian media saying it is ``essential'' to feature Tucker Carlson, who has been spreading this kind of misinformation about Putin's war on his show. The lie about the so-called American and Ukrainian bioweapons labs was also picked up and peddled by China's state media.

So, Mr. President, all of us should stand up and speak out against this misinformation. American media figures can say what they want. That is their right. But so can we as Members of Congress, and I would argue we have a duty to make our voices heard and

join in the chorus of those calling out Russian lies across the globe.

Every day, we see thousands of Russians flood the streets, from St. Petersburg to Siberia, to protest Putin's war. The world witnessed Russian journalist Marina Ovsyannikova speak out against the invasion on live, state-sponsored TV, with a sign calling out Putin's lies.

These heroes are carrying on knowing full well the risk that they put themselves in, the risk that they will be thrown in jail or worse. The least we can do in Congress is to stand up to lies here at home that aid and abet Putin's propaganda machine.

Make no mistake, even in unity, there will be spirited debate here. We will have disagreements over how to best respond to Putin's aggression, but we should never ever disagree about who the true enemy is. Vladimir Putin is to blame for this attack on democracy. Vladimir Putin is to blame for death and destruction in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin is the enemy--not one another; not the other party; not the President.

There are plenty of things for us to fight about, but in the current battle for democracy and freedom in Ukraine and the larger fight for democracy and freedom around the world, the stakes are simply too high for us to fall back on partisan games. Let's come together. Let's stay together. And if we do, I am confident that democracy and justice will prevail.

To those countries and leaders around the world who stand on the sidelines, I say that neutrality in the face of evil is complicity. In the end, freedom and the dignity of the human spirit will prevail over subjugation and oppression every single time. They need to get on the right side of history.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to support the historic nomination of Shalanda Young to be the next Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Ms. Young brings deep experience with the Federal budget process to her role at OMB, having served as staff director of the House Committee on Appropriations. She has been serving as Acting Director of OMB for the past year, and her top-notch performance in that role leaves no doubt that she is eminently qualified to be confirmed as OMB Director.

Ms. Young came into OMB in March 2021, the same month that Congress passed the American Rescue Plan. This was a time when the Nation faced an uncertain future, with coronavirus vaccines just starting to go out and unemployment remaining stubbornly high at 6 percent. Under Ms. Young's leadership, OMB played a key role to implement the American Rescue Plan to fight the pandemic and move our economy forward. The results have been widespread vaccinations, millions of new jobs, unemployment falling to 3.8 percent, and the fastest economic growth in nearly 40 years.

We have achieved a great deal during the first year of the Biden administration, but we must recognize that there is still so much left to accomplish. Shalanda Young is the right person to have at the helm of OMB to craft responsible budgets and turn the policies we craft into actions that make a real difference for the American people.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Cheryl A. Hickmon, national president of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated and chair of the national board of directors. A native of Hartford, CT, Cheryl, the youngest of three children, was born in 1962 to the late Dr. Ned Hickmon and Consuella Anderson Hickmon. Cheryl passed away peacefully on Thursday, January 20, 2022, at the age of 60, following a battle with a recent illness. She leaves to cherish her memory two brothers, Ned N. Hickmon and David W. Hickmon of Hartford, CT, many cousins throughout the United States, coworkers, many friends, and sorority sisters internationally, including members of the Hartford Alumnae Chapter.

Cheryl was deeply devoted to Delta Sigma Theta, and her loss will be felt by many. An active member for 39 years, Cheryl's devotion to Delta Sigma Theta began in 1982 with her initiation into the Alpha Xi Chapter at South Carolina State University. She served in multiple leadership positions at the local, regional, and national levels, including as Alpha Xi chapter president in 1983, South Atlantic regional representative in 1984, Hartford Alumnae chapter president in 2009, and was ultimately elected the 27th national president and chair of the national board of directors in November 2021. Her leadership has shaped generations of women across this country and was inspired by a deep belief in Delta's core values of sisterhood, scholarship, service, and social action.

Cheryl shared her wisdom, care, and compassion with all who crossed her path. Her unwavering commitment to making the world a better place meant Cheryl always sought new opportunities to uplift Americans, especially Black women. Her passion enabled her to have a profound impact on many through Delta Sigma Theta and her service with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Council of Negro Women. Cheryl will be remembered as a true champion for civil rights and social justice.

Cheryl's motivation to lend a helping hand to others in need also shaped her career of more than 30 years as a licensed clinical laboratory technologist. She supervised the In Vitro Fertilization Laboratories for andrology and endocrinology at Montefiore's Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Health. One of her greatest joys was supporting couples in their journey to become parents.

Cheryl was guided by the motto, ``Don't measure life by the number of breaths you take but by the number of moments that take your breath away.'' Her servant leadership in every endeavor she pursued will leave a lasting and meaningful legacy across this country. I extend my deepest condolences to her family, friends, and the entire sisterhood of Delta Sigma Theta. I join each of them in honoring Cheryl's life by holding up her work as an example, one rooted in mentorship, enthusiasm, and service to our community.

Rest in peace, Cheryl.

Mr. President, devotion, commitment, resilience--these are just a few of the words that describe the professionals who comprise Maryland's 24 local boards of education.

The dedicated public servants who lead the school systems in Maryland counties and Baltimore City act with deep commitment to their communities and their time-intensive school board duties. Maryland school board members make critical budget and planning decisions, adopt policies to create supportive learning environments for all students, engage with parents, students, school staff, and other community stakeholders, work closely with superintendents, respond to crises, and undergo ongoing training to carry out effective governance, continue to grow as leaders, and stay up-to-date on the latest best practices.

As devoted professionals who serve students, school systems, and their communities at large, Maryland school board members face an array of daunting challenges every day, challenges made significantly more difficult and complex during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet Maryland's 24 school boards have consistently risen to these challenges, working to ensure excellence in public education throughout the State.

School board members come from all backgrounds and professions. They may not agree on every issue, but they unite and volunteer to serve under the strong conviction that Maryland students come first.

Because of the extraordinary, continuing commitment of those who serve on our school boards to helping Maryland students grow, thrive, and excel each day--and with my ongoing commitment to Maryland public education in mind--I am proud to recognize January as Maryland School Board Recognition Month.

Mr. President, let me start by thanking our colleague, the Senator from Oregon, Senator Merkley, for his leadership in working to restore the functioning of the Senate and to protect our democracy. We need both, and we need them now.

It was just 12 days ago that we marked the 1-year anniversary of the January 6 attack on this Capitol and on our democracy itself. It was a violent attempt to stop Congress from certifying the Presidential election of Joe Biden and to overturn the decision of the American people. It was inspired and instigated by the former President.

While that assault did not succeed in stopping us from counting the vote that day, the Big Lie did not die. In fact, the Big Lie has metastasized. It has spread, and its poison is seeping across the country. It is now taking

the form of Republican-controlled State legislatures enacting laws that erect new barriers to the ballot box. Let's be clear. They are erecting barriers specifically designed to make it harder for people of color and younger voters to cast their ballots.

As we saw in a Federal Circuit Court case a number of years ago with respect to North Carolina, the court found that the State legislature had targeted African-American voters with surgical precision.

Dr. King observed that voting is ``the foundation stone for political action.'' He also observed that when the right to vote is impeded, a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition are betrayed.

What we see happening in State legislatures are not just efforts to put up barriers to the ballot box; they are also passing laws to authorize partisan operatives to interfere in the counting of the votes and even to overturn the results after the count. So laws to interfere with the casting of the votes and laws to interfere with the counting of the votes--that is what is happening right now. Nineteen legislatures around the country have already enacted these kinds of laws.

So, yes, our democracy was under attack right here on January 6 of last year, but 1 year later, the evidence is clear: The Big Lie is alive, and our democracy is still under attack. It is under attack by those seeking to implement the Big Lie in State legislatures. It is just the venue that has changed.

When we reconvened here after the attacks of January 6, I said on this floor that what we witnessed is what happens when we don't stand up together as Democrats and Republicans to confront the Big Lie.

Now, over a year later, we have another chance to stand up together. To meet this moment and to protect our democracy, we need to take action here and now. That is what the Freedom to Vote Act does. It establishes minimum standards to ensure equal access to the ballot box across the country. It guards against partisan election meddling. It ends gerrymandering nationwide, and it ends secret money in elections. It contains the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the protections guaranteed in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That is what it does.

We are well within our rights as Federal lawmakers to write and pass these bills. The relevant portion of article I, section 4, clause 1 of the Constitution--I have that here--clearly states:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for

Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each

State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any

time by Law make or alter such Regulations.

The Constitution specifically empowers us to pass these laws to protect voting. So enough of the specious argument I have heard so many times here on the Senate floor that these bills somehow represent an unconstitutional power grab--far from it. The Framers expressly empowered the Congress to protect Federal elections.

Now, all 50 Members of the Democratic majority, the Democratic caucus, support these bills to protect our democracy. I am disappointed that, as of this moment, not one Member of the Senate Republican caucus plans to join us. In fact, we know that there are 16 Republican Senators here today who voted in 2006 to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. Today, not a single Republican Senator will stand up and support these bills. That is a very sad and bad sign of this moment in our history.

I accept that each and every Senator has the right to cast their vote on bills however they choose. That is the way democracy works. But what is happening now is very different. Republican Senators are using the current version of the Senate rules to block a vote on these vital measures to protect our democracy; to prevent this body from having a final vote on the Freedom to Vote legislation and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

So let's step back and look at how the current version of the Senate rules operates in practice, and I say ``current rules'' because the Senate rules have evolved over time, as our colleague from Oregon has mentioned. They have taken many twists and turns over the years. In their current form and practice, they have departed radically from their original purpose and design.

Today, with some exceptions, 41 out of 100 Senators can block the other 59 from voting on legislation that is important to the American people. Over the last year, this Senate rule has been used to block bills that enact commonsense gun safety provisions and provide for equal pay for equal work. Many other bills have been blocked from even getting a vote under the current Senate rules.

So let's unpack this. Let's understand what this means.

Right now, under our rules, it is possible for 41 Senators representing 21 States and 11 percent of the U.S. population to block the will of 50 Senators representing 84 percent of the U.S. population. Think about that. Under our current rules, Senators representing a small percentage of the population--11 percent--can block the will of the majority.

How did this happen? Well, it happened because over time--not at the beginning but over time--Senators decided to empower themselves at the expense of the American people. It wasn't always this way. As I said, in its earliest days, the Senate was founded on two principles. The first was that Senators would have ample opportunity to make their case to their fellow Senators and to the country. If they had the minority position on a particular issue, they had a chance to come here to the floor of the Senate to persuade their colleagues of the merits of their position and maybe in the process have the whole country turn to their side of the debate and influence the ultimate result.

So the Senators were given the opportunity for a prolonged debate to ensure that all opinions were heard and considered before the final vote. In fact, as my colleague from Oregon mentioned, each Senator was able to deliver two speeches on a particular question on a single legislative day. But after all the views were heard, after prolonged debate was ended, the Senate would move to a majority vote. That is how the Senate earned its representation as the world's greatest deliberative body.

Nothing could be further from that truth today. We have very little debate on the Senate floor today--real debate, where Senators engage on the big questions of the day. In fact, the minority of Senators who oppose legislation pending before the Senate can block it without even coming to the Senate floor to debate. They don't even have to come here to make their case to their fellow Senators and the American people, don't even have to show up to debate. We are talking about a Senate rule that was designed to encourage debate. Yet we have it operating today where nobody has to even show up on this floor to make their position known.

It is not that Senators don't even have to show up to debate; they don't even have to show up for the vote to cut off debate. Under our current rules, we could have a vote right here in the Senate of 59 to nothing in favor of moving forward on legislation, and the 41 Senators who didn't even show up would carry the day. They would block the 59 from expressing the will of the American people. How crazy is that? That is what the current Senate rules provide.

That is not what the Founders of our Republic envisioned. In fact, the current version and application of the Senate's rules amount to a total perversion of the constitutional framework. These rules pervert the intent of our Framers, and they undermine the democratic architecture of our Republic.

Our Founders never--never--intended for a minority of Senators--for 41 Senators--to be able to thwart the will of the majority and of the people.

In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton asserted that the fundamental maxim of republican government was ``the sense of the majority should prevail.''

Even more clearly right on point was James Madison in Federalist 58, where he directly warned against requiring more than a majority for a decision in the legislature, saying that ``the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' This is James Madison, a key architect of our Constitution and the framework of this Republic.

Now, we know it is true that the Framers of our Constitution knew the dangers of overly powerful majorities, and they wanted to and did guard against that risk in the Constitution itself. That is why the Framers diffused power among the people, among the States, and within the Federal Government--to protect minority viewpoints in the country.

In the Bill of Rights, our Founders clearly said that each American has certain unalienable rights that no government action can take away--not by a vote of this Congress, not by an order of the President, not by anybody in the executive branch. That is the Bill of Rights. Our Founders also created three coequal branches of government constrained by a system of checks and balances. It is all right here in the Constitution. Within the legislative branch, they didn't create one unitary body, like most Parliaments today; they created two separate bodies--the Senate and the House of Representatives--and a totally independent executive branch, with the President directly elected by the people through the electoral college.

Now, I think it is worth pointing out that the Senate contains built- in protections for the minority by its very structure. The 2 Senators from Wyoming represent 578,000 of our fellow Americans, and the 2 Senators from California represent 39 million of our fellow Americans. Two Senators from Wyoming represent 578,000 people, and 2 Senators from California represent 39 million Americans, but here in the Senate, each of those Senators, whether from Wyoming or California, has votes of equal weight. We can do the math, the political math.

People of Wyoming are already exerting influence here in the Senate way out of proportion to their share of the American population. That is in the structure. But if you layer the current version of the Senate filibuster rule on top of the Senate structure and on top of other protections for minority rights enshrined in our Constitution, you further nullify the will of the American people. You nullify the will of the majority of our fellow citizens.

That is why the anti--majoritarian, anti-democratic--small ``d''-- Senate rule is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. You can search high and low; it is nowhere to be found here. In fact, as I said, our Founders were very clear about allowing the majority sentiment vote to prevail in the end. And they were very clear in this document, the Constitution, exactly when to require a supermajority vote. It is right here: Two-thirds vote of all Members is required to convict and remove a President; two-thirds vote is needed to expel a Senator; two-thirds needed to override a Presidential veto; two-thirds vote to concur on treaties; two-thirds to amend the Constitution. That is it. That is what is in the Constitution of the United States.

Our Founders did not envision a Senate where the normal course of legislative process and business could be permanently blocked by a minority of Senators. There is nothing in here about needing 60 out of 100 votes to pass legislation like the Freedom to Vote Act. There is nothing in our Constitution about a Senate where 41 out of 100 Senators can routinely block the will of the majority and subvert the will of the American people.

James Madison expressly warned against requiring supermajorities for legislation--yes for treaties, yes for removal of a President, not for the normal course of legislation.

So where did the current Senate rule come from? It is a total invention of Senators that empowers individual Senators by disempowering the overwhelming majority of the American people. That is what it is.

Think about this in the context of the Freedom to Vote Act. The duly elected President of the United States, who won over 80 million votes and in the electoral college, is in favor of it. A majority of the House of Representatives representing the majority of the American people is in favor of it. And 50 U.S. Senators representing 62 percent of the American people are in favor of it. But the bill is being blocked by a minority of Senators representing a minority of the American people.

And think about this. State legislatures around the country, as we gather here, are passing laws to erect barriers to voting by a majority vote. The laws they are passing impact every citizen in this country because they impact the outcome of Federal elections. When State legislatures in Georgia pass laws to disenfranchise voters in Federal elections, they are disenfranchising voters in all of the other 49 States who have a stake in the outcome of Federal elections.

But the current version of the Senate rules prevents the U.S. Senate from casting a majority vote to protect voting for every American, even though the Constitution expressly empowers us to do that--to regulate Federal elections.

So, Mr. President, what arguments do proponents of the current filibuster rule present to justify this self-anointed power to thwart the majority will of the American people?

One claim is that it promotes bipartisanship. Look, I know the Presiding Officer. I know the Senator from Virginia who has joined us. I know the Senator from Oregon. All of us prefer to find common ground to meet the challenges of the day when we can. I am proud to be the author of many bipartisan measures and to sponsor many others, and to vote for many of those measures. But let's not kid ourselves here in the U.S. Senate about the ability of the 60-vote requirement to promote bipartisanship. The Senate we are living in today is the most polarized ever. The claim that this rule promotes bipartisanship flies in the face of the reality we witness every day.

In fact, the filibuster in its current form has become a partisan political weapon. Tim Lau of the Brennan Center notes that, while there have been more than 2,000 filibusters since 1917, about half of them have been in just the past 12 years. Think about that. There were more filibusters in President Obama's second term than in all the years between World War I and the end of the Reagan administration combined. This abuse has led to partisan gridlock, not bipartisan cooperation.

But let's talk about bipartisanship. I had hoped--we had hoped--that action to preserve our democracy would be a bipartisan endeavor. But that isn't where we are today, and that is not new. The battle to protect constitutional rights has been waged along party lines in the past. The Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to former slaves and guarantees equal protection under the law, was passed by Republicans in Congress with almost no bipartisan support. We salute them for that action. The 15th Amendment guarantees the right to vote to all citizens of the United States, and it was passed by one party and one party alone. Those actions were taken by the old Republican Party that used to be the party of Lincoln. Should we have sacrificed those critical amendments at the altar of bipartisanship? Should we have said to them: Don't pass them because no Democrats at that time supported them? Of course not.

We all strive for bipartisanship, but that goal should not stand in the way of legislative action, especially on issues central to protecting our democracy.

Another argument often made, including by many of our Democratic colleagues, in favor of keeping the current version of the Senate rules and the supermajority requirement, highlights the risk of giving up the ``protection'' of the filibuster on issues that Democrats hold dear and where Republicans hold a different position.

If we eliminate the 60-vote threshold to pass policies that Republicans don't like, won't Republicans be able to use a majority vote to pass policies that Democrats don't like?

That is true. That is the nature of democracy. That is what elections are for--every 2 years for Members of the House, every 6 years for the Senate, and every 4 years for the President. If the American people don't like a law that we have passed, they get to go to the ballot box to render a decision. That is the ultimate accountability in the system, and we should not be erecting artificial rules to protect ourselves from the majority views of the American people.

In fact, it is simply arrogant--arrogant--to invent a rule that blocks the will of the American people. It is simply arrogant to say that we Senators, not we the people, are the guardians of our democracy, and we are going to come up with this rule that is not in the Constitution to do that. That is what our current Senate rules do.

Now, there is one major exception to the 60-vote rule to end a filibuster on legislation. It is called the reconciliation process. I believe that this major exception exposes the absurdity of the current Senate rule itself. Most folks watching this debate may be justifiably confused. They are watching the Senate and they are saying: It was about a year ago that the Senate passed the American Rescue Plan with a majority vote. It was a vote of 50 to 49. It was a major piece of legislation responding to the pandemic emergency. Not a single Republican Senator voted for it, but it passed. During the Trump administration, Senate Republicans passed a major tax giveaway to the rich by a vote of 51 to 48. Not a single Democrat voted for it.

Those laws contained major policy changes, but they could not be blocked by a vote of a minority of 41 Senators. Why is that? It is because in 1974, the Senate carved out a major exception to the supermajority filibuster rule for legislation connected to the annual budget process. That carve-out--that procedure--allowed for the passage of the Trump tax law, for the American Rescue Plan, and earlier for the Affordable Care Act.

So, colleagues, here we are maintaining this carve-out to the filibuster rule that allows Donald Trump and Senate Republicans to pass big tax cuts by a majority party-line vote. You can't block it with a vote of 41. It allows us to pass important things like the American Rescue Plan, using the same procedure.

But our rules don't allow us to pass rules to protect our democracy. That is absurd. Anyone paying close attention to the rules would see how absurd that is in a great democracy, and it needs to change and it needs to change now.

Each day that we maintain the current undemocratic Senate rules that allow 41 Senators to block the will of the majority, we allow State legislatures to continue their assault on democracy and we prevent our own democracy from working the way it was intended.

The American people sent us here to get things done, to move the country forward, and the overwhelming majority are crying out for us to protect the future of our democracy. That is why we must amend the undemocratic rule that empowers 41 of 100 Senators to disempower the majority of the people of our country.

And I support the proposal put forward by our colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, that takes us back to the original design and intent of the first Senate and the Framers--debate. Everyone gets a chance to make their point. Convince your colleagues and convince the American people. But as James Madison said, at the end of the day, a great democracy must have a majority rule subject to the conditions already applied and set out in our Constitution.

So I urge my colleagues to join us in restoring the Senate to its original purpose and then to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, including the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, to protect our democracy.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for reminding us of how important it is for us to come together as Americans to protect our communities and to protect our country. That is really why we are all here today on the floor of the Senate because, 1 year ago today, we witnessed a violent attack on this Capitol and on our democracy itself.

It was not a sneak attack by a foreign power, like Pearl Harbor. It was not an attack by a foreign terrorist group, like 9/11. It was an attack from within, and it was orchestrated and instigated by the former President of the United States.

One year later, while we have improved the physical security of this Capitol, we have not secured our democracy. Our great American experiment remains under as much threat today as it did a year ago, and we as Americans have a duty to come together to take action to protect it.

The violent mob unleashed by Donald Trump a year ago stormed and sacked this Capitol. Insurrectionists scaled the ramparts, tore through the barricades, and breached this building. They used flagpoles to beat Officer Michael Fanone and used chemical spray to assault Officer Brian Sicknick, who tragically died the next day. A gallows was built outside of this Capitol while rioters chanted ``hang Mike Pence.'' Like many others, I recall watching horrifying television footage of a rioter pulling down an American flag and raising up a Trump flag in its place. Confederate flags and banners of far-right extremist groups were paraded through these halls. This citadel of our democracy was violently attacked. The Capitol Hill community was traumatized and so was the country.

But in that dark hour when our democracy was under attack, members of the U.S. Capitol Police, the National Guard, and the DC Metropolitan Police stepped up and answered the call.

There were many stories of bravery from that day, but I want to draw attention to Officer Eugene Goodman, a Marylander who protected our democracy by diverting the mob away from this Senate Chamber. His actions on January 6 saved lives, and Maryland is proud to call him one of our own. It is because of the courage of Officer Goodman, his fellow officers, and many other heroes that the mob was ultimately forced to retreat and the Senate and the House were able to reconvene to finish the certification of the electoral count. That was the job that we had all come here to do on January 6, 2021, and that was the job the rioters had tried to stop.

They were driven to violence by Donald Trump's Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen, and they were hell-bent on answering his call to overturn the results of that election and overturn the will of the American people. They failed in that effort. On that day, all of us were determined not to leave this place until we got the job done and certified the vote. And that is what we did.

And when we returned to the Senate floor after the attack on our Capitol, I really believed, for those few hours, that most Members of this Senate appreciated the gravity of the moment we had just lived through.

I had real hope that all of us, regardless of party or politics, felt the weight of history upon us. I had hoped that most of us grasped the idea that the machinery of our democracy does not operate automatically; it is not self-executing, that institutions are ultimately only as strong as the people who safeguard them, that it is up to each and every one of us to nurture and protect our democracy, that we are the current stewards of our Republic's tradition of the peaceful transfer of power.

I really believed that night that that was a shared belief in this Senate. In my remarks when we returned that evening, I described the attack as a wake-up call to the country for all of us as Americans. That day showed us exactly what can happen when we fail to come together--not as Republicans or Democrats but as Americans, to stand up for the truth, to stand up for

our democracy, and to stand up against lies that undermine public confidence and faith in our elections.

That day showed us, in a violent and undeniable way, that if we allowed the poison of the Big Lie to continue to spread, our democracy would continue to be under threat. I hoped we would heed the warning of that horrible day.

And I was pleased to work with colleagues here, including the Senator from Minnesota and others, to help fortify the physical security of our Capitol Building. We have delivered additional resources to the Capitol Police. We selected a new Sergeant of Arms and a new Chief of the Capitol Police.

And we are continuing to implement the other key recommendations that have been made to strengthen the security of Capitol Hill. While we are improving the physical security here on Capitol Hill, we are failing in our larger duty to the American people.

We have failed to stop the spread of the Big Lie and its corrosive impact on the confidence in our democracy. We know that Joe Biden beat Donald Trump in a free and fair election, and yet too many of our Republican colleagues put political convenience ahead of country and ahead of our Constitution.

Too many are afraid to state the facts and tell the American people the simple truth. And because of that fundamental failure, the Big Lie has metastasized and represents a clear and present danger to the democratic process throughout the country.

When the violent mob failed to overturn the election results in this Chamber a year ago today, the Big Lie did not end. It materialized in other forms to undermine our democracy. As we speak, Republican- controlled State legislatures, fueled by the Big Lie, are passing laws making it harder for people to vote--especially people of color, people with disabilities, and younger voters.

In addition to putting up barriers to voting, proponents of the Big Lie are stripping power from election officials who dared to challenge Donald Trump's plot to falsely claim victory in the 2020 election. The Georgia General Assembly removed Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger as head of the State election board after he denied Trump's request to ``find 11,780 votes,'' the exact number he needed to defeat Joe Biden in Georgia. It was not enough that Raffensperger, a loyal Republican, had voted for Donald Trump. His offense was failure to implement the Big Lie.

In Michigan, Republicans are moving to saturate election wards with Big Lie loyalists in an effort to control the counting of ballots. And across the country, other laws are being passed at the State level that would authorize partisan officials to change or overturn the results of elections, even after votes have been cast and counted.

What we are witnessing is an all-out, continuing assault on our democracy. And the longer we wait, the more the threat grows. The clock is ticking. Now is the time to act.

That is why we must establish uniform national standards to protect access to the ballot box and ensure that our elections reflect the will of the American people, not the political wishes of any party or any one person.

That is exactly what the Freedom to Vote Act does and why we must pass it. This bill would defend every American's right to the ballot. The Freedom to Vote Act also helps protect election officials from unfair removal and guards against attempts to tamper with or change election results.

In addition, the bill contains provisions to keep our elections fair and honest, including crucial campaign finance reform and a ban on partisan gerrymandering. An enactment of the Freedom to Vote Act should go hand in hand with the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the full protections guaranteed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

While I had hoped that action to preserve our democracy would be a bipartisan endeavor, it is clear that our Senate Republican colleagues are not willing to join us in passing these bills.

Efforts to strike a compromise have been met with virtually zero support on the other side of the aisle. Democrats are willing to move forward ourselves to protect our democracy, but our Republican colleagues have weaponized the current filibuster rule and are using it to thwart progress. They have even blocked our attempt to have a debate on voting rights when we raised the issue 6 months ago.

Those actions are undermining the very spirit, the tradition, and function of this Senate. The Senate was designed to promote vigorous and long debate while also respecting the ultimate will of a majority of Senators and a majority of the American people.

Today, we see the opposite: very little real debate on the Senate floor and the denial--the denial--of a majority vote to resolve the big questions of the day, resulting in the denial of the will of the American people.

We can change that. We have to change that. We can change it by adapting the current rules of the Senate to restore the original intent of the Framers. We must do that for the health of our institutions and the good of our democracy.

James McHenry, Maryland's delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote in his diaries about a famous exchange between Elizabeth Willing Powell and Benjamin Franklin. He wrote:

A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a

republic or a monarchy--A republic replied the Doctor if you

can keep it.

A year ago today on this floor, I quoted this exact exchange. And now, on the 1-year anniversary of January 6, we are still met with the same question and same test of whether or not we can muster the will to do what must be done to keep our Republic. There is still time. We can still repair and sustain our democracy.

One year ago, we did not allow a violent mob to prevent us from staying right here to do our job. We completed the certification of the Presidential election, but our job is not over. We have not finished the job of security or democracy.

Now is the time for us to do that. Let's come together and do what is necessary and right for our Republic, for our democracy, and for the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2022.

The National Defense Authorization Act provides crucial resources for our Armed Forces and our national defense, including a 2.7 percent pay increase for our servicemembers and DOD civilian employees, parental and bereavement leave for servicemembers, and the creation of basic needs allowance. I am glad that the Senate was able to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation to support our servicemembers, strengthen our national security, and invest in critical projects in my home State of Maryland, including over $500 million in authorized military construction projects across the State. This legislation also includes several important pieces of legislation that I introduced to strengthen our Foreign Service, ensure that all students have a fair shot at attending one of our Federal service academies, and support our Federal firefighters. While there are parts of this legislation that I have concerns with and important priorities that were left out, I believe that, on balance, this bill serves our national interest.

In particular, I am pleased that this NDAA includes the Foreign Service Families Act of 2021, which I introduced with Senator Sullivan, with whom I cochair the Foreign Service Caucus. As the son of a Foreign Service Officer, I know the challenges that Foreign Service families face in accessing education and employment when they accompany our diplomats abroad. That is why I introduced this legislation, which authorizes expanded employment services for the spouses of Foreign Service officers serving overseas. It also extends in-state tuition at public colleges and universities for Foreign Service members and their families after 30 days of residency in a State and allows Foreign Service families to terminate leases without penalty when ordered to move for work. This legislation will make a real difference in the lives of our Foreign Service families and will help reduce attrition and attract the talented and diverse diplomatic workforce we need to compete on the global stage. It is modeled after benefits we extend to military families, who also have to move frequently in service to our country.

I am also glad that this legislation includes the SERVE Act, which I introduced with Senator Cardin and Representative Brown. This bill ensures that high school students applying to attend one of our Federal service academies do not lose out on opportunities to be nominated because of a vacancy in Congress. After the tragic loss of my friend and colleague, Representative Elijah Cummings, my office learned that nomination slots at our service academies, like the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, cease to exist if a seat in Congress is vacant at the time nominations are due. This meant that a student from Congressman Cummings' district had one-third fewer opportunities to receive a nomination to a service academy. As a result of this new law, Senators may make nominations on behalf of a vacant seat, ensuring that students do not lose an opportunity to serve their country through no fault of their own.

Further, I am glad Armed Services Committee agreed to include the Federal Firefighter Flexibility and Fairness Act, which I introduced with Senators Tester, Collins, and Carper and Representatives Sarbanes and Wittman. This legislation grants additional

flexibility to our Federal firefighters that their State and local counterparts have enjoyed for many years. As a result of this bill, Federal firefighters will be able to trade shifts across pay periods without negatively affecting their pay.

This NDAA also establishes a consortium on irregular warfare threats, a critical step in the transfer of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism--START--from the sponsorship of the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Defense, which has the resources to maintain this national security research. I previously worked to secure funding for this transition in the FY21 defense appropriations bill. The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, better known as START, is a university-based research and education center based at the University of Maryland and comprised of an international network of scholars committed to the scientific study of the causes and human consequences of terrorism in the United States and around the world.

I am also glad the NDAA incorporates the Enhancing Military Base Resilience and Conserving Ecosystems through Stormwater Management Act, which I introduced with Senators Kaine, Cardin, and Warner. This bill authorizes the Defense Department to carry out stormwater management projects on military installations. These projects will improve installation resilience and essential infrastructure that supports military installations and protect nearby waterways like the Chesapeake Bay. In August, I worked to secure language in the FY22 Military Construction-VA Appropriations bill encouraging the Department of Defense to use Energy Resilience and Conservation Program funds to support stormwater management projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in order to better protect and conserve the health of the bay.

I also want to thank my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee for working with me to address the Army's incorrect application of the law pertaining to the Prisoner of War Medal, which has negatively affected a Maryland veteran. In 2020, I asked the Army to award the POW Medal to Marylander Ronald Dolecki for his military service in Ethiopia in 1965, which he has been denied for over a decade. Mr. Dolecki clearly qualifies for the Medal under the criteria established by Congress in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, but the Army continued to incorrectly apply the previous standard to his case. I am grateful to Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Inhofe for including language directing the Army to rectify its incorrect application of the law to ensure that this Marylander who served his country with honor and distinction and others like him are appropriately recognized.

Lastly, this bill includes funding and language that is critical to supporting Maryland's military installations, including more than $350 million for Fort Meade, more than $150 million for Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and more than $30 million for Joint Base Andrews. The bill also includes report language ensuring the Army's continued support for the demolition of contaminated facilities at Aberdeen Proving Ground and provisions to continue responding to the recent crisis in privatized military housing which affected installations in Maryland and across the country.

While I am pleased with many of the provisions included in this bill and voted for its passage, I do have significant reservations.

I appreciate that this bill codifies the GAO's recommendations related to tactical vehicle rollover accidents in response to the tragic loss of lLT Conor McDowell, a U.S. marine who lost his life in a training accident at Camp Pendleton. 1LT McDowell showed extraordinary bravery, saving the life of a fellow marine, and Congress has a responsibility to ensure that these preventable crashes end. The bill also includes a directive that the Department of Defense report on the cost and feasibility of a pilot program that Senators Cardin and Representatives Brown and Wittman and I proposed in the the 1LT Hugh Conor McDowell Safety in Armed Forces Equipment Act of 2021. This simple, straightforward bill directs the Departments of the Army and the Navy to jointly implement a 5-year pilot program to evaluate the prospect of using data recorders to monitor, assess, and improve the readiness and safety of the operation of military tactical vehicles. This commonsense program will improve the safety of our men and women in uniform and save lives. I believe we could have proceeded with this pilot today, but look forward to receiving the mandated report no later than March 1, 2022, as directed, and I will continue to advocate vigorously for the implementation of this program.

I am disappointed that the NOAA does not include my amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the research and development, production or deployment of the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile--SLCM- N--and its associated nuclear warhead. The United States already possesses an array of nonstrategic nuclear capabilities that fulfill our theater nuclear deterrence missions and reassure our allies of our extended deterrence commitments. In its 2019 cost estimate of U.S. nuclear weapons programs, the CBO projected that the SLCM-N would cost $9 billion through 2028. This projection does not account for production costs after 2028, nor does it factor in costs associated with integrating the missile on ships, nuclear weapons training for personnel, and storage and security for nuclear warheads on naval bases. Not only is the program a waste of money, it will also dangerously raise the risk of nuclear miscalculation and escalation.

I also believe that this bill fails to tackle the long-term budget challenges facing our country. In the midst of a pandemic that has taken the lives of more than 800,000 of our fellow Americans, we simply cannot afford to continue this level of investment in defense at the expense of other critical national priorities. I oppose the decision to invest an additional $25 billion over the President's budget request for defense while we continue to underinvest in diplomacy, development, and a wide range of critical domestic priorities.

Lastly, I am disappointed that the bill did not include my amendment with Representative Jacobs to close a loophole that allows some U.S. security assistance to foreign forces without being subject to Leahy law restrictions that bar U.S. military assistance to units credibly believed to have engaged in gross violations of human rights. This is a simple, straightforward matter of the United States living up to our most basic commitments as a member of the international community. The accompanying NDAA report language does require the presentation of a report detailing the processes through which the Defense Department seeks to ensure that consideration is given to any credible information relating to violations of human rights by such entities, before support is given to them. I will be reviewing that report closely to determine what further action is necessary to safeguard human rights and ensure that no U.S. security assistance is exempt from these commonsense restrictions.

While I am opposed to some of the provisions in this bill and disappointed by the omission of others, I believe that, on balance, the NDAA will strengthen our national security and advance other important national priorities. For that reason, I voted in support of final passage.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary leader, a visionary healthcare advocate, and a tireless champion for the people of my state and for citizens across the National Capital Region: Maria Gomez. Ms. Gomez is retiring this month after 33 years as the president and CEO of Mary's Center, a renowned federally-qualified health center that she founded in 1988, and which has transformed the lives of countless individuals and families throughout our region. Her tireless efforts to improve the health and well-being of underserved families and individuals in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area have left an indelible mark on our communities, and her lifetime of service has inspired a new generation of activists, advocates, healthcare leaders, and public servants. I would like to share her story today and have the course of her life forever written into the Congressional Record.

Ms. Gomez immigrated to the United States from Colombia with her mother

at age 13 to escape violence and find new opportunities. Together, they built a life in Washington, DC, through hard work, courage, and the determination to succeed. By means of her own grit and skill, along with the support of a loving mother, Ms. Gomez obtained a bachelor of science in nursing from Georgetown University and a master of public health from the University of California at Berkeley. Following graduation, she returned to the District of Columbia to empower the very same community that had empowered her when she first arrived in the United States.

After first working at DC Health, the Red Cross, and the Visiting Nurses Association, Ms. Gomez founded Mary's Center with a group of health advocates and the DC Mayor's Office on Latino Affairs. Her goal was to help immigrant women fleeing war and poverty in Central America. But what began as the shared vision of one person and a small group of community and government partners would soon grow into a nationally renowned health center that has touched the lives of thousands.

Under Ms. Gomez's leadership, Mary's Center went from serving 200 participants in a small basement with a budget of $250,000 to serving more than 60,000 participants across seven locations in DC and Maryland, with an annual budget of $76 million in just over 30 years. The center and the people who work there are committed to providing the highest quality of care to each and every patient, regardless of their ability to pay, and the mission of Mary's Center is guided by core principles of care, education, social justice, and respect. I have had the privilege of visiting Mary's Center locations in my State of Maryland while serving in the Senate, and I have witnessed, firsthand, the extraordinary attention, compassion and professionalism that the entire Mary's Center family brings to everything they do. It is because of their work that so many within our communities can receive support and critical services.

That is Maria Gomez's legacy, and our State and our Nation are deeply grateful for all she has given to our fellow citizens in need. Her extraordinary achievements have made Ms. Gomez one of the most effective and highly regarded leaders in the region and throughout the country. It was Ms. Gomez's hard work and dedication that led First Lady Michelle Obama to choose Mary's Center for her first official visit to a nonprofit organization in February 2009. In 1995, First Lady Hillary Clinton also visited Mary's Center during National Immunization Week in recognition of the center's efforts to get children vaccinated and ready to learn and thrive in school. What is more, President Barack Obama selected Maria Gomez as one of the 18 recipients of the 2012 Presidential Citizens Medal, the Nation's second-highest civilian honor, as a testament to her leadership and service.

Ms. Gomez has accrued decades of wisdom over the course of her distinguished career, and she has always been willing to share that wisdom and knowledge with those who seek it. DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, as well as former Mayors Vincent Gray and Adrian Fenty, named her to their mayoral transition teams. She currently serves as cochair of the Human Services, Social Services, and Health Committee of the DC Mayor's ReOpen DC Advisory Group for COVID-19, and she is a member of the Mayor's Commission on Healthcare Systems Transformations, which makes recommendations on strategies and investments necessary to transform healthcare in the District of Columbia.

Ms. Gomez also shares her expertise by serving as a board member for the DC Primary Care Association and the Primary Care Coalition of Montgomery County. She is a member of the Suburban Hospital Board of Trustees, is cochair of the Latino Health Steering Committee of Montgomery County, and serves on the advisory boards for the Smithsonian American Women History Initiative, the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, and the AmeriHealth Caritas National FQHC Initiative. In addition, she is a member of the Washington Housing Conservancy--WHC-- Board.

While Ms. Gomez is the recipient of numerous well-earned awards and accolades, no medal or trophy that we can give to her can truly speak to all that she has given us throughout her inspiring life and career. She has been a beacon of hope for so many families in need over the past three decades. She leaves behind a legacy of deep compassion for all whom she has met and known and helped and served. Ms. Gomez's colleagues regard her as a strong leader, a dedicated mentor, and a friend to all, and the entire Mary's Center community treasures the warmth, grace, and respect she has imparted throughout the organization these past 33 years.

Our Nation's Capital is healthier and stronger because of Maria Gomez's many years of visionary leadership and dedicated service. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude to her and in extending our best wishes to her and to her husband Michael Rexrode and daughter Amalia--as she begins the next chapter of her life of service to her community and her country.

Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to urge the Senate to move immediately to vote on the confirmation of Dr. Laurie Locascio to be the Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology at the Department of Commerce and--this is a double-headed position--as the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

As of today, we have 156 pending nominations on the executive calendar. These include Ambassadorial nominations to important countries like China, Japan, and others all around the world. It is harming our national security. We should be moving forward with them urgently. Then there are a whole number of nominations that relate to very important U.S. domestic Agencies, and one of them is this appointment at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Look, many Americans are aware of the NIH, the National Institutes of Health. They know that that Institute does very important medical research that helps save lives and that it develops treatments to help Americans and others around the world. In fact, they have played a key role in the development of the vaccines against COVID-19.

Less well-known but also very important is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which plays a key role in supporting American economic competitiveness and supporting innovation for Americans and American companies around the world. They also play an important role in the supply chain effort of the United States. That, of course, has taken on added significance in recent months as we experience bottlenecks.

So we are only hurting ourselves, and we are only hurting our country by refusing to allow this body to move forward on a vote on her nomination. We are essentially saying to this very important institute, this important government entity: We are not going to vote on your leader. So it is time to move forward on this.

Now, I want to talk a little bit about why Dr. Locascio is an exceptional choice for this role. It is not only because she hails from the great State of Maryland; it is not only because she is a graduate of the University of Maryland, Baltimore and that she has been

a leader of the University of Maryland's research endeavors since 2017; but it is also--and most importantly--because she brings to this position three decades of experience in working at all levels at NIST, the institute to which she has been nominated to lead.

She began her time at the Agency as a research staffer and rose to become the Acting Principal Deputy Director and Associate Director for Laboratory Programs. She was responsible for directing the Material Measurement Laboratory, which is one of NIST's largest laboratories. She also has very intimate knowledge of NIST from her other years of experience there, and she has really touched upon every area of endeavor within the NIST portfolio.

As I indicated, this appointment would be important at any time, but it is especially important at this moment as we grapple with supply chain issues and as we try to bolster U.S. manufacturing and try to make sure that we manufacture here, in the United States, essential products that we need.

This body, in addition to focusing on the manufacturing side of the ledger, also understands the importance of investment in vital research and materials science, in things like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. We passed, with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 68 to 32, the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, and NIST has very important responsibilities in those areas. What NIST does there is very important in our maintaining and sharpening our position in the world, especially as we address the growing challenge of China.

I also want to mention the Manufacturing Extension Partnership that is run out of NIST, which plays a very important role right now as we work to fight these supply chain blockages and also accelerate the production of personal protective equipment--N95 masks and ventilators. That push was fueled, largely, by the $50 million that this body helped to appropriate for the MEP program in the CARES Act. Again, that is a program housed in NIST that is helping to deal with supply chain bottlenecks when it comes to essential protections from the pandemic.

So there is no justification for blocking this nomination. In fact, all we are doing is tying our hands behind our backs by depriving this important institute of their top leader at a time when we face national challenges on supply chain issues and at a time when we understand we have got to be at the top of our game when it comes to innovation and cutting-edge technologies in so many areas where it is essential to meet the challenge of China and others around the world in global competition. So I would really urge my colleagues to allow this nomination to proceed. It is the right thing to do for our country.

Mr. President, at this point in time, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate consider the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 551, Department of Commerce, Laurie E. Locascio, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order on the nomination; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I would just ask my colleague, in the coming days, before the end of the year, to reconsider his position.

He is a member of the Commerce Committee, and he knows well that there have been three hearings on supply chain issues, one on May 11 regarding ``Freight Mobility: Strengthening America's Supply''; on July 15, ``Implementing Supply Chain Resiliency''; and on December 7, ``Unchartered Waters: Challenges Posed by Ocean Shipping Supply Chains,'' where the committee discussed a whole range of supply chain issues.

Moreover, responding to these issues, if we are really serious about addressing our supply chain issues, how does it help to deny us the opportunity to vote and put in place the Director of an Agency that is supposed to help relieve the supply chain bottlenecks?

I know the Senator from Florida had to leave, but it is a very simple question. If there is a genuine interest in addressing supply chain bottlenecks and addressing the cost pressures, how does denying NIST a leader help advance that agenda? Clearly, it does not. Clearly, this is harming the U.S. markets at this important time. Clearly, it is harming our supply chain efforts. Clearly, it is harming U.S. competitiveness.

So I urge my colleagues to move forward on this nomination. Apparently not today because of the objection, but let's get it done before the end of this year.

I am not going to ask for a quorum call. Thank you. That is it.

Mr. President, I stand today to extend my heartiest congratulations to Ann Mathis--``Andi''--as she prepares to retire from the National Endowment for the Arts--NEA--after 42 years of dedicated service.

A resident of Bethesda, MD, Andi has served as the NEA's program specialist for States and regions, using her expertise in arts management and best practices in grantmaking to support the work of 50 State arts agencies, six regional arts organizations, and six U.S. Territories.

Andi first joined the NEA after graduating from Cornell University and then earning a master's degree in community arts management from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Andi began her career in the NEA's Grants Office and Office of Management Analysis before settling into her role with States and regions in the Partnership Division.

During her distinguished tenure, Andi has nurtured partnerships with State arts agencies and regional arts organizations, building a network that has extended the reach of Federal support for the arts. As a guiding force in the NEA's Partnership Division and a font of institutional knowledge, Andi's expertise, dedication, and sense of humor have made her a beloved icon in national arts funding. Often, State and local officials would line up, literally, to obtain Andi's guidance and insight.

Andi's efforts have included extensive work with both the Maryland Arts Council and Maryland's Mid Atlantic Arts Foundation. She was also instrumental in centering the role of arts and culture in Federal disaster relief and recovery efforts, representing the NEA on disaster preparedness task forces and Federal Government working groups. Her outstanding work at the NEA has earned her numerous Distinguished Service Awards and other commendations over the years.

Andi's greatest pleasure has always been her beautiful family. While at the NEA, she married, had two daughters, Allison and Melinda, and now delights in her daughters' growing families, which enabled Andi to become ``Grandi.'' A devoted mother and grandmother, Andi is renowned for her sewing prowess and her own line of ``Grandi'' children's clothing.

After more than four decades in the Federal Government, Andi plans to continue her legacy of service in retirement, working in the area of adult literacy, which will include tutoring through the Literacy Council of Montgomery County. We know that she will take seriously the Jewish tradition of tikkun olam, repairing the world, as she continues to make a difference in the lives of others.

I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our gratitude to Andi Mathis for her outstanding service to our Nation and in sending our best wishes to her as she begins her next adventure.