Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator Lee is right--the relationship between the United States and Britain is unique, and it is special. They are often the first to come to our aid when we are in need, when we need partners around the globe. So it brings me no pleasure to come to the floor to object to this resolution being passed at this time, partly because I think there will be a right time for the Senate to come together unanimously and express our support for a U.S.-Britain free-trade agreement. But I want to spend 1\1/2\ minutes telling you why this is not the time.

We are having this debate because Britain has chosen to leave the European Union. Previous to Britain's departure, we were pushing for a U.S.-EU trade agreement that would have brought benefits to Britain but also to the rest of the continent.

Today, we are talking about a bilateral agreement because Britain is leaving the European Union, but they have not yet fully left in the sense that there is an agreement connected to their exit that Britain has not yet fulfilled. One of the most important aspects of that agreement relates to the Good Friday Agreement, the Good Friday Agreement being a seminal achievement of American diplomacy that brought to an end decades of troubles and violence in and around Northern Ireland.

The UK and EU negotiated what is called the Northern Ireland Protocol as part of the EU withdrawal agreement. That arrangement was intended to preserve the Good Friday Agreement and to ensure that you would never have a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Under the protocol, it was agreed that Northern Ireland would continue to follow EU rules on food safety and other products standards to prevent those customs checks across the border. The checks, instead, would take place on goods entering Northern Ireland from England, Scotland, or Wales.

The problem is that the British Government right now wants to change the deal and to get rid of most of the checks, to reduce customs procedures in order to allow goods to move more freely. But this has created a political crisis because it threatens to reerect that hard border that could unfortunately stimulate a reemergence of conflict. It has already been incredibly destabilizing in Northern Ireland. The leader of the largest unionist party has threatened to quit the government if the current protocol is not replaced.

This is not an insignificant risk, and our priority should be, before cheerleading and championing a free-trade agreement, to make sure that Britain's commitment to protect the Good Friday Agreement as part of their departure from the European Union is fulfilled.

So I look forward to the time when we can come together, Republicans and Democrats, and support the entering into of discussions for a free- trade agreement between the United States and Britain, but I would submit that this is not the right time. Right now, we need to be firm in our commitment to make sure that the conditions of withdrawal from the European Union specifically with respect the Good Friday Agreement are fulfilled, and only once those conditions are fulfilled should we as a body make that full commitment to this free-trade agreement.

Let's make sure that we not do anything to jeopardize what has been decades of productive peace and peace discussions in and around Northern Ireland.

For that reason, I would object.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Yesterday, Tallahassee Memorial Hospital disclosed that 82 people died inside their healthcare system from COVID over the course of the month of September. That is the worst month on record for that hospital system.

It is not shocking to anyone because we just went passed 700,000 people who have now been killed by this virus in the United States of America. And this attack that continues to be launched on the Senate floor against science and against sound public health policy is standing in the way of us defeating this virus.

Now, I will speak to Senator Lee's objection, but Senator Johnson just came to the floor and opened up his remarks by declaring he that wasn't an anti-vaxxer and then just engaged in a 10-minute broadside against vaccines, citing conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. The effect will be to undermine America's faith in vaccines that are working.

To prove his point, the Senator from Wisconsin read an email from a constituent who got the vaccine and got infected.

I am sure that is true. There are, in fact, people who have gotten the vaccine who have gotten the infection. It isn't 100 percent effective.

But he didn't cite these statistics: those who have been vaccinated are 10 times less likely to be hospitalized. Those who have been vaccinated are 10 times less likely to die.

Here are some numbers from the State of Pennsylvania that I just saw this morning: In Pennsylvania, 97 percent of deaths are amongst the unvaccinated; 95 percent of hospitalizations are amongst the unvaccinated; and 94 percent of cases are amongst the unvaccinated.

Senator Lee is right, vaccines work--vaccines work, and I appreciate his statement to that effect. But others, like the Senator from Wisconsin, are coming down to the floor, and their words have the effect of undermining people's faith in science, and that is deadly. That is deadly.

As to Senator Lee's objections, I know he makes them in good faith, but my impression is that this Congress and this country decided a long time ago that the government does have a role to play when it comes to the safety of our workplaces. In fact, that is the entire reason for the existence of OSHA. Whether you like it or not, from a policy perspective, OSHA has handed down mandate after mandate about what is necessary for employers to make sure that when you show up to work in a hospital or a factory or a school, that your workplace is safe.

Specifically, this country is not a stranger to vaccine mandates. In fact, every parent who sends their kids to school knows all about vaccine mandates because you have to make sure that your child is vaccinated before they go to school. Most of those schools have relatively reasonable exemptions--often, at the very least, medical exemptions; sometimes religious and philosophical exemptions.

Let's be clear: President Biden's plan includes commonsense considerations for exemptions.

Let's also be clear that, at least with respect to the OSHA requirement, it is a mandate for testing, not for vaccinations. There are other mandates that are requiring the vaccination take place, but the broadest of the proposed mandates is a mandate that everybody get tested; you don't have to get tested if you get the vaccine.

And so I am deeply worried about how unserious this country is about the science and about sound public health policy. We aren't going to get over this pandemic--we aren't going to be able to turn the page-- unless people choose to get vaccinated: 10 times less likely to die, 10 times less likely to get hospitalized.

Yes, it is true, there are cases in which there may be medical contraindications. President Biden's plan accounts for that. And yes, it is true that there are individual people who have still had breakthrough cases. But this is an effective vaccine. It is a safe vaccine. And the only way that we save lives is if we stop focusing on ideology and keep our focus on science and what works.

And for that reason, I object.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer some brief remarks today in the wake of the Armed Services Committee hearing today on the evacuation of Afghanistan and the end to U.S. troop presence there. I watched it with some interest. I watched it knowing that three out of four Americans support President Biden's decision to bring U.S. troops home from Afghanistan.

We learned some new things today in the hearing. Others were confirmed. First, we learned, once again, of the extraordinary bravery and capability of our diplomats and our soldiers, who worked under incredibly difficult conditions for a period of weeks to airlift almost 130,000 individuals out of Afghanistan. That is absolutely remarkable, especially given, as we heard today in testimony, that the goal at the outset, in the best case scenario, was to get 60 to 70 to 80,000 people out. In the end, the United States of America, our military and our diplomats, got 130,000 people out.

We heard, also, about the impossible position that President Biden inherited; that there was a commitment made to withdraw American troops by President Trump but no plan with which to do it safely. We heard about how the Doha agreement decreased the readiness of the Afghan forces, how it weakened their position internally.

We heard about the choice that faced President Biden when he came into office. We heard about the fact that, had we chosen to stay, we would have had to surge troops; that the Taliban, having gotten to the precipice of provincial capitals, would have engaged in a level of urban warfare that would have required the United States to increase our troop presence there in order to be able to stand up an effective resistance to the Taliban.

To the extent that Republicans view this as a political game and they were looking for points to be scored today, I guess the one point they feel they scored was an admission by the generals who testified that some of them had recommended staying in Afghanistan.

Now, I have tremendous respect for our generals. I think they get it right more than they get it wrong. They provide very able advice to the Commander in Chief. But for 20 years, in Afghanistan, our generals recommended staying, in the face of mounting evidence, year after year, that it was going to be impossible to be able to stand up an Afghan military that could protect the country and an Afghan Government that could govern the country. Our generals recommended staying--year after year after year, month after month after month--despite the fact that many analysts told us that as soon as we left and the Taliban took over, the Afghan Government and the military would fall.

Now, they did it because our military is bred to believe that anything is possible. It speaks, in some part, to the best of American military ethos, the idea that there is no obstacle that cannot be surmounted, that cannot be climbed by U.S. forces. But the task they were given by President after President was one that could not be carried out.

And to simply believe that because the general said ``stay another year'' or ``stay another 5 years,'' this Commander in Chief should have listened, despite the fact that it had been proven that the mission that we were given in that country was impossible, is to compound a mistake--an unnecessary mistake--that the United States engaged in for far, far too long.

And so my hope is that moving forward, this Congress and this Senate are going to engage in real oversight. There is no doubt the evacuation could have been done better. There is no doubt that, in a mission this complicated, the Biden team would have done things differently. But the real question is, Why did we stay in Afghanistan for 10 years too long? Why did we keep believing that we could train-up a military that would be capable of defending the country?

It is time that we have a deep inquiry in this Senate about the limits of American military power overseas and how badly misresourced we are when we spend 10 to 20 times as much money on military power as we do on other means of projecting American power.

It is also important for us to understand the cost of getting bogged down in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not a coincidence that shortly after withdrawing from Afghanistan, we were able to announce this new partnership with Australia and Britain to better protect our mutual interests in the Pacific theater.

It is because, when the entirety of the U.S. defense and foreign policy infrastructure is so trained on unwinnable contests in far off places like Afghanistan, it doesn't allow us the capacity and the creativity to be able to design new systems and new structures with which to protect the country.

China celebrated every single year that we remain bogged down in Afghanistan. Russia celebrated every single year that we doubled down on that mistake. Now we have the ability to turn our attention to fights that truly matter.

We learned some things in the Armed Services Committee today. I think what we learned confirms that the decision that President Biden made to pull our troops out was the right one. It is a decision supported by the American people because it allows this country, finally, to focus on fights that are winnable in reality, not just on paper.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a request for 7 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 Tuesday, September 28, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 28, 2021, at 10 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 Tuesday, September 28, 2021, 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 Tuesday, September 28, 2021, at 10 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 Tuesday, September 28, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 28, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management

The Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 28, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule XXII, that upon the use or yielding back of time on the Donfried nomination, the Senate vote on the motions to invoke cloture on the Medina, Phee, Robinson, and Lewis nominations; that if closure is invoked on any of the nominations listed, all postcloture time be considered expired and the vote on confirmation of those nominations occur at a time and in an order to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, with 1 hour for debate equally divided prior to each vote, and the Republican debate be controlled by Senator Cruz.

For the information of the Senate, we expect four rollcall votes beginning at around 8 p.m. Those votes will be cloture on the Medina, Phee, Robinson, and Lewis nominations.

Mr. President, I am glad that we are coming to some conclusion this evening with respect to a handful of the long list of pending nominations for the State Department and the Department of Defense, but it is a small portion of a list that is growing bigger and bigger.

Never before has a first-term President had this few national security nominees in place by the fall of his first year. And this is a growing national security crisis imposed on the country by Republicans who have decided to put their hatred of Democrats and this President ahead of the security of this country--above the security of this Nation.

And it just takes a lot of hutzpah for my colleagues to stand here on the floor and criticize the President's conduct of foreign policy at the same time that they are refusing to allow the President to have staff to conduct foreign policy. Let me say that again. We have all sorts of Republicans coming down here and savaging the President's policy on Afghanistan or on China or on Russia, but then, at the exact same time, taking extraordinary steps to prevent the President from having anybody actually implement policies toward Afghanistan or Russia or China. It is akin to standing up in a restaurant and complaining about how slow the service is right after you went and barricaded the doors in and out of the kitchen.

My colleagues can't have it both ways. If you want to complain about the President's policies toward China, then stop standing in the way of allowing him to have personnel that can execute on sound policy. Stop standing in the way of the Assistant Secretary who will oversee policy in the region.

You have complaints about Afghanistan. Then why are we continuing to block those who would be in charge of refugee policy and in charge of resettlement policy to get more Afghans out of the country?

You have complaints about Russia. Well, for a month Republicans have been blocking the key personnel who oversee policy toward Russia, whether it be the Assistant Secretary for Europe or our Ambassador to

Madam President.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, how quickly my colleagues forget that it was President Trump who entered into negotiations with the Taliban. It was President Trump who entered into an agreement with the Taliban that committed the United States to withdraw our forces. It was President Trump who sold out women and girls in that country by refusing to put their interests first at that negotiating table. It was President Trump who elevated the Taliban in the international community by putting them face-to-face with our negotiators.

It is important to note, as to the specific request that is being made by the Senator from Arkansas, that right now, the Taliban is already designated as a designated global terrorist entity under Executive Order 13224. So they are already designated as a terrorist entity.

There are specific problems with this designation. First, I don't think it is a great idea for us to be designating FTOs by statute. There is a reason why we generally allow the administration to do this. But maybe more importantly, what comes with an FTO is the withdrawal of humanitarian organizations from the country at hand. We know that because we saw it in Yemen. When President Trump designated the Houthis as an FTO for about a week, humanitarian organizations started pulling up their stakes. Right now, there are 18 million Afghans who are in need of lifesaving humanitarian assistance. This is not the moment to take a step that will cause Afghans to starve.

The second reason not to do this this way is because, whether we like it or not, we are in communication through intermediaries with the Taliban to get our people out, to get our partners out. There are flights leaving on a regular basis. And to designate them as an FTO, in addition to the existing designation that the Taliban has as a specially designated global terrorist entity, is to risk our ability to continue to bring our people out.

We should be joined together as a Senate, despite the views we have on whether we should have stayed or left Afghanistan, in our support for the Afghan people by making sure that we do not take steps to cut off humanitarian assistance to people in need and our belief that we should be supporting this administration in their effort to continue to get our partners out.

This designation done this way will risk both of those initiatives, and for that reason, I object.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to continue to propound these unanimous consent requests in the same form as the chairman of the Committee, but before I do, just a few brief remarks. I know the hour is late.

First of all, it is wonderful to hear this revisionist history about the Trump administration's disposition towards Russia. Everybody knows what was going on. This was an administration that was practically sycophantish towards the Russian regime, refused over and over again to stand up in any meaningful way.

That is why the pipeline got so far along. It was the eleventh hour when the Trump administration, at the very last minute, decided to move forward on sanctions.

We are not here to paint the merits of the Trump administration's decisionmaking on Russia policy. But suffice it to say, Russia did very well expanding its influence around the region during the 4 years that Donald Trump was in office.

Second, the effects of holding up all of these nominees is to kneecap American national security. Never, ever before has a President had so few nominees confirmed to key national security posts than this President. It has never happened before.

It is true that there is a history in this body of individual Senators placing a temporary hold on one or maybe two officials relevant to the policy over which they are having a disagreement with the administration. Probably many Members of this body have done that. But at least in the time that I have been here and from what I have heard, never before has an individual Senator held up this many nominees for key national security posts over a disagreement on one specific policy.

And if every single Senator did that--because every Senator here has a policy disagreement that they believe is significant with the Secretary of State, with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, with the Secretary of Defense--then the business of nominations and confirmations would grind to an absolute halt in this body.

I had deep disagreements with President Trump, but never did I endeavor to hold up every single nominee to State Department posts, because I came to the conclusion that that would do much, much more harm to American national security than whatever concession I might get from the administration would provide a benefit to American national security.

So I share this just, really, paralyzing fear that Senator Menendez expressed, that something awful is going to happen without the kind of personnel that every President needs on post to do the job. We could probably get by if this was a hold of one or two or three individuals. We are talking about dozens of key national security posts that are left vacant because of the decision of one Senator.

Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, I will continue to propound these requests. I imagine the decision will not be different.

I ask that it be in order to make the same request as those Senator Menendez was making with respect to Executive Calendar No. 327, Anne A. Witkowsky, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Conflict and Stabilization Operations.

Because American national security is gravely compromised by the inability of a President to have his national security team in place at a time of crisis, I would ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 328, Anne A. Witkowsky, to be Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization.

Mr. President, because every single day that the President doesn't have his team in place to protect this Nation, our Nation is under more serious threat.

I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 329, Mary Catherine Phee, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the African Development Foundation, for a term expiring September 27, 2026.

Mr. President, because China is absolutely celebrating every single day that our Corps of diplomats is dramatically and dangerously understaffed because of these holds on the President's nominees, I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 330, Mary Catherine Phee, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service to be a Member of the Board of Directors to the African Development Foundation, for a term expiring September 27, 2021.

Mr. President, similarly, because without an ability to have U.S. diplomats on posts, to have our most important leadership positions staffed, we make ourselves intentionally, deliberately unable to be able to manage crises across the world.

I would ask that it be in order to make the same requests with respect to Executive Calendar No. 331, Mary Catherine Phee, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service to be Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

Mr. President, I would ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 332, Lee Satterfield, to be an Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs.

Mr. President, I would ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 333, Karen Erika Donfried, to be an Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs and Eurasian Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 334, Jessica Lewis, to be an Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 335, Donald Lu, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, to be Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 336, Paloma Adams-Allen, to be a Deputy Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development.

Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 337, Isobel Coleman, to be a Deputy Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development.

Mr. President, I am at the final unanimous consent request, and I will make it in a moment.

Just to note, as we are wrapping up here, this has taken a while, and this list of pending nominees is going to grow. It is going to get longer and longer. There are going to be more key posts that are going to go unfilled.

I understand Senator Cruz's desire to use his power to hold these nominees in order to get a change in policy from this administration. I doubt that the administration, which has already set a clear direction and has executed an agreement with the Germans, is going to abide.

My worry, though, is that this won't be the end, that this is not going to be the last foreign policy decision that the Senator from Texas or other Republican Senators will disagree with, nor will it likely be the last decision that any high-profile Cabinet member makes that finds disagreement from my Republican colleagues.

And so I end where I began, which is to say that Senator Cruz and I have a difference of opinion with respect to Nord Stream and the gravity of the moment that we find ourselves in. But this place just becomes unworkable if every single Senator holds up this many nominees over one particular policy disagreement.

This tactic will be utilized by Democrats when there is a Republican in the White House. It might not be me, because I find this objectionable, but it will be copied, and you will find the same thing happening to a Republican President and their administration grinding to a halt in whatever Department finds itself the object of this tactic.

So I continue to express this deep worry about what it means to not have individuals in place in Somalia overseeing the Western Hemisphere and to not have someone overseeing our counternarcotics operations, but this list will get longer and longer and longer, and the risk to American security will be greater.

Again, I will just suggest that the harm being done here to U.S. security is much greater than the benefit that the Senator believes will be gained through negotiation over these posts with the administration.

So, at the risk of inspiring another very long speech from the Senator from Texas, I make those remarks.

Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, I ask, finally, that it be in order to make the same request, as I have and Senator Menendez has, with respect to Executive Calendar No. 150, Brett Holmgren to be an Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator believes he has such a serious objection to administration policy that it merits this exceptional tactic. I would submit, as I move into closing business, that it is not the biggest disagreement that a Senator has had with an administration. It is not the biggest disagreement that a group of Senators has had with an administration. To believe that would be to elevate this dispute beyond its merits. That is not to suggest it isn't significant, but it is not the most significant disagreement that an individual Senator has ever had with an administration.

What is exceptional is his tactic. Never before has a U.S. Senator used their power in this way to hold up this many nominees at such a critical moment. That is what is exceptional. That is what makes this moment so dangerous. That is why Senator Menendez and I came down to the floor to try to unlock some of these nominees toward confirmation, because it is the tactic, not the disagreement, that is the exception.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 268, 321, 189, 247, 267, 270, 344, 301, 295, 296, 297, 298, and 299; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 353, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 354, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Friday, August 13, at 9:30 a.m.; Tuesday, August 17, at 9:30 a.m.; Friday, August 20, at 9 a.m.; Tuesday, August 24, at 8:30 a.m.; Friday, August 27, at 9 a.m.; Tuesday, August 31, at 10:30 a.m.; Friday, September 3, at 1:30 p.m.; Tuesday, September 7, at 1 p.m.; and Thursday, September 9, at noon.

I further ask that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, September 9, it next convene at 3 p.m., Monday, September 13; further, 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; further, that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Kvaal nomination; finally, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, September 13.

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