Floor Statements

Madam President, it is Thursday afternoon here on the Senate floor. It is one of my favorite times. We have some new pages, so they are going to, I think, at a certain point, consider some of this their favorite time on the Senate floor. It is when I get to come out on the floor and talk about the Alaskan of the Week--the Alaskan the Week.

I have been doing this for several years now. I try to get down here most weeks. I don't make it every week. I have had a couple of weeks off. There is a lot going on here in the Senate, as many people know. But as we are heading into Veterans Day weekend, I am making sure that we reignite our ``Alaskan of the Week'' special for this weekend.

There are so many special Alaskans working to make our State the best State in this country. Some Senators might disagree, but, hey, we are all proud of our States.

I will tell you this, when it comes to veterans and patriotism, I am pretty sure my State tops the list of any State in the country. We have more veterans per capita than any State in America. Alaska Natives, a big part of our population, serve at higher rates in the military than any another ethnic group in the country. Patriotism, military service, it is in our DNA.

I am getting on a plane here in about an hour with my wife Julie. We are heading home to celebrate Veterans Day.

Just looking back over several years, a lot of my Alaskans of the Week were veterans--100 percent--so it is not surprising that this one is as well.

As we head into Veterans Day weekend, I want to talk about a special veteran, a really special veteran--people are going to love this story--a Vietnam vet named Gene Horner. He is actually a bugler. He plays the trumpet and the bugle.

If you have gone to a military funeral in Alaska, chances are the man behind the bugle breathing out the 24 notes of ``Taps''--the most poignant 24 notes of music ever played--is Gene Horner, our Alaskan of the Week.

Wherever he is and whatever he is doing, if he gets the call to play at a veteran's funeral in Alaska, he grabs his instrument, jumps into his car, and Gene is there.

So who is Gene Horner, and how did he become known as the best ``Taps'' player in Alaska, and, I would say, the best ``Taps'' player in America?

A self-described, unruly teenager from Texas and California, Gene joined the Army when he was 17, in 1967.

It was go in the Army or get into more trouble; one or the

other.

That is what Gene said. So he joined the Army.

By the way, many great veterans, many great Americans have started their service to America this way: Hey, join the Marines, join the Army, or you are going to jail. So he did that.

Gene was assigned a regular duty station in Alabama, and it was here that he was given the opportunity to play in his post band at his Army station in Alabama. While he considered himself a very ``mediocre trumpet player,'' Gene proved to be indispensable.

During the height of the Vietnam war, before he, himself, was deployed to Vietnam, he sounded ``Taps'' for 187 funerals throughout Alabama and the South in just 3 months. Think about that. That is a big reminder of the service our Vietnam generation did--187 funerals in just 3 months, 1 guy.

When Gene received his own orders to head to Vietnam in 1968, his route stopped through Anchorage, my hometown. It was August 1. The midnight Sun was out. It was sunny, 75 degrees. Anyone who has ever flown into Anchorage--which I highly recommend everybody watching do. Come on up. Visit our great State. You will love it. There is a point when you are coming in, you are flying over the mountains, the engines kind of silence themselves, you head to the ground, and you see the glaciers, the mountains.

Gene said to himself, when he was landing in Anchorage:

This is the last I'll see of America.

Think about that. It is very poignant: Heading to Vietnam; he did not

think he was coming home. A lot of people didn't come home.

During his 6-hour layover on the ground in Anchorage to refuel before he went to Vietnam, he and his fellow soldiers sat at the airport bar. This is another great story. You can't make this up. After he sat down at the bar, the soon-to-be Alaska U.S. Senator Mike Gravel walked in and told the bartender:

Buy a drink for all these soldiers.

That is pretty cool, Senator for Alaska--about to become a Senator for Alaska, buys a round for the soldiers heading to Vietnam.

Gene thought to himself, If I live through this deployment, I am going to come back to Alaska. It is a pretty cool place; U.S. Senators buying you beers.

When he was in Vietnam and a battlefield memorial was required, Gene would fly out on a helicopter with a chaplain for the service. ``Over there,'' he said, ``I didn't know the names of half the people I played Taps for. I seldom knew their names [at all], but those 24 notes [in Taps] pulled on my heart all the same.''

When Gene's Vietnam service ended 15 months later, he went to California, he said, in search of a beautiful woman he knew named Priscilla, whom he had met on his way to Vietnam. And like a good soldier, he accomplished the mission because Priscilla would later become his wife. Together, Gene stuck to the promise he had made for himself with Priscilla. They moved to Alaska in 1972. And Alaska, of course, benefited tremendously.

He joined the Carpenters Union and became a pilot driver, and his wife Priscilla was a CPA. They settled in the beautiful Mat-Su Valley. By the way, I will be heading there tomorrow and Saturday for Veterans Day services. They had a son. They had a nice life.

During this whole time, for 20 years, Gene, like so many veterans, did not talk about his service in Vietnam at all. Nobody he knew--he didn't talk to anybody about it. He kept it to himself. He did not want to relive the past.

It was not until 1999, during the funeral of a coworker and a close friend who served in World War II, that Gene took his trumpet back up and played ``Taps'' in 1999--the first time.

When he arrived at the funeral and asked: Hey, where is the bugler for the service, Gene was directed to a boom box--a boom box, just a recording. But as faith would have it, Gene had just picked up his trumpet from repair that day. He asked: Hey, instead of the boom box, can I sound ``Taps'' for my friend, the World War II veteran?

They said: Of course, do it.

Gene said this: It just goes against everything when I am at a funeral for a servicemember to leave ``Taps'' to a recording.

By the way, that is happening more and more as military bands get cut.

It was this experience that ignited Gene's passion for sounding ``Taps'' at military funerals. Twenty years after his Vietnam service, 20 years since he had even talked about ``Taps'' and what he did in Vietnam, Gene began performing at veterans' funerals in Alaska and recruiting other trumpet players to join the ranks.

``It wasn't until I started playing Taps locally that I realized, you're never really out of the military,'' Gene said, ``You are just one breath away from it. And every veteran deserves a live breath coming from a bugle [at his or her funeral].''

Playing ``Taps'' is emotional work, he said. You are not just sending off an individual veteran; you are sounding the call that has sent millions of veterans off to be buried for hundreds of years. You are sounding the mystic chords of memory that Abraham Lincoln spoke of:

[S]tretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to

every living heart and hearthstone all over this [great]

land.

That is Abraham Lincoln.

Because of this, many buglers who have taken up this honor has said that ``Taps'' is the hardest 24 notes they will ever play, the hardest 24 notes you can play as a trumpeter. Gene has likely played them more times than anyone else in Alaska and--who knows--many more times than most people in America.

He said this:

Playing at Carnegie Hall would be nice. But for a trumpet

player, I don't think there is a greater honor than sounding

``Taps'' for a soldier's final farewell.

Gene plays at dozens, sometimes hundreds, of funerals a year. He has logged in over 10,000 volunteer hours with the VA in Alaska. Let me repeat that, as we go into Veterans Day weekend: over 10,000 volunteer hours for the VA in Alaska. That is patriotism. That is patriotism.

He remembers all of them, but he has a distinct memory of sounding ``Taps'' at the funeral for a beloved young marine named Grant Fraser, one of the first Alaskans to be killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

LCpl. Grant Fraser was an actor who loved the works of Homer and Shakespeare. He was a mountain biker, a skier, a pianist, a SCUBA diver, a rock climber, a tennis player. He was a light-hearted, mischievous U.S. marine. After the Marines, he was planning on coming back to Anchorage, his hometown, to work as a paramedic with the fire department.

Shortly after 9/11, like so many patriotic young Americans across our Nation, Grant surprised his family and friends when he announced he was joining the Marines. He served with Echo Company, 4th Reconnaissance Battalion, in Anchorage, my old unit.

The battalion was later deployed to Iraq in 2005, and it was there, on a mission in Anbar Province on August 3, 2005, that Grant Fraser was killed in action and made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation. He was 22 years old, not much older than the pages right here.

I went to LCpl Grant Fraser's burial here at Arlington National Cemetery, and, I will tell you, it was the most moving burial I have ever been to. Everybody from the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps on down and many, many Alaskans came to that funeral.

But there was also a funeral service for Grant in Anchorage, and this is the funeral that Gene Horner said was the most moving funeral he had ever been to, of the hundreds that he has played ``Taps'' for. He said that, first of all, the funeral was packed. It was like the entire town of Anchorage showed up.

And, for him, it brought back memories of young men and women sacrificing their lives in foreign lands. It brought back all of those battlefield funerals he had done in Vietnam, that he had played for, and all the funerals he had played in Alabama and all the funerals he would play for in Anchorage. It brought back battlefields and violence and heroism and sacrifice.

But on that August day in Anchorage, like he did in Vietnam, like he had done for so many others in Alaska and in Vietnam and in Alabama, Gene was there for one man: the young marine hero LCpl Grant Fraser. So he got that feeling in his stomach as he was sounding ``Taps,'' the one he always gets at funerals and burials when he is sounding ``Taps,'' the one that travels to his chest and makes it swell. He picked up his American Heritage Field Trumpet, took a breath, and sounded ``Taps'' for this young marine.

So, Gene, as we are coming into Veterans Day in Alaska, I want to thank you for your great service; I want to thank you for being there for literally hundreds, if not thousands, of veterans in Alaska and across our Nation. I am going to actually see you tomorrow at an event in the valley. And, of course, congratulations on one of the biggest honors anyone can achieve: being our Alaskan of the Week. Semper fi, Gene. Happy Veterans Day. See you tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for coming down here tonight. It is a very important issue that we are getting ready to talk about.

We are in a very dangerous world right now. Our country is being challenged on multiple fronts across the globe. We literally have American troops under attack in the Middle East.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, as a U.S. Marine Corps colonel, I know--we all know here in the Senate--that America needs to have our best players, our most combat-capable leaders on the field, and, right now, that is not happening. It needs to change.

I just want to begin by saying something very clear. You are going to hear this a lot. I am as pro-life as they come. I strongly disagree with what Secretary Austin and President Biden have done with their politicization of the military on a whole host of fronts, including the abortion policy, which I think is illegal and violates the Hyde amendment.

And I have been working with many colleagues, but especially Senator Tuberville from Alabama, side by side, for months, trying to get this reversed, trying to get compromises. At the same time, we have been telling the majority leader: Do your job. Do your job. Bring up nominees so we can vote on them.

Now, we have had to force them to do it. Tomorrow, we are going to be voting on the CNO of the Navy, a member of the Joint Chiefs; the Chief of Staff of the Air Force; the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps--not because the majority leader brought them up, but because we forced them to. He needs to do his job.

But I also firmly believe that one of our most core basic principles--certainly, as Republicans--which I think in many ways distinguishes us from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is our serious focus on national security, readiness, a strong military, and taking care of our troops and their families.

We all know there are current holds on our military. I want the American people to know right now, 376 promotions to one-, two-, three- , and four-star generals and admirals are being held. It is estimated that, by the end of this year, 89 percent of all general officer positions in the U.S. military will be affected by the current holds from Senator Tuberville. Either the members have to be forced to retire, positions not filled, in acting capacity, or will be unable to retire--this is pretty much the entire officer corps. This is hugely disruptive to readiness.

A couple of examples: 288 one- and two-star generals are being held. These are the men and women who run the military right now. We are going to talk about other places. The First Marine Expeditionary Force, the Third Marine Expeditionary Force--these are the war fighting organizations of the Marine Corps--the Seventh Fleet, which is our fighting naval force in the Taiwan Strait; the Fifth Fleet, the fighting naval force in the Middle East. It goes on and on. NATO Deputy Chairman, a three-star job, empty; Deputy U.S. CENTCOM Commander, empty. The head of the Navy nuclear program, the head of missile defense--all nonconfirmed.

We have a big challenge right now. Let me be a bit more blunt on the issue of morale. The military has a huge readiness and retention problem. These holds are not helping.

As I mentioned, I am a senior colonel in the Marines. Many of the one-star and two-star who are being held right now are in my peer group. I have known these men and women for 30 years. There is growing bitterness within the ranks of our military, driven by this fact, and I want people to understand this. The men and women in the military who served our country so well for decades--probably the most combat- experienced generation since World War II--have made huge sacrifices, multiple deployments, and now their careers are being punished over a policy dispute they had nothing to do with and no power to resolve.

That is what is happening right now, and the idea that some of these officers are supposedly woke or desk jockeys is ridiculous. These are some of the most combat-experienced generals and admirals we have ever had in our country.

Finally, these holds also pose strategic risks to our force. What does that mean? We are starting to see military officers saying: Admirals and generals, I am getting out. Or they have to get out if they are going to be timed out.

We had a scandal in the U.S. Navy several years ago called the ``Fat Leonard'' scandal. It literally wiped out a generation of Navy officers who had Pacific experience. We do not want to be responsible for a Senate-inflicted hollowing out of our most experienced military officers, especially given how dangerous the world is right now.

So I have mentioned this before. I have worked closely with Senator Tuberville for months, always defending his holds, always looking for compromise. The one we are working on now: Lift the hold on the military officers who have nothing to do with this dispute and can't resolve it anyway, and put a hold on the Under Secretary

of Defense for Policy, who is in charge of this issue. Let's do that. That is a good compromise.

But we haven't made progress, and the world is a dangerous place. So tonight we are taking another approach. For months, Senator Tuberville has said, if individual nominees are brought up for a vote one at a time, he will be fine with that. On September 6, he said: I am not holding up nominations for being approved. They can bring them to the floor one at a time.

Well, tonight, that is exactly what we are going to do--individual votes on individual nominees, just as Senator Tuberville has requested. We have dozens. I hope the Senator from Alabama meant what he said on this issue, and he backs our troops, who are true warriors and, yes, heroes, who along with their families have dedicated their lives to this country, risked their lives for this country, and have nothing to do with this current policy dispute--nothing at all.

Last night on TV, Senator Tuberville said he was ``all for the military''--in particular, our military heroes.

You are going to hear a lot about military heroes tonight, and, hopefully, we are going to get a bunch of them confirmed, one by one, as we bring them up.

I yield the floor to my colleague from Iowa.

Mr. President, we are going to start moving through some of these nominations. My colleague from Alabama has said publicly, hey, bring them up one at a time. And we are asking for a voice vote, so that is a vote. So we are doing what he said, not sure why he is objecting. Maybe he can explain that in a minute when I bring up another--a real hero by the way.

And, look, what Senator Tuberville said about the policy and Austin and Biden on this abortion policy, I fully agree with him. We should be suing to stop it. I think it is illegal. And he is also right; everybody uses holds. I certainly use holds.

But the key is you put a hold on someone who typically has some kind of control over the issue that you are trying to fix, some kind of responsibility. One of the things I have been talking to the Senator from Alabama on is, all right, let's put a hold on the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. He is the guy. He is a civilian, and he is in charge of this policy dispute. Let's put a hold on him--that is the right guy--and squeeze him. But why are we putting holds on war heroes? I am going to get to one here in a minute.

Again, I just--I don't understand. And, look, we can go in and out of readiness, but my colleague from Alabama is 100 percent wrong, no kidding. The readiness is being impacted when you have--I will just give a couple of examples here. This is just from one theater: EUCOM, the Deputy Chairman of NATO, pretty important job. It is a three-star billet. It is empty.

The Deputy Commanding General of U.S. Army Europe--really important job--empty.

Like I said, I MEF--that is the big Marine Corps combined force that fights anywhere in the world; 25,000 marines, commanded by a three- star--it is a two-star. Now, for those who did serve in the military, we understand this is a problem. Same with III MEF. OK. This is just from EUCOM, European Command--72 officers are unable to assume their new positions. These 72 officers include 52 who cannot move because they have been nominated for a position that requires Senate confirmation, as well as 20 other officers who are projected to be assigned to a new position now held by one of the previous 52 officers. It is creating a giant blockage in the way in which the military operates.

To say there are no readiness issues--I am the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee. There are readiness issues. And that is the whole point. We have a really dangerous world, a really dangerous world right now, and to say, ``Oh, don't worry; this isn't impacting readiness,'' with all due respect to my colleague, that is just wrong. It is not even a close call. It is wrong, and it matters to this country.

Let me give you another example: the head of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, the nuclear navy--one of the best run organizations on planet Earth, if you know anything about the military or just its organizations. It was started by Admiral Rickover. To not have the leadership in charge of the nuclear navy? That is a problem. To not have the leadership in charge of missile defense for America? That is a problem.

So, look, we can debate readiness, but my colleague on this, in my view, is respectfully quite misinformed.

I am going to bring up my first nominee. Now, this goes to the issue of some comments that have come out during this: Well, these one-star and two-star generals are kind of desk jockeys, right?

These comments have been made.

They are not warriors, right? The real warriors are the captains and the sergeants.

Look, I love the whole military, but the one- and two-star Generals-- I know a lot of them. That is my peer group in the Marine Corps. I am a little bit behind them. I am not going to be promoted. I am getting out here probably soon. But I know these guys, and the idea that somehow these are desk jockeys? Do you know who these people were, the one- and two-stars we are holding up right now, 289 of them? These were the Captains and Lieutenants who were going fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11.

The current Commandant of the Marine Corps--by the way, every American should be praying for him; big health issues--he has a Purple Heart, distinguished combat.

These were the people who were kicking in doors in Fallujah, shooting terrorists in the face, and we have people saying they are desk jockeys and they are not warriors? That is just ridiculous. It is ridiculous, and it is insulting.

So I am going to talk about a warrior. I am getting ready to call up Col. Robert Weiler. He has been nominated to be a one-star Brigadier General, to be the 1st Marine Division Assistant Commander. That is the big division on the west coast of the U.S. Marine Corps infantry. I used to be part of the 1st Marine Division. I am proud of that. You need a Deputy Commander. They don't have one, OK?

Let's talk about Colonel Weiler--28-year career; commanded the 5th Marine Regiment--I was in that regiment, the most decorated regiment in the Marine Corps; 2d Battalion 4th Marines; 2d Battalion 24th Marines; deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan I think six times.

Think about what his family went through, OK? Think about what his family has sacrificed. And right now, people are being told: You are not going anywhere, Colonel, because we have a dispute on an issue you have nothing to do with that you can't resolve.

Let's hear a little bit more about this Colonel in the Marine Corps. He received a Silver Star for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action against the enemy while serving as Commanding Officer, Weapons Company, 2d Battalion 4th Marines, 5th Marine Regiment, 6 through 10 April 2004, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom; heavily engaged by enemy forces for an over 4-hour firefight while wounded by enemy fire, OK? Purple Heart. He continued to fearlessly lead marines as they destroyed this tenacious enemy. He is no woke guy. He is no desk jockey. Oh, what else did he do? He got a Purple Heart in that vicious combat.

He received a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with a combat distinguishing device for heroic action in another deployment--2d Battalion 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, on 6 September in Ramadi, Iraq. He took decisive action by directing fires of his raid force, quickly gaining fire superiority and suppressing and killing the enemy. Although dazed by a major blast, he continued to lead and direct his team in combat, where they killed and captured all five insurgents on their target raid list. So we are going to block him tonight?

The Senator from Alabama last night on TV said he respects all military, especially the heros.

Well, you got one coming. You got one coming, Senator.

So we are going to do what you asked, which is do a vote individually on this American hero.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of the following nomination: Col. Robert S. Weiler to be Brigadier General in the U.S. Marine Corps under Executive Calendar No. 95; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, just for people who are watching, as to that last nominee for Fifth Fleet Commander, you may have heard there are two carrier strike groups in the Middle East. He is the naval officer who would be in charge of all of them--right there. We could have put him in charge. It is pretty important to have a Fifth Fleet Commander ready to go.

He just objected to it. I am not sure why. Again, we are bringing these up one by one, which is what I thought my colleague from Alabama said he was good to go with.

Before I start going through my list, I just want to say, if anyone is watching--Senator Ernst and I were just talking about this--just listen to these bios. This is the best of America. This is the best of America. These men and women have been serving and sacrificing honorably for literally decades--all of them for almost 30 years at least. So when you think about it, think about the families behind these men and women. Think about their sacrifices. They are sacrificing a lot right now, and there is a lot of uncertainty. In my view, it is just a big mistake.

Again, I am with Senator Tuberville on the policy of the Biden administration and Secretary Austin. We have got to fix that. But this tactic of making the military members who have nothing to do with it, of punishing them and their careers--which is what is happening, don't kid yourself--it is hurting their families. It is the wrong way to go about it, especially at this very dangerous time.

So, Madam President, I am going to call up the next promotion: VADM James W. Kilby to be U.S. Navy Admiral and Vice Chief of Naval Operations.

Now, if you want to talk about a readiness issue, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations is the person who is going to be in charge, for America, of our very decrepit shipbuilding and industrial base. Everybody knows that that is a readiness problem, and I have been told by many military officers that Admiral Kilby is the person--the leader--who can turn America's shipbuilding in the right direction. We have a giant readiness issue on shipbuilding. This person is the individual who can turn it around.

I have been told by many, and here is why: In over 30 years in the Navy, he commanded the USS Russell, which is a DDG-59, and the USS Monterey, a CG-61. Vice Admiral Kilby's additional sea tours were on the USS Sampson, a DDG-10; the USS Philippine Sea, a CG-58, two tours on the USS San Jacinto. Vice Admiral Kilby most recently served as the Deputy Commander of all U.S. Fleet Forces Command.

So he is a very important person. We could get moving right now to help our very weak industrial capacity and build ships, which everybody knows, as it relates to China, is probably one of the most important readiness issues we have to deal with. This person tonight--this leader tonight--could be confirmed to start that shipbuilding capacity for America tomorrow as the Vice CNO.

So with that, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 335, James W. Kilby, to be Admiral and Vice Chief of Naval Operations; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, the next nominee--again, we are doing them one at a time, one at a time. I thought that is what my colleague and friend from Alabama wanted. He still hasn't explained why ``one at a time'' is not what he wanted, but maybe he will do that.

This is regular order, by the way. For those who wonder, Well, it is not regular order, nobody knows what that means, but this is regular order because, in the Senate for 200 years, we have brought up and confirmed one- and two- and three-star Generals just like this: regular order voice votes.

So when my colleague said: I am good to go with bringing up individuals for a voice vote, for a vote, that is what we are doing. That is what we are doing. There is no explanation over there so far.

OK. Let me talk about MG Sean A. Gainey of the U.S. Army. We are trying to get him promoted to be Lieutenant General and Commanding General of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command. Wow. That is a really important billet, the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command. So we want a leader on those issues.

Here is a little bit about Major General Gainey: 33 years--33 years-- of patriotic service. He has served as Deputy Commanding General for the U.S. Army Cadet Command, the 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command, and on the Joint Staff as the Deputy Director for Force Protection, J8, overseeing the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization. Major General Gainey has deployed in support of Operation Joint Task Force-East and Operation Enduring Freedom. Most recently, Major General Gainey served as the Director, Joint C-UAS Office, and Director of Fires in the G3/5/7 at Headquarters of the Army.

In essence, this general is an expert not just on missile command but on fires to protect our Nation--very qualified. I hope we can confirm him right now. Our country needs him.

Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 47, Sean A. Gainey, to be Lieutenant General and Commanding General, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command--a really important billet and a really important command; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, let me move on to another Army officer and the same kind of billet that, again, really matters. This would be again on missile defense. This is Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant of the U.S. Space Force--I apologize. I mentioned he was in the Army. He is actually in the U.S. Space Force--to be Lieutenant General Commander, Space Systems Command, U.S. Space Force--again a really important billet.

Once again, if you look at this career, it is 29 years--29 years--of patriotic service to our country. Think about what his family has been through--multiple deployments.

Lieutenant General Garrant has served as the Commander of the 689 ARSS Air Armament Center, Eglin Air Force Base, and Vice Commander and Deputy Air Force Program Executive Officer for the Space and Missiles Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base.

By the way, these officers who are doing all of the space work--Space Force, Army, Navy--are brilliant. We don't have their resumes in terms of their schools, but I guarantee you these are physicists--brilliant, brilliant Army, Space Force, Air Force officers whom all Americans should be proud of.

Lieutenant General Garrant most recently served as Deputy Chief of Space Operations Strategy, Plans, Programs, and Requirements for the U.S. Space Force.

We can confirm him right now by an individual voice vote, Madam President. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 293, Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant, U.S. Space Force, to be Lieutenant General and Commander, Space Systems Command, U.S. Space Force; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, I am going to bring up another important Lieutenant General. When we talk about mental health and we talk about taking care of our troops--we have got a big suicide problem in our military in Alaska--having the top Surgeon General in the military is also really important. These aren't just combat positions. These are other really important positions.

I want to talk about BG Mary V. Krueger, U.S. Army, to be Lieutenant General and the Surgeon General of the U.S. Army. Brigadier General Krueger has had a 32-year career in the Army. She has served as the Supervisory Assistant for Deputy Health Affairs, Assistant Secretary for the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, the Commander of U.S. Army Health Clinic, and the Division Surgeon for the 4th Infantry Division.

Again, boy, do we need that. In my State, with my troops, my military, the mental health issues are so important. Having the leader in the Army as Surgeon General will only enhance that issue. And we are to say that none of this impacts readiness?

The Brigadier General's deployments include to Tikrit, Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn, from 2009 to 2012. Most recently, Brigadier General Krueger served as the Commanding General of the Regional Health Command--Atlantic.

I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 283, Mary V. Krueger, to be Lieutenant General and the Surgeon General of the U.S. Army; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Madam President, let me move on to another service. This is RADM Daniel Cheever, U.S. Navy, to be Vice Admiral and Commander of Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific.

One thing that we always think about in the military, when you think 28, 29, 30 years and the combat experience, is that the experience that they bring is just remarkable. It is, by the way, the best military in the world. And this Rear Admiral, in his career, has this in spades.

With 34 years in the Navy so far, Rear Admiral Cheever commanded Carrier Strike Group 4, Strike Fighter Squadron 147--the VFA 147. So a carrier strike group--that is commanding a carrier strike group. That is several ships around an aircraft carrier. That is giant experience, and we are making this person, this great leader, sit on the bench when our country is in peril.

Rear Admiral Cheever has extensive EUCOM and CENTCOM experience as a Naval Amphibious Liaison Element for the Commander, U.S. Sixth Fleet and 17th Air Force, and as a battle director at Combined Air and Space Operations Center, U.S. Central Command.

Most recently, Rear Admiral Cheever served as the Director of Plans, Policies, and Strategy at the North American Aerospace Defense Command and Director of Policy and Strategy at U.S. Northern Command--so, again, a great warrior right here, a carrier strike group commander. Only America produces these great warriors.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 181, Daniel L. Cheever, to be Vice Admiral and Commander of the Naval Air Forces; Commander, Naval Air Force U.S. Pacific Fleet, the fleet that will take on China--we have a war there; we need this officer--that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President immediately be notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, this one is special to me, since we are doing all the different services: Space Force, Navy, Army, Air Force. This is Maj. Gen. Roger Turner, U.S. Marine Corps, to be Lieutenant General and Commanding General, Third Marine Expeditionary Force and Commander of Marine Forces Japan.

The III MEF, as we call it in the Marine Corps--we only have three MEFs

in the entire Marine Corps: I MEF, II MEF, and III MEF. This is the MEF in Okinawa, forward deployed, waiting, ready to protect our interests in the Taiwan Strait, in Indo-PACOM. Right now, III MEF doesn't have a three-star general; neither does I MEF.

Again, that doesn't impact readiness? Of course, it does. Anyone who knows anything about the military knows that that impacts readiness. One of the most important fighting forces in the American military, III MEF, needs a Lieutenant General in charge.

Maj. Gen. Roger Turner has served in the Marine Corps since 1984. He most recently served as Commanding General of the First Marine Division. That is at Camp Pendleton--really important, big division, infantry division, great experience.

Previously, he served as a Commanding General of the Marine Air Ground Task Force Command and the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center--incredible combat experience, ready to go if there is a Taiwan Strait crisis or another challenge in the Indo-PACOM theater. We really need this general.

For that reason, we can confirm him right now--right now--by voice vote, singular, what the Senator from Alabama has been asking for. We will see.

So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 191, Roger B. Turner, Jr., to be Lieutenant General and Commanding General, Third Marine Expeditionary Force, and Commander of Marine Forces Japan; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Madam President, I just want to talk about an issue I just heard about from two officers just today on this issue of readiness, on this issue of maybe this whole episode is creating a ``Fat Leonard'' scandal 2.0 that is like I said earlier when the Navy had some of their top officers kind of wiped out due to corruption. They lost a whole generation of senior officers with specific fleet experience, which we are still actually dealing with.

What we are starting to see here--I am hearing it; I have a lot of contacts; I have my colleagues whom I have served with. We are starting to see that here. Imagine we are facing a really, really dangerous world, that we have Senate politics driving military officers--our best--I mean, are you listening to these bios? All 30, 35 years of incredible combat experience. And we are driving them out.

As Senator Graham said, some are going to be timed out, eventually. A couple are hitting that already. If you get selected and you don't pin on by a certain time, you are gone. Think about how bitter you would be.

But here is the other thing. Just today, I heard it, too--I am not going to name them--Navy officers who are saying: You know, I think I am done with this. I did 28 years. I did seven deployments. My family sacrificed. And I am sitting here being held up, when my country needs me, on an issue I have nothing to do with--and, by the way, Navy, submarine commanders, aircraft carrier commanders, pilots--these guys can go out and make huge money. So I am hearing it. I am hearing it.

We--not we--some of us are driving our senior Admirals and Generals out. They are saying: I am done with this. I can serve my country another way. I can make a ton of money in the private sector. My family deserves it.

That is happening. That is happening. And it is wrong. It is wrong. We all know it is wrong. By the way, if we are here like a year from now and we are still dealing with this and we look back, we are like, holy cow, look at these great combat veterans with all this experience, and they left us; they left us because we forced them out. We are going to look back at this episode and just be stunned at what a national security suicide mission this became.

By the way, I am so honored to be standing shoulder to shoulder, literally, here on the Senate floor with my good friend and colleague Senator Ernst. You know, we have the Army and Marine Corps represented right here on the floor. This is a joint op. It is a joint op. Protecting our troops. Fighting for our troops. That is what marines and soldiers do well. This is a joint op. And we are going to stay here until our list is done. Because you know what? There are a lot of people who sacrifice so much for this country.

And to my colleague from Alabama, you still haven't answered the question--this is regular order, by the way. All these noms have been voted out of committee. I am sure you voted for most of them. I voted for almost all of them. Regular order, out of committee. And again, I am quoting you: I am not blocking anyone from getting confirmed. I am not blocking a single vote. If they want those votes on these nominees one at a time, I am all for it, and we will probably vote for them.

That is the quote from my colleague from Alabama. So what is up with that? We are right here. One at a time. One at a time. Regular order.

This is regular order, by the way, because for 200 years, the Senate has voted for nominees by voice vote at one- and two- and three-star General levels. It is different for the four-star. But this is regular order.

So my colleague hasn't answered the question yet. It would be good to hear why because we are putting time and effort into it. I actually thought he was going to come down and say, Hey, you know what? You guys did what I mentioned, one at a time, each one, regular order.

So, what, are you going to make us vote on a Brigadier General with a Silver Star twice? That probably has never happened in U.S. history. I don't know. It would be good to get an answer to that question.

By the way, on Iowa, what a great story from my colleague. You know, I was doing some training in Alaska many years ago, and the Iowa National Guard was out there. These guys were huge, big. Got a picture, sent it back to Senator Ernst. Corn-fed. You don't want to mess with the Iowa National Guard, I would say that for sure.

So, Madam President, let's get back to this. Maybe my colleague will have a change of heart here. Maybe he will get back to folks--whoa, maybe we should. And, by the way, we have the perfect opportunity for someone in a really, really important billet. And this is for Maj. Gen. David Iverson, U.S. Air Force, to be Lieutenant General and Deputy Commander of U.S. Forces, Korea. U.S. Forces, Korea is really, really important. It is run by a four-star General. And this would be the Deputy Commander.

By the way, the Korean Peninsula could go any day. Tomorrow, we could be at war in Korea. I am a big Korean war history buff. Do you know what happened in 1950 in the Korean war? We had civilian and senior military leaders in America who did not care about readiness. Sound familiar? And when the North Koreans launched their surprise invasion, American soldiers by the thousands were killed because there was no readiness. We don't want that to happen again on the Korean Peninsula. We don't want it to happen. So this guy needs to be confirmed.

And look at his resume: Maj. Gen. David Iverson most recently served as the Vice Director for the Joint Force Development on the Joint Staff. His over 32 years in the military, served in a variety of flying duties to include evaluator instructor, flight commander, chief of weapons, director of operations, commander at the squadron level. He has commanded at the flight squadron, twice at the wing level. That is huge. Incredible military experience. Two wing commands. He also served as a congressional legislative liaison in the 609th Air Operations Center command in Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Iverson is a command pilot with over 5,400 hours.

America, you should be proud of these people. And I know you all are. He has 5,400 hours, including 1,500 combat hours. And we are making this guy sit. We are making him sit--1,500 combat hours. F-15, TF30. I mean--Madam President, we should confirm this great American right now. And we have the opportunity to do it.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 187, David R. Iverson, to be Lieutenant General and Deputy Commander, U.S. Forces Korea--Commander, Combined Air Component Command; United Nations Command, Commander, Combined Air Command, Combined Forces Command, Korea, and Commander, 7th U.S. Air Force, Pacific Air Forces; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, well, that was another downgrade of readiness for America right there.

Madam President, let me go into another very, very impressive military member. We don't talk about this part of our military that much; but, boy, oh boy, is it important. And this is for Maj. Gen. Andrew Gebara, of the U.S. Air Force, to be promoted to Lieutenant General and Deputy Chief of Staff

for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force.

Let me run that by you again: strategic deterrence with nukes and nuclear integration.

I would say that is a pretty darned important billet.

Let's hear about Major General Gebara's 32-year career. He has served as the Commander of the 325th Weapons Squadron, Eighth Air Force, and Joint-Global Strike Operations Center. Major General Gebara is a command pilot with more than 3,800 flight hours.

There you go. The best, most experienced military members in the world, right here, sitting on the sidelines, not in the game. On the bench. And we can change that right now; 46 combat air sorties, and everything--get this--from the A-10 to the B-2. This guy is a stud.

In support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Major General Gebara most recently served as Special Assistant to the Director of Staff of the Headquarters of the U.S. Air Force. And we can confirm this nomination by a voice vote right now.

Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 51, Andrew J. Gebara, to be Lieutenant General and Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, headquarters: U.S. Air Force; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, again, strategic nuclear deterrence. Pretty darned important. I guess he is going to have to sit on the sidelines for longer.

I want to go now to another element of our military, and that is Special Operations. And this is an opportunity for a really storied military leader, Lt. Gen. James Slife, U.S. Air Force, to be four-star General and Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force. Again, you have the Chiefs of Staff--those are the Joint Chiefs--and then they have the Vice Chiefs. The Vice Chiefs are so important because they run the enterprise of the Air Force. This General will essentially run the Air Force in so many ways. Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force. This is one of the most important nominations of the evening.

Let's hear about Lieutenant General Slife. Again, 33-year career. Putting all his time, effort--I am sure his family's effort--dedicated patriot to America. Has served most of his career in aviation special operations. Senator Ernst knows a lot about that. He has held commands at the Air Force Special Operations Command, 1st Special Operations Wing, and 27th Special Operations Group--33 years. Imagine what this patriot has done to protect America. He probably can't talk about half of it. He has deployed extensively over three decades in support of combat operations all over the world, most recently in Afghanistan. Lieutenant General Slife most recently served as Deputy Chief of Operations for Headquarters, Air Force.

This General, right now, if we just have one Senator say ``good to go,'' will be confirmed as Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force. Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 338, James C. Slife to be General and Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

This next one, I believe, is an empty billet. I am pretty sure. I have to double-check my math here.

This is Shoshana Chatfield to be Vice Admiral and U.S. Military Representative to NATO. NATO. There is a lot going on in NATO right now, and we don't have this Vice Admiral in her position as a Military Representative to NATO? That is not impacting readiness?

Let's hear about Rear Admiral Chatfield's 35-year naval career. She is a pilot. She has commanded HC-5 and, upon its disestablishment, was the Commanding Officer of HSC-25, the Island Knights. She subsequently commanded a Joint Provisional Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan, was a Type Wing Commander of the HSC Wing in the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and the Commander of the Joint Region Marianas.

Think about that experience. Think about that experience. We need people understanding INDOPACOM, Marianas, to take on China.

Operationally, she has flown the SH-3, the CH-46 Delta, the MH-60 Sierra, and deployed in helicopter detachments to the Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf, supporting carrier strike groups and amphibious- ready group operations--carrier strike groups and amphibious-ready strike groups. Those are Marine amphibious-ready groups. She has done both, INDOPACOM and in the Middle East.

Now she is going to be a three-star Representative Admiral at NATO, and we are keeping her on the bench. We could confirm her right now. Look at that experience--35 years as a naval aviator.

She most recently served as the President of the Naval War College, so she is brilliant as well. Sitting on the bench.

Madam President, we need to confirm her now; therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 90, Shoshana S. Chatfield to be Vice Admiral and U.S. Military Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, let's go directly to our great U.S. Navy. This is James P. Downey to be Vice Admiral and Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command.

Again, we all know that the Navy is the critical service. They are all critical, but when it comes to China, we have some catching up to do. This is a critical command billet.

Let's hear about Rear Admiral Downey, James P. Downey. He has served in the Navy for 36 years.

I would like to--Senator Ernst, maybe we just need to add up the experience that we are talking about tonight. Everybody is at least 30 years. It is like over 1,000 years. It makes you proud as an American. It makes me sure darn proud.

Thank you, Rear Admiral Downey, for your 36 years of service to our great Nation and great U.S. Navy.

He served as the Commander of the Navy Regional Maintenance Center-- boy, do we need expertise in maintenance for our Navy--and as the Program Executive Officer for U.S. Aircraft Carriers. Wow, that is great experience, and we need that every day.

He most recently served as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition. Additional operational assignments include Intelligence Briefing Officer to the Commander and Chief, Combined Forces Command, U.S. Forces Korea, and multiple deployments in the North Atlantic, Baltic, Arctic Circle--probably up in my neck of the woods in Alaska--and the Indo-Pacific. Incredible experience here.

We need to promote him, and we can do it right now with a voice vote, right here. We are bringing up individual nominees, individual votes, as my colleague from Alabama requested, so let's do it.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of

the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 113, James P. Downey to be Vice Admiral and Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, let's go back to my beloved Marine Corps. I love the Marine Corps. I mean, I love all the services, but I really love the Marine Corps.

Madam President, this is another critical element of the Marine Corps. Of course, everybody thinks about infantry with the marines, but our aviation component is so important and so darn good. Marine Corps aviation has made Americans proud for decades and decades and decades.

We have Bradford J. Gering to be Lieutenant General and Deputy Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps Aviation Section at Headquarters, Marine Corps.

Maj. Gen. Bradford Gering has served in the Marine Corps since 1988. He most recently served as the Commanding General of I MEF.

Just so everybody knows, I MEF, which I talked about earlier, is the I Marine Expeditionary Force, commonly known in the Marine Corps as the Imperial MEF, probably the best combined warfighting machine in the U.S. military. I am a little biased, but it is true.

He is a I MEF Commander. In the Marine Corps, you don't get any better than that. You don't get any more experienced than that. And he has had multiple deployments. He is a combat veteran with unbelievable experience, and he is sitting on the bench.

We need to get him in the fight, and we can do it right now. We can confirm this great American patriot by voice vote right now. Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the follow nomination: Executive Calendar No. 111, Bradford J. Gering to be Lieutenant General and Deputy Commandant, Aviation Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, I am still--I think we are both, Senator Ernst and I. We are still just kind of confused on the ``one by one,'' as my colleague and friend--he is my friend. So I mean that sincerely. He said: I am all for it if nominees come up one at a time. I am all for it. That is a quote. That is what we are doing--one at a time, one by one, as Senator Ernst has said.

And some of these, you know, if you serve in the military long enough, you know these people personally. And the next nominee I want to talk about I know quite well, Kenneth Wilsbach. He is a four-star General right now, and he is in charge of the Pacific Air Forces-- incredible experience. General Wilsbach will move in to be the U.S. Air Force Commander of Air Combat Command, one of the top billets in the U.S. Air Force--a guy with incredible experience, with a wonderful wife and a wonderful family.

He served as the Alaska Command Commander. That is the subcomponent command under INDOPACOM and NORTHCOM for Alaska--a three-star General in charge of all forces in Alaska. So I know him. He is an exceptional patriot and so deserving of this promotion.

And, by the way, it has nothing to do with the policy dispute that we actually agree on, all my colleagues here. We think what Secretary Austin did to light this fire was not helpful at all. The civilian military leadership over at the Pentagon--that is where I do agree with my colleague from Alabama. Certainly, there is more focus on nonwarfighting issues--the civilians, not the uniformed ones.

But let's go back to General Wilsbach, a 38-year career in the Air Force--38 years. I know this guy, a great family. He is a patriot warrior. He has commanded a fighter squad and operation group, two wings, two numbered Air Forces, and held various staff assignments, including Director of Operations, Combined Air Operations Center; Director of Operations U.S. Central Command.

Central Command--that is the Middle East. I was a staff officer out there, for a year and a half, to our CENTCOM Commander many years ago.

So General Wilsbach has great Middle East experience, which we need today, but he also has great INDOPACOM experience. Right now, he is the Commander of Pacific Air Forces--right now. He is doing a great job. If there is going to be a war with China, this is the guy who knows it. I mean, you can't ask for better experience.

Let's continue with General Wilsbach. He is a command pilot with more than 5,000 hours of flying--and we are going to put him on a bench--in multiple aircrafts, primarily F-15Cs, F16Cs, MC-12s, and F-22 Alphas. We have a lot of those in Alaska. And he has flown 71 combat missions in Operation Northern Watch, Southern Watch, and Operation Enduring Freedom.

As I mentioned, General Wilsbach currently serves as the Commander of the Pacific Air Forces, the Air Component Commander of U.S. INDOPACOM, and the Executive Director of the Pacific Air Combat Operations staff.

A great patriot, whom we need to confirm right now--we can do it. We can do it right now by voice vote--regular order, by the way, regular order. Don't say it is not because it is, and we are doing them individually, which is what was asked.

So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 198, Kenneth S. Wilsbach, to be Commander of U.S. Air Combat Command, one of the most important commands in the U.S. Air Force--in the U.S. military, let's face it--that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, let me talk about another really important billet that I know a lot about, given that a lot of its assets are in

Alaska, and, again, this is such an important billet to not leave without a leader. This will be for Heath A. Collins to be Lieutenant General and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency.

What does MDA do? What does the Missile Defense Agency do? Oh, it just protects America from all incoming missiles. Huh, that is not important. That is what the Missile Defense Agency does. Maj. Gen. Heath Collins, U.S. Air Force, needs to be promoted to be the head of the MDA.

So in Alaska, we call ourselves the cornerstone of missile defense. All the ground-based missile interceptors that protect the whole country are in Alaska, at Fort Greely. All the radar systems that essentially can track anything coming from North Korea, Iran, it is all in Alaska. We protect everywhere: Iowa, Alabama, Rhode Island, Florida. That is Alaska. We protect the whole darn Nation, our great warriors up there, and the Missile Defense Agency is in charge of overseeing all of it. So it is pretty darn important, especially with Iran wanting to lob missiles all over the world.

Let's talk about Maj. Gen. Heath Collins. Again, with a 30-year Air Force career, he served as a program executive officer for fighters and bombers, System Program Director for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Program, Deputy Director for Infrared Space Systems Directorate and the Remote Sensing Systems Directorate, and Commander of Space Based Infrared System Space Squadron.

Now, I am not going to repeat what I just said, but he is obviously incredibly smart. Think about all that he has commanded and the technological elements of his experience to protect America. Almost every billet he has had has been about protecting America. He is perfectly qualified to be the Director of the Missile Defense Agency.

He recently served as the Program Executive for the ground-based weapons systems for the Missile Defense Agency, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

He probably loves the Crimson Tide, or maybe I should say Auburn. I don't want to get in trouble in that regard with my colleague here.

So, again, America needs the Director of Missile Defense--like, hello. So let us do it. Let us do it right now. Here is the opportunity. The Missile Defense Agency is really, really important. My state knows a lot about it.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 237, Heath A. Collins, to be Lieutenant General and Director of the Missile Defense Agency; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, by the way, thank you for presiding tonight. It is important, what we are doing, and we always need people, and all the staff. It is getting a little late here. So we appreciate it. This is important for our country, and maybe we are going to get a change of heart from my colleague at a certain point because I am going to turn now to the Navy. I got a bunch of nominations that relate to the Navy.

Now, I have been very critical of the Biden administration. The President's budget the last 3 years has shrunk the Army, shrunk the Navy, shrunk the Marine Corps; right? That is the wrong message to send to Xi Jinping and Putin right now. But we do need these leaders here. And, by the way, a lot of leaders are frustrated with the Biden administration, but they are professionals. So they don't say anything. They are apolitical. They are not involved in this dispute that is riling up their promotions.

But let me just talk about a really important member of the Navy, and I happen to know a lot about it since I serve on the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Naval Academy.

This is the nomination of Yvette M. Davids to be Vice Admiral and Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy.

Now, as I mentioned, I have served on the Board of the Naval Academy since I got here. One of the biggest honors of my life was when Senator McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, asked me to sit on that Board in his stead. And he told me: Dan, I went there. My dad went there. My grandpa went there. This is really important.

So I pretty much make every Board meeting. I take it very seriously, and I will tell you this: This is one of the best, if not the best-- sorry to my colleague from Rhode Island--military academy, but college in the United States. I mean, especially now that we are seeing this. Look, I went to Harvard, and I am so embarrassed by that place that I don't even like admitting it, what is happening right now on the campus there, anti-Semitism, weak leadership.

The Naval Academy, our service academies are fantastic. They are not perfect, but they do such a great job. But they need leadership. And I have gotten to know the other Naval Academy Superintendents--fantastic leaders. Right now, we don't have one. The billet is empty. We have an acting. Actually, he is acting because he is getting ready to go to the Seventh Fleet, but my colleague from Alabama just didn't allow him to go to the Seventh Fleet. So the Acting Superintendent of the Naval Academy should have been out to the Seventh Fleet.

Let us look at Yvette Davids' bio--so impressive. She is a Rear Admiral right now, with 34 years in the Navy. She commanded the USS Curts, deploying to the Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, and the USS Bunker Hill, serving as the Air Defense Commander for the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group. Think how impressive this is. Her most recent operational assignment was as Commander of the Nimitz Strike Group. She was a Commander of a carrier strike group in the Carrier Strike Group 11. That is the ultimate in American power.

You can't teach that in 2 years. It takes 30 years. She can go teach Naval Academy students right now--the next leaders of the Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy--and she is sitting on the bench.

Her flag assignments include Senior Military Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs at the State Department, Carrier Strike Group Command, Chief of Staff, U.S. Southern Command, and the Director of the Navy's Learning to Action Board drive team.

Rear Admiral Davids is currently the Acting Commander for Naval Surface Force for the U.S. Pacific Fleet--an incredible bio. The Naval Academy--I know it because I am on the Board. We want her to get there. We certainly want her to get there in time for the Army-Navy game so the U.S. Naval Academy can beat Army badly. Sorry, my colleagues from the Army. We got to have a little fun here tonight.

So let us do it right now, by voice vote, for this great patriot.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 192, Yvette M. Davids, to be Vice Admiral and Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, let us continue with the Navy--again, such an important service. They are all important. But in a big throw- down with China, we have to have a stronger Navy, a bigger Navy, a more lethal Navy, and this next nominee is going to be that person--RADM Brendan R. McLane, U.S. Navy, to be Vice Admiral and Naval Surface Forces Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

What does that mean? That is the Surface Commander for all U.S. naval forces in the INDOPACOM theater, who would be in charge if we had a contingency with China. That is pretty darn important.

So let us hear about Rear Admiral McLane's 33-year Navy career.

Again, are you noticing something? It is 33, 34, 35--General Wilsbach, 38 years. Patriots--and now they are like: Wait. Why am I stuck? Why are they going after my career? It is something I have nothing to do with.

It is wrong. We all know it is wrong. It is wrong.

In Rear Admiral McLane's 33-year naval career, he has served as the Commodore of Destroyer Squadron 50--a huge deal--commanded Task Force 55 and Coalition Task Force 152, U.S. Fifth Fleet. Additionally, he served aboard the USS Lewis B. Puller, the USS Vicksburg, the USS Moosbrugger, Destroyer Squadron 14, the USS Simpson. Jeez, look at all of these commands and deployments.

While in command of the USS Kearny, his ship won the Battle ``E'' and Battenberg Cup and deployed with the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group for the U.S. Fifth Fleet. By the way, the ``Ike'' carrier strike group is in the Middle East right now.

In major command, he served as Commodore of Destroyer Squadron 50, commanded Task Force 55 and Coalition Task Force 152, U.S. Fifth Fleet--again, the Middle East.

Most recently, Rear Admiral McLane served as the 60th Commander of Naval Surface Force Atlantic.

The amount of experience we are hearing tonight that we are not letting go fight and protect our nation--it makes you humble, by the way, when you hear about all these great patriots, but it sure makes me frustrated. They are on the bench.

But let us try and get them off the bench. We can confirm this nominee by voice vote right now.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 193, Brendan R. McLane, to be Vice Admiral and Commander, Naval Surface Forces; Commander, Naval Surface Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, I am going to talk about one more Navy officer. We have a number to go. I am going to do this quick. This is Christopher S. Gray to be Vice Admiral and Commander of Navy Installations Command. He has got a great resume, a 34-year Navy career.

Rear Admiral Gray has been the Commanding Officer of the Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron before reporting as Operations Officer aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, where he conducted back-to-back deployments to the Arabian Gulf in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

At sea, Gray has served in operational assignments with Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadrons and a flag aide to the Commander in the U.S. Second Fleet, Striking Fleet Atlantic.

More recently, Rear Admiral Gray served as the Commander of the Navy's Mid-Atlantic Region on June 30, 2020.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 195, Christopher S. Gray, to be Vice Admiral and Commander, Navy Installations Command; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

``Oorah.''

It is good to see the Presiding Officer in the Chair. I appreciate his being here.

Mr. President, several of my nominations that I have been trying to get my colleague to agree with--again, he still hasn't answered the quote ``If they want to vote on these nominees one at a time, I am all for it. I will probably vote for them.'' He still hasn't answered that. We are doing it. We are doing it. This is not a joke either. We are watching the experience of America's greatest military generation probably since World War II just kind of being flushed down a river right now. Just listen to this.

Now, the one thing that is really disturbing to me is how many of these nominees are from the U.S. Navy. My dad was in the Navy. I love the U.S. Navy. But we know that the Navy right now is being stressed. The President sent two carrier strike groups over to the Middle East. We need carrier strike groups in the INDOPACOM.

President Biden--and I criticize him a lot for this--is shrinking the Navy. That is idiotic. But our Navy officers and enlisted are going through a really stressful period because they are needed all over the world, and they are ready or are trying to be ready for any kind of contingency. It is tough to do a 9-month deployment and then come around, do the maintenance, and get back at it.

But what I have been noticing is how many of these holds are impacting the Navy. I am going to go through like five more right now. I just did five. If we want to be a global, capable, powerful nation, especially today, you need a strong U.S. Navy.

And the idea of reading these military members' experiences and how there is this big jam-up now, that this is not impacting readiness is patently absurd--patently absurd--with all due respect to my colleague.

So let's just keep talking about the Navy and the men and women in the Navy and the great experience that they have. We need a lot of help from the Navy right now, and we have the Senate making leaders in the Navy sit on the bench. So let's talk about some of these leaders, and maybe my colleague will budge--maybe my colleague will budge.

Let's talk about James E. Pitts to be Vice Admiral and Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. Rear Admiral Pitts, a 38-year career in the Navy--there you go, 38 years--let's sit him on the bench during this really difficult time. It includes extensive numerous deployments on nuclear attack submarines. Do you think we need that experience in the South China Sea right now? That is one of our great strategic advantages over the Chinese--notably, as the Commander of USS Tucson and the Submarine Squadron 7 and a number of shore assignments in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Naval Submarine School, and the Joint Staff.

So we have one of America's top naval submarine-experienced Admirals, which is exactly what Xi Jinping and the Chinese fear, and he is sitting on the bench over a dispute, which is a serious dispute. I don't deny that at all. Again, I am where the Senator from Alabama is on that. But these guys have nothing to do with it. All we are doing is hurting our own national security by keeping them on the bench.

So let's get him confirmed right now. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 197, James E. Pitts, to be Vice Admiral and Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, here we go again, more Navy. Like I said, the Navy is stressed, but we do have a great Navy. God love the U.S. Navy. And our submarine force, like I said, keeps Xi Jinping and his communist dictator admirals up at night. And it should because we could crush them with our Navy, as long as it is ready--as long as it is ready.

Well, let's see whom we have next, whom we are holding up next. RADM Robert Gaucher, U.S. Navy, to be Vice Admiral and Commander, Naval Submarine Forces Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Commander of Allied Submarine Command. It sounds like a pretty darn important bill, if you think subs are important, which they are critical.

Let's hear about Admiral Gaucher. He is currently Director of Strategic Integration, the N2, the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral Gaucher's prior operational assignments include service in both fast attack and ballistic missile subs. Who has that experience? No one else in the whole world but our Admirals. It includes service as a division officer, USS Flying Fish, SSN-673; navigator operations officer, USS Oklahoma City, SSN-723; executive officer, USS Maryland; commanding officer, USS City of Corpus Christi; and Commodore of Submarine Development Squadron 5.

I certainly hope that this isn't one of these Admirals who is going to be like: You know what, 35 years, I have all of this experience, I am sick of this. I am leaving.

Could you imagine if this Admiral, with this submarine experience, walked out the door because of the games being played right now? That is a risk. That is a risk, and we don't seem to give a damn. I give a damn.

During these tours, he completed three strategic deterrent patrols in U.S. submarines, as well as deployments to the Arctic--my neighborhood--the Caribbean, North Atlantic, and the Mediterranean. This is incredible submarine experience.

By the way, Xi Jinping is watching us right now going: I can't believe they are not letting these guys command. I am scared to death of subs.

He is loving this, so is Putin. They are loving it. How dumb can we be, man?

But we can confirm this guy, if my colleague just has a change of heart, because we are going to bring them up individually.

So, therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 204, Robert M. Gaucher, to be Vice Admiral and Commander of Naval Submarine Forces Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, and Commander of Allied Submarine Command; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, we are going to continue with the U.S. Navy. Again--I just thought of this--the Chinese admirals and their military, they are probably watching this debate right now, going: I can't believe my luck. I can't believe our luck. Maybe we should attack Taiwan tomorrow.

The whole Navy is being held up. Let's go to another Navy officer.

This is Daniel W. Dwyer to be Vice Admiral and Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Development, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

OK. We have had a lot of good bios here tonight, with a lot of experience. When I saw Vice Admiral Dwyer's experience, I was like: Wow. This should scare the heck out of every Chinese admiral, every Chinese military official when they read this guy's bio.

So let me read it. I hope we can get him confirmed because he is sitting on the bench, and the Chinese are cheering.

Over Vice Admiral Dwyer's 35-year naval career--there we go; 35 years, 40 years--he has commanded Strike

Fighter Squadron, VFA-27; Provincial Reconstruction Team, Kunar Province, Afghanistan; Fleet Replacement Squadron, VFA-106; Carrier Air Wing 8; Carrier Air Wing 17.

As a flag officer--that means as an Admiral--Admiral Dwyer commanded the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, the big stick that every country in the world, including China, fears. He commanded the Teddy Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group. That is unbelievable experience. And he was the 36th Chief of Naval Air Training.

Vice Admiral Dwyer is a career F/A-18 naval aviator, a graduate of the Navy Fighter Weapons School, a.k.a. TOPGUN, in which he completed eight carrier deployments to the Western Pacific, North Atlantic, Mediterranean, and North Arabian Sea, supporting Operation Southern Watch, Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and New Dawn, flying over 75 combat missions.

Vice Admiral Dwyer was most recently the Commander of the Second Fleet and Joint Forces Command.

Xi Jinping reads about a guy like this, and he is scared to death, and we bench him over a dispute Vice Admiral Dwyer has nothing to do with. But maybe we can fix that right now.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 180, Daniel W. Dwyer, to be Vice Admiral and Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Development, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations--so dammed qualified; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, here we go, crushing the Navy. Here is another Navy Admiral that we are going to have him sit on the bench. This is kind of remarkable. I mean, we are going to get to about 60 of these tonight. The experience here is unbelievable, but the U.S. Navy is really being hurt by this, and we need a strong Navy.

Again, the Chinese are like--they are watching it, I guarantee you.

Hello, guys.

And they are like: Gosh. I can't believe how dumb these guys are.

So let's keep talking about whom we are going to bench now. This is Douglas G. Perry to be Vice Admiral and Commander of Second Fleet, Commander of Joint Forces Command Norfolk.

Let's look at Rear Admiral Perry's incredibly impressive career--over 30 years. He began his career serving as a sea division officer, Navy diver, aboard the USS Pittsburgh, SSN-720; executive officer, operations officer aboard Submarine NR-1; and executive officer of the USS Maine. These are all subs. This is another great Admiral with great submarine experience, just what keeps the Chinese up at night, and we are going to bench him. That is SSBN-741.

His deployment experiences span the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic, and Pacific--essentially, the whole world. As commanding officer of the USS Pasadena, SSN-752, he led the ship on highly successful deployments to the Eastern and Western Pacific. Again, that is a sub.

Perry has served as Commander of the Submarine Development Squadron 5, where he led Submarine Force Development of Unmanned Systems and Tactics and Employment and commanded the Navy squadron of Seawolf-class fast-attack subs. These guys are all submariners. The Chinese are scared to death of them, and we are benching them. What are we doing?

Most recently, Perry served as Director of Undersea Warfare Division of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. He is another great submariner to keep Xi Jinping up at night, and we are not going to allow him to get confirmed. But maybe we will.

So, Mr. President, as my colleague had asked, we are bringing individual votes. He still hasn't answered the question why he is not doing what he said he was going to do. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 205, Douglas G. Perry, to be Vice Admiral and Commander of Second Fleet and Commander of Joint Forces Command Norfolk; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I have one more before I turn it over to my colleague from Iowa. It is a joint operation here. The only reason I am doing one more is because, guess what, another Navy officer--another Navy officer. The Chinese are like: Man, I can't believe it. We have been wanting to take out the U.S. Navy for decades, and the U.S. Senate is doing it right now.

So what do we have here, another Vice Admiral, VADM Craig Clapperton, U.S. Navy, to be Vice Admiral and Commander of Fleet Cyber Command, 10th Fleet Commander, Navy Space Command--boy, oh boy.

He has had almost 35 years in the U.S. Navy. He has commanded the Shadowhawks of VAQ-141, the U.S. 6th Fleet, and the NATO command ship, USS Mount Whitney, the USS Theodore Roosevelt. That is a carrier, Carrier Strike Group 12.

These guys are incredible. As an American, it makes you almost want to weep, how great they are.

Listen to this career: During his command tours and his ship and squadron tours, he supported Operation Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, New Dawn, Inherent Resolve, and operated in the Baltic, Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, and Pacific Ocean.

Some of the best naval officers in America, certainly, right here, tonight. And the Chinese are scared to death of Vice Admirals like this, and we are going to let them sit on the bench. But maybe not. So we can confirm him right now by voice vote, individual voice vote, which is what our colleague has asked for.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 138, Craig A. Clapperton to be Vice Admiral and Commander, Fleet Cyber Command; Commander, Tenth Fleet; and Commander, Navy Space Command; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I just want to comment on my colleague here--Joint Forces, Marine Corps-Army operation--but Senator Ernst was talking; she is being very humble. She is such a strong leader on pro- life issues in the Senate and such a strong voice. And I just wanted to really commend her on that. We have had Senator Graham here before. I am proud of my strong record on pro-life issues. I care deeply about it.

Ironically--I mean, of course, we don't know, but I guarantee you-- both of us know in the military so well--that these 380 officers and their families--I am sure not all but probably many, many--have very similar strong views on that important issue. And it is ironic that, somehow, they are being caught up in this, when you think about it. I am sure it is really bitter for them.

It is not just pro-life; it is pro-military views that we have here. And it is not just words. A lot of people just say: I support the troops. No. We have lived it. That is why we are here. It is 10 at night. That is why we have been on the floor for 4 hours. We have lived it, and we have seen the heroes we are talking about today. And we have seen their families.

When you join the military--I always tell my wife and three daughters--you know, whether you are wearing a uniform or not, you are serving. And sometimes--in my view, a lot of times--it is harder for the spouse and the kids who are home when you have deployments and they are caught up in all of this. We haven't even talked about them. They are caught up, thousands of them--thousands of them. And there is polling out right now that is showing that the kids of military families, who are really the big pipeline in the continuing recruiting and people wanting to join the service, that the numbers are declining dramatically, where they are saying: You know what? I don't think I want to do what mom and dad did. I think I am going to not do that. Those numbers are declining. And this isn't helping. This isn't helping.

And I will say another thing in terms of, you know, officers who are dealing--I have talked--again, my grade, I am a senior Colonel. I talked to some Brigadier Generals very recently who are in the Middle East, some of whom are caught up in this. Guess what they are doing right now. They are putting on flacks. They are putting on helmets. They are taking incoming. Right? Just read the paper. And they literally said to me: We can't believe that we are, like, taking incoming again for our country and this is happening.

There is real bitterness. We better wake up. There is a recruiting retention problem. And we better wake up to the fact that this is not helping.

Again, my colleague--oh, no readiness problem. That is such baloney. Baloney. And everybody knows it. Spend one day in the military, and you know it. It really makes me frustrated. Really frustrated. Yeah, guys taking incoming right now caught up in this. I have talked to them. This is just not right. It is not right. We all know it. We all know it.

Mr. President, let's continue on. Another important promotion: a Major General in the U.S. Army, David Isaacson, to be Lieutenant General and Director for Command, Control, Coms and Computers and Cyber Chief Information Officer, J-6, for the U.S. Army.

By the way, that is another theme: subs, Navy, and a lot of cyber--a lot of cyber, which is the new gray area of warfare as Senator Ernst mentioned. And we are keeping our cyber leaders on the bench.

So let's hear about Major General Isaacson's 35-year career in the U.S. Army. He has served as Deputy Commanding General of Army Network Enterprise Technology Command--thank God for smart officers like that-- the Deputy Chief of Staff of the G-6 of the Army; Director of Network Services and Strategy for the Department of the Army. Major General Isaacson has multiple operational deployments, including Operation Just Cause in Panama, Desert Shield, Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Uphold Democracy in Haiti, several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, supporting the Global War On Terrorism and overseas contingencies.

Major General Isaacson most recently served as the Director of Manpower Personnel For Joint Chiefs.

Incredible experience right here. So let's move him. Let's move him. We can do a voice vote. My colleague wanted voice votes on individuals. He still hasn't answered the question why he is objecting to everything.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 391, David T. Isaacson, to be Lieutenant General and Director for Command, Control, Communications, and Computer/Cyber and Chief Information Officer, J-6, Joint Staff--I misstated it earlier. That is not just for the Army. That is for the J-6. That is for the Joint Staff of the U.S. Military. Wow. Really important--that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Mr. President, we haven't had a marine in a while. I love the Marine Corps. It is not the big service, though, so we haven't had as many marines. I will tell you this: This Colonel, Kelvin Gallman, to be Brigadier General in the U.S. Marine Corps, he certainly is not a paper pusher. He is not some woke guy. He is a warrior. He is a warrior.

Let's read about Colonel Gallman: 29 years in the U.S. Marine Corps. He served as the Commanding Officer of the Marine Corps Marine Air Group 26--MAG-26--personnel support detachment. Marine Tilt Rotor Squadron, VMM-261. Those are Ospreys. Marine Aviation and Weapons Tactics Squadron, MAWTS-1. Colonel Gallman has several deployments in support of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here we go, another Marine hero--another Marine hero. By the way, he has nothing to do with this--nothing. He sacrificed--I am going to read what he did. And we are saying: Oh, these guys aren't the warriors. What? Who the hell is saying that?

Colonel Gallman received the Air Medal with a Combat Distinguishing Device for heroic achievement in connection with operations against the enemy as a pilot of a CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter while attached to Marine Air Group 16, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, on 1 April, 2003, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, while providing assault support under direct enemy fire for the U.S. Army 1st Ranger Battalion, in a daunting quest to rescue a U.S. Army prisoner of war from the Saddam Hussein hospital in Nasiriyah, Iraq, and the recovery of nine U.S. casualties, previously killed in action. This mission served as one of history's most daring and successful prisoner- of-war rescues.

Do I need to read that again for anybody? Pure courage. Pure heroism. And what is happening here? This Colonel needs to be promoted to Brigadier General in the Marine Corps.

By the way, that is really hard to do in the Marines. There are not many Brigadier Generals.

Heroic actions. Combat Distinguishing Device flying a helicopter--I guarantee it was at night. He recovered nine U.S. casualties previously killed in action. He went and got dead Americans so they wouldn't be left in the desert of Iraq. And this body is holding him. Come on.

Whatever you think about this issue--and we all agree with the Senator from Alabama--this is not the guy to make a point with. Flying at night recovering POWs and dead Americans--heroic actions--and the U.S. Senate response is ``Thank you very much. You are not going to go anywhere. We are going to punish you. Why? Because we can. Because we feel like it.'' What a bunch of baloney.

Let's try to at least get this guy promoted. Let's try to get this hero, Col. Kevin Gallman, U.S. Marine Corps, to be a Brigadier General because he is not no woke paper-pusher, I guarantee you that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Col. Kelvin W. Gallman to be Brigadier General in the U.S. Marine Corps under Executive Calendar No. 95; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Let's move to the Air Force. Let's move for Scott L. Pleus to be Lieutenant General and Director of Staff at the U.S. Air Force. As you know, Mr. President, being an Army man, West Point grad, Director of Staff of your service is one of the most important positions in your service.

Let's look at Lt. Gen. Scott Pleus's remarkable career. He has 34 years in the Air Force. Lt. Gen. Pleus's time in the Air Force has included serving as Director of Air and Cyber Space Operations and as Executive Officer to the Air Force Chief of Staff. Lieutenant General Pleus is also a command pilot with more than 2,500 flying hours, with combat hours earned during Operations Desert Fox and Southern Watch. Most recently, Lieutenant General Pleus served as Deputy Commander for U.S. Forces Korea--all forces, not just Air Forces--and Commander for the Air Component in United Nations Command in Korea.

Again, phenomenal--phenomenal--American patriot. Thirty-four years. And he is being benched at one of the most dangerous times since World War II. This isn't hurting readiness? Come on. Mr. President, maybe we can get him confirmed.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 184, Scott L. Pleus to be Lieutenant General and Director of Staff, U.S. Air Force; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, let's go back to our great U.S. Navy.

CAPT Craig Mattingly to be Rear Admiral (lower half) in the U.S. Navy. Let's look at Captain Mattingly's 28-year career. He has led Squadrons on deployments supporting EUCOM,

AFRICOM, and CENTCOM; areas of responsibility as commander of multitask force groups. His major command was Commodore of Patrol and Reconnaissance Wing 11. During his tenure as Commodore of CPRW-11, supported global initiatives include the inaugural INDOPACOM deployments of the MQ-4 Charlie Triton unmanned aerial systems in the PA Poseidon Advanced Airborne Sensor--that is a sub hunter--as well as the P-3C radar system.

Captain Mattingly's most recent assignment was serving as Senior Military Advisor to the Secretary of the Navy. He is a naval aviator. He hunts subs, Russian and Chinese subs. How long has he been doing that? He has a little bit of experience here. Captain Mattingly--3,900 flight hours in P-3C Orions and P-8 Poseidon aircraft.

If you are a sub and you are an enemy of America, this guy has tracked you. Again, subs. The Chinese are scared to death of P-8s, and we have one of the best P-8 pilots in America, and he is on the bench, and Xi Jinping and his communist dictator buddies are smiling.

Maybe we can get him done with a voice vote because our colleague asked for individual votes. I think we are almost at 60 individual votes right now--great Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: CAPT Craig T. Mattingly to be Rear Admiral (lower half) of the U.S. Navy under Executive Calendar No. 97; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, let's go back to the importance--you are seeing some themes here. Navy, certainly. Boy, are we decimating the U.S. Navy. Decimating. Unbelievable. I am just shocked at how many Navy Admirals we are putting on the bench right now. The Chinese are smiling. Whoa, are they smiling.

But this is another theme tonight, and, again, we didn't really plan it, Senator Ernst and I; it is just what is happening. We have a big military. Space ops. Cyber and space ops. That is another theme tonight. It is a really, really important area of warfare. The Chinese and Russians are gaining on us. We have the best, though. Here is another one.

David N. Miller to be Lieutenant General and Commander, Space Operations Command, U.S. Space Force. That is a really big, important billet.

Maj Gen David Miller has an over 30-year career where he has commanded at the squadron group and wing levels, including the 2nd Range Operations Squadron, 21st Operations Group in the 46 Space Unit.

Most recently, Maj Gen Miller served as a Special Assistant to the Vice Chief of Space Operations. This is a hugely important billet to protect our entire country. He has incredible background in this area.

Space, cyber, missile defense--those have all been brought up tonight, and all were shut down--without explanation, by the way. We are bringing up individual votes. We still haven't heard why we are not going to allow those to move.

But anyway, Mr. President, we can confirm this nomination right now by a voice vote. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 351, David N. Miller, Jr., to be Lieutenant General and Commander, Space Operations Command, U.S. Space Force; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

I have three more.

Mr. President, we have three more that we are going to do. That will be 61 tonight. And Senator Ernst and I--and I know a lot of our other colleagues want to join us--we are going to keep coming down here. So let me get through these, and then I will have a few words to conclude. And I want to thank the Presiding Officer for staying late. I know you care about this issue as well.

This is Brig. Gen. Robert M. Blake, and he is being considered to be promoted to Major General in the U.S. Air Force--again, incredible, incredible background. He most recently served as the Mobilization Assistant to the Commander Air Force Global Strike Command, Barksdale Air Force Base, LA.

He has flown the C-130 H2 Hercules. He has amassed more than 4,500 hours in military aircraft, including combat sorties and tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Brig. Gen. Blake flew 16 total missions, including 12 air refueling sorties supporting C-5s and C-17s in Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. And he flew 10 missions in support of humanitarian relief for operations for Operation Southern Watch and Enduring Freedom.

Again, a transport aviation pilot, incredible. Just, I mean, we look at these numbers like oh, no big deal--4,500 flying hours in military aircraft. That is incredible experience for our military. So let's get him confirmed. Let's get him confirmed by voice vote, right here, individual, as our colleague requested.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Brig. Gen. Robert M. Blake to be Major General in the U.S. Air Force under Executive Calendar No. 88; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon

the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, another heroic Air Force pilot with incredible experience. Let's just move on to Brig. Gen. Mitchell Hanson. We are trying to get him confirmed to be Major General.

By the way, Senator Graham made this point at the beginning: All of these military members went through their promotion board process. As we all know, the military is kind of an up-or-out organization, right? So for Brigadier General Hanson to go from Brigadier General to Major General--a two-star General--that is really hard to do. These guys are the best, right? We just kind of take it for granted. That is all done by the military, in the military selection boards. They are picking their own, but we have to confirm it.

So, again, think about the frustration--let me read about his background--that they have done all this, the boards have met, they said these are our top people, and we are going to keep promoting them.

Normally, for the last 200 years--by the way, as stated earlier, there are a lot of holds. I have put holds on. No one has ever done a blanket hold on every flag officer promotion for this long in the history of America. Let me repeat that. There has never been one-, two-, three-, four-star Generals and Admirals, a blanket hold on all of them.

People have threatened it. They have done it for a couple of weeks, but it has never been done for almost a year in the history of the United States of America. That is a fact. Contemplate that one.

So let's look at Brigadier General Hanson's background. He most recently served as Mobilization Assistant to the Director of Operations, Air Combat Command. Brigadier General Hanson has served in numerous positions at the squadron group wing in numbered Air Force. That is getting bigger in each unit. You know that, Mr. Chairman, but some people watching might not know.

Brigadier General Hanson has served as a reservist, an individual mobilization augmentee member on the Reserve side of the military. He has flown the A-10 and the F-16 in a variety of operational assignments and as a command pilot, with more than 3,400 hours--again, just enormous experience, flying over 200 combat hours.

He has deployed in support of Operations Desert Storm, Southern Watch, Noble Eagle, Willing Spirit, Enduring Freedom. Brigadier General Hanson executed 20 close air support combat missions supporting NATO and international security assistance forces battling Taliban insurgent fighters in Afghanistan.

He provided armed overwatch for dismounted infantry patrols--the grunts on the ground looking up: Oh, my God, I got air cover. Thank God.

He conducted convoy and helicopter escorts and responded to U.S. infantry platoons on the ground receiving effective fire from an insurgent machinegun team. He employed 160 rounds of 30 mike-mikes against the insurgents and killed them all--killed them all. He saved American grunt lives on the ground. Another hero. Another hero. So we are going to put him on a bench.

By the way, it is a great way to say thanks for your service, Brigadier General Hanson. We will just keep you on the icebox. Thanks for your service. Very heroic.

But maybe my colleague will relent here. We are down to one more. So maybe, maybe it will work.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Brig. Gen. Mitchell A. Hanson to be Major General, U.S. Air Force, under Executive Calendar No. 88; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President immediately be notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, the final one. It is so ironic. I didn't mean it to be this way, but I am so proud of it. It is a U.S. Marine Colonel--I am a U.S. Marine Colonel; these are my peer groups--to be Brigadier General of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Let's read about Col. Richard Joyce to be Assistant Deputy Commandant for Aviation, U.S. Marine Corps--again, another heroic American.

Colonel Joyce has deployed numerous times to Iraq and Afghanistan and served as the Commanding Officer of an attack squadron. He is a Cobra pilot. That is an attack helicopter, the AH-1. He was Director of the staff group for Gen. Robert Neller when he was the 37th Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Colonel Joyce received the Air Medal with the combat distinguishing device--that means heroism in combat--for heroic achievement while participating in aerial flight as an attack helicopter pilot of an AH- 1--that is a Cobra helicopter--assigned to Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 169, deployed with Marine Air Group 40 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom on 22 May 2009. He was under direct fire from three different directions, with enemy forces effectively engaging his aircraft--incoming from three different directions. He placed precision fires on each of these enemy positions, destroying them and providing direct relief to outnumbered friendly forces on the ground.

Not a paper pusher. Not a woke warrior. A real, true American hero right here, and we are going to tell him: Stay on the bench.

Maybe not. This is the last one, Mr. President, No. 61 for the night--a Marine Colonel to be promoted to Brigadier General, who has nothing to do with this damn dispute on the floor here--nothing--and, somehow, he is going to get caught up in this.

By the way, these are the kinds of guys I am hearing about. These are my peer group. They are saying: You know what? Seven deployments, tough on the wife and kids. I am getting stuck in an issue that I have nothing to do with. I can't--you know what, I am punching out. I am punching out.

So we are going to lose guys like this. We are going to lose guys like this.

The Chinese, Putin, Xi Jinping--they are going to be like: Oh, my God, I am so scared of a marine like this. He would come over and kick the you know what out of the Chinese and Russians.

We are going to drive him out of the Marine Corps--drive him out of the Marine Corps.

But maybe not--maybe my colleague will relent on this just last one, just out of good grace. He still hasn't explained why, all that he said about not blocking a single vote if you bring up nominees one at a time. I am all for it. I will probably vote for them. We just brought up 61, one at a time, in regular order. Come on.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Col. Richard D. Joyce to be Brigadier General of the U.S. Marine Corps on Executive Calendar No. 95; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

I am just going to conclude. I am disappointed. We are done here. We don't have any more for tonight, but I think this has been enlightening. I think this has been enlightening because what we have been able to do--hopefully, some people are watching in our great Nation--is to distill to the people of the country: Look at how blessed we are to have these incredible Americans. Look at how blessed we are, how heroic they are.

So my message to our Generals and Admirals who are being held up: Hang in there. Hang in there. Some of us have your back. We have your back. We

will be coming here every night to try and get you guys confirmed.

I have been very honored to be here with Senator Ernst on the floor. And I will tell you that I think she and I both have a feeling that I think a lot of people have--but people who served, mostly--just the love for our military, military families.

I am coming up, just at 30 years in the Marine Corps. The INDOPACOM theater has been the bookends of my career. My first deployment was the INDOPACOM, a Marine amphibious ready group, in the Taiwan Strait.

When the Chinese were threatening to invade Taiwan, we sent a Marine amphibious ready group. I was on that as a young infantry officer, in two carrier strike groups. And we went in the Taiwan Strait and looked at the Chinese and said: Not today, guys. Not today. Not today. The U.S. Marine Corps is here. The U.S. Navy is here. Don't even think about it.

That was almost 27 year ago, and I am out at the Marine Force's Pacific Command. In between, I have deployed as a staff officer in the Middle East, in Afghanistan.

But I think, like Senator Ernst, the biggest honor of my life has been serving and leading marines. I have a lot of good friends in the Senate. I have met a lot of good people in the U.S. Senate. The best people I have ever met in my life by far--not even close--are U.S. marines. They are the best.

And I think what is happening right now--you know, the Marine Corps' motto is Semper Fi, always faithful. And this body is not keeping faith with our military right now. It is not, and the military knows it, and they are frustrated.

So many of these officers had 30 years or more of experience, thousands of years of experience we are putting on hold. The distinct comparative advantages we have say, for example, in submarine forces in the Indo-Pacific theater that the Chinese fear--they fear it--we are putting that on hold.

So I am hopeful that my colleague who left, Senator Tuberville, can work with us. I have been working with him for months. This is just kind of a frustration moment, right? Enough. But I am hopeful we can still work together. I am hopeful we can find a way forward. The idea that I have been pitching to him: Hey, let's lift the hold on the men and women who have nothing to do with this and put a hold on the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, who is in charge of the abortion issue, and he is a civilian. That is the way to use the hold, not to take out a Marine Corps Brigadier General who is a war hero.

So I am hopeful that we are going to make progress on that. We are facing a really dangerous period right now, as you know, as Senator Ernst knows, and we are impacting readiness. We are definitely impacting morale, and that is readiness.

So, again, to my colleague saying, ``Don't worry; there is no problem, no readiness problems,'' no offense, but that is just ridiculous, and he knows it. We all know it.

So we are going to keep working this. I am honored to be on the floor with Senator Ernst. I appreciate, Mr. President, your sticking around.

We are not done. If you are a flag officer--one-star, two-star, three-star, or four-star General--we have got your back. We are going to work this. We are going to work it. You deserve it, and our Nation has to have it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am on the floor again with my colleague from Texas, Senator Cruz, trying once again to pass our Pay Our Military Act.

I am not going to spend a lot of time explaining what we are trying to do here since 48 hours ago we tried to do the same thing. We are, in our conference, right now trying to get to a compromise, working through things to make sure we don't have a government shutdown. It may or may not happen. It is looking more likely, though.

As we get closer to that moment, the idea that we would leave the men and women who protect this country uncertain about whether they are going to get paid even though they are still going to deploy, they are still going to be fighting all over the world, protecting this Nation-- so we are going to leave them out hanging, right?

So all we are trying to do is the most commonsense thing you could do if you cared one bit about the troops of the United States, and that is to say: Hey, we know you are worried. We know you are probably deployed. We know your wife or spouse is back home worried about whether you are going to get paid next week. You have a dangerous mission you are going on tonight somewhere in the world. So we are going to take that worry away from you because we care about you.

Now, granted, my colleagues might say: Well, what about the IRS worker? What about the Department of the Interior worker?

No offense--there is a little bit of a difference, OK. There is a little bit of a difference. We all know it. We should know it.

So as we get closer, this is the bipartisan solution that we all need to undertake.

Here is the thing: As I said last week, when we had the identical situation in 2013, 10 years ago--identical: a Democrat-controlled Senate, a Republican-controlled House, a Democrat-controlled White House--it was looking like there was going to be a shutdown. What did everybody unanimously agree to? Hey, let's take the troops out of this. Let's make sure the men and women who serve in our military are not worried. Let's unanimously pass the Pay Our Military Act.

So, 10 years ago, we did that. I wasn't here, but I applaud everybody who did that. Simple. Identical. Identical. So what has changed? I have no idea what has changed.

It looks like my Democratic colleague is going to come down and object and make some gobbledygook argument about appropriations or ``Let's keep trying.'' The government is going to shut down tomorrow evening. We are going to keep trying. But let's take one group of Americans and say: Hey, we know you sacrifice more than anybody. We are going to take that worry away from you. We did it 10 years ago in a bipartisan way, so we are going to do it again.

The Presiding Officer knows. I guarantee you the Presiding Officer agrees with this bill, as a veteran of almost 30 years, a naval aviator. The Presiding Officer knows what it is like.

There are guys on aircraft carriers right now and women on aircraft carriers flying F-18s, and their spouses back home are going: Hey, honey, guess what. I don't think I am going to have money to buy groceries next week.

That guy is getting ready to take off on some carrier in the INDOPACOM region, and he has to worry about that? He has to worry about that? She has to worry about that?

We can fix that right now--right now. We have done it before, and I can't imagine my Democratic colleagues are going to come up and object to this bill. I am starting to get mad. We don't want a government shutdown, but we can protect certain people, for goodness' sake. If we are not going to protect our troops and their families, I don't know whom we should protect.

So maybe my colleagues are on the floor getting ready to say: You know what, gee, Senator Sullivan, Senator Cruz, we relent. These are good ideas. And you know why we know these are good ideas? Because we all did this 10 years ago.

I have no idea why we didn't do it now.

I yield the floor and recognize my colleague from Texas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of S. 2835 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I am going to try to keep this short because the issues that we are debating here are not that complicated.

I agree with my colleague from Washington State. We are working around the clock. We are in our conference right now trying to get an amendment to bolster border security, that the whole country, by the way, wants--Democrats, Republicans--the whole country wants that. So we are working around the clock too.

And my colleague did misstate something. I actually voted to get on this bill. I voted to get on this bill. So her statement about my vote, she needs to check my vote the other day.

But be that as it may, once again, she says there is only one serious solution. Well, this body has done this before. The Senator from Washington State has done this before. On the eve of a shutdown in 2013, the Senator from Washington State voted for this bill. Every Senator voted for this bill.

So when she keeps saying, ``Let's get real,'' I agree, let's get real. Go look at your vote from 2013. You voted for this on the eve of a shutdown.

I will remind my colleague from Washington State, in 2019, when there was a partial government shutdown, focused on the Coast Guard which wasn't getting paid and the Democrats blocked my bill to pay the Coast Guard, she actually stated:

It is absolutely unacceptable that our Coast Guard families

went without their paychecks during the shutdown. We need to

make sure President Trump doesn't put them through this

again.

Well, I am going to put the Senator from Washington State's words back at her: It is absolutely unacceptable that Coast Guard and other family members went without paychecks during the shutdown. We need to make sure it doesn't happen again. So vote for our bill.

Every time they object, the arguments of why they are objecting to something they already agreed to 10 years ago get more tangled up. We are all working to avoid a shutdown, but if it doesn't happen, let's make sure the men and women who are risking their lives for our country and their families know that they are going to get paid. That is all we are asking. That is all we are asking.

And everybody in this body 10 years ago did this, including the Senator from Washington State. And it is just beyond comprehension that they are coming up with arguments now to not do this.

This isn't about politics. This is about supporting our troops at the moment they really need it. And they are not doing it.

I yield the floor to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. President, I am going to speak about a really important bill that I am hoping we are going to pass right here on the Senate floor. It was passed, by the way, previously. It is called the Pay Our Military Act.

It is pretty simple. In the event of a shutdown--and right now, we are all working hard to make sure we avoid it--we need to make sure that the men and women who protect us get paid. That is it, simple-- really, really simple.

I know back home in the great State of Alaska, there is a lot of frustration with our government. It seems like every day the Biden administration has another order to shut down Alaska, lock up our lands, put people out of work. There are skyrocketing prices on everything from gas to food. Interest rates are at 40-year highs. Illegal immigration, which is just flooding across the southern border, is a literal invasion happening right now. A lot of people are frustrated with what is happening. The potential of a government shutdown is not going to help any of that, in my view.

But this is something that every Member of the Senate should agree on. If there is a shutdown--a lot of us are working hard to avoid that--we need an insurance policy for our military personnel. The brave men and women who are serving on the frontlines right now, at home and abroad--dangerous work to keep us safe--they need nothing less than the unwavering support of the U.S. Senate. For the men and women who protect us, often at great personal sacrifice, the least we can do as their representatives is to ensure that they receive their hard-earned pay, regardless of the political circumstances that may unfold.

My Pay Our Military Act is not about partisan politics. It is not about ideological differences. It is about fulfilling the solemn obligation to our troops and their families, and it is about providing them the stability and peace of mind that they need to do their jobs.

Regardless of what happens here, they will continue to serve, to deploy, to train. We have seen, in the last couple of weeks, that training can also be very dangerous. We had some marines recently killed down in Australia in an Osprey accident. The last thing these men and women need to worry about is whether or not they are going to get a paycheck next week, whether or not they are going to be able to support their families next week in the event there is a government shutdown.

I want to emphasize again that I hope this bill is unnecessary, but the fact remains that this certainly could happen, a government shutdown, and, if it does, we need to pay our military right now.

There is precedent--very strong precedent--on this very bill, this commonsense bill that has historically received the strong support from both sides of the aisle and in both Houses.

Let me be specific. Facing an imminent government shutdown in 2013, which ended up lasting 16 days, this bill, the Pay Our Military Act, was passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate and unanimously by the U.S. House and signed by the President. Congress recognized then the importance of uninterrupted military pay for our military members and their families.

The political makeup, actually, was the same. You had a Democrat in the White House. You had a Democrat-controlled Senate, and a Republican-controlled House. So it is simple.

While I urge my colleagues to put aside their differences and come together in a spirit of unity to support this bill, I am a little concerned. My colleague and friend Senator Cruz and I came down to the floor last week to pass another related bill. This would have guaranteed Coast Guard members got paid in a government shutdown. We did that because, in 2019, the only branch of the military services that didn't get paid when there was a government shutdown was the Coast Guard. Everybody else got paid. The Coast Guard didn't. Senator Cruz and I came down here last week and said: Hey, in the event of a shutdown, we have to make sure the Coast Guard gets paid.

Well, it was blocked. It was blocked. I still don't know what my colleague from Washington State was talking about when she blocked it-- something about, well, the authority of the Appropriations Committee. What? Nobody cares about that. Do you support our troops or not?

This bill is even more simple. Our bill, the Pay Our Military Act, covers all branches, including the Coast Guard and civilians that the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security believe are necessary also to pay. Again, I hope that, like in 2013, this is going to pass unanimously.

As I mentioned, last week, my colleague from Washington State objected to the Pay Our Coast Guard bill. It was confounding, particularly because she was a cosponsor of the exact same bill in 2019. As a matter of fact, here is what she wrote in 2019, when there was a government shutdown and we were trying to pay the Coast Guard:

It's absolutely unacceptable--

This is the Senator from Washington State--

that our Coast Guard families went without their paychecks

during the shutdown. We need to make sure President Trump

doesn't put them through this again.

Whoa. That was the Senator from Washington State during the last shutdown. I wish she would have said that last week.

So I am very hopeful that what happened in 2013--the Senate and the House unanimously came together when there was an imminent shutdown and said: Hey, we might not be able to figure out how to keep the government open, but here is one darn thing we are going to do; we are going to pay our military. I sure hope that we can do that again, and I sure hope people who want to try to use the military as political pawns leading up to a shutdown are not going to be tempted to object to this bipartisan, much needed bill that 10 years ago had the support of everyone.

I yield to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of S. 2835 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, as my colleague Senator Cruz just mentioned, every member of the military just heard ``I object,'' and the Senator from Washington State just said, ``Let's be real.'' ``Let's be real.'' There is nothing more real than putting your life on the line for the country you love and nothing more important than defending those who defend us. Let's be real. I am having a hard time with ``Let's be real.''

What she just mentioned had nothing to do with the bill. Again, 10 years ago, when there was an imminent shutdown just like there is today, which I certainly don't want, the Senate and House and White House came together and said: All right. We know there is a risk, but there are some special people who serve in our government--and, mind you, very special people--who deserve to be taken care of; that is, the men and women and their families who are serving right now overseas, all over the country, protecting Americans.

It is an outrage. It is an outrage to utter those two words: ``I object.'' It is an outrage. And if it happens next week, as Senator Cruz mentioned that there are young men and women around the world protecting us without getting paid and having to worry where they are going to buy or how they are going to buy groceries, I hope they remember the Senator from Washington State's two words: ``I object.'' That was good, old-fashioned hostage-taking, making a marine lance corporal all of a sudden subject to the political whims of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It didn't happen in 2013.

I have no idea, truthfully--no idea--why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not support this Pay Our Military bill.

I am going to keep coming down here all week to get this passed, and hopefully they will have a change of heart.

I yield the floor.

I want to thank my colleague and friend Senator Cruz from Texas, who has presented our bill, the Pay Our Coast Guard Act, which he noted is a bipartisan bill in the Commerce Committee--the chairman, the ranking member. I am the ranking member on the subcommittee in charge of the Coast Guard. The chair of that committee, Senator Baldwin, is also a cosponsor of this bill.

Senator Cruz laid it out really well. This is a very simple bill. The men and women who protect our coastline, who protect our country, who are in the military, whom I see working so hard, risking their lives day in and day out in Alaska, where we have some of the most members of the Coast Guard stationed in our great State than in almost any other State--they need to be protected, and they need to know the U.S. Senate has their back.

Now, it is kind of hard to believe what Senator Cruz just mentioned, but let me repeat what happened in 2019. When there was a partial government shutdown, every branch of the U.S. military--the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force--they all got paid. They all got paid, with one exception--the Coast Guard.

Imagine how you felt if you were in the Coast Guard, watching your brothers and sisters in the other services getting paid and you weren't. There were operations going on in the Persian Gulf where members of the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Coast Guard were doing joint operations against Iranian aggression and one of those members on those ships and boats wasn't getting paid--the Coast Guard members.

So this happened in America. As a matter of fact, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, at the time, ADM Karl Schultz, said:

[T]his marks the first time in our Nation's history that

servicemembers in a U.S. Armed Force have not been paid

during a lapse in government appropriations.

So what are we doing on the floor today? We are saying: Let's not let this happen again.

In the event of a shutdown, which none of us want, let's make sure that what happened--and Senator Cruz just mentioned it. Coast Guard men and women across the country, including in Alaska, woke up for 34 days and did not know whether they were going to get a paycheck and, essentially, had to rely on donations from the communities in which they served to do their job.

Now, look, the communities came together, and that was a wonderful thing. But I have committed to my Coast Guard members in Alaska and throughout the country that this should never happen again. This is a no-brainer, and I certainly hope no Senator is going to come down here and object and say: Well, this is an appropriations issue.

Come on. This is a right or wrong issue. Fix it. We are trying to fix it--right now.

I was the one who came down during the last government shutdown and tried to get unanimous consent. I talked to the President of the United States. He said he was going to sign our bill to pay the Coast Guard, and the Democratic minority leader, at the time, blocked it. I certainly hope none of our colleagues, Democrat or Republican, are going to block it again.

This is a bipartisan bill. It makes sense, and the Coast Guard and their family members are watching. Does the U.S. Senate have their back or not?

I strongly encourage my colleagues to work with us to pass our Pay Our Coast Guard Act bill right now.

Mr. President, I am shocked, disappointed, and, to be honest, stunned. I didn't think anyone was going to object to this bill. It makes no sense to do so. I didn't understand the Senator from Washington's explanation. Her colleague from Washington is actually the chairman of the Commerce Committee and a cosponsor of this bill.

So, again, this is a no-brainer. None of us want a government shutdown, but, if it happens, we can't let what happened in 2019 be repeated. And what happened in 2019 was that every member of the military services was paid, with the exception of the Coast Guard. And I have told them that we won't let that happen again.

So I am going to keep coming down to the floor with Senator Cruz, and we are going to get this bill passed.

And if you are watching and you are a Coast Guard member and you understand what happened, Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate just blocked this bill--a bipartisan bill to make sure you get treated fairly in the event of a government shutdown.

It is the right thing to do. Senator Cruz and I will keep working it to make sure this happens.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am on the floor for a couple of reasons but No. 1 and most important is to congratulate General Smith, Gen. Eric Smith, to be the new Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Now, the Presiding Officer may have seen the vote--a pretty impressive vote, 96 to 0. That does not happen a lot in the U.S. Senate. But every Senator on the floor just an hour ago gave Gen. Eric Smith a huge vote of confidence--and with good reason.

This is a Marine officer who has a stellar career--stellar career. He has commanded at every level in the Marine Corps: as an infantry officer, Weapons Company, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment. As a general officer, he commanded the U.S. Marine Corps Forces Southern Command, 1st Marine Corps Division, III MEF--Marine Expeditionary Force--and Marine Corps Combat Development Command. That is about as stellar a career as it gets.

Additionally, he is a serious combat veteran. As I have noted to my colleagues before, a lot of the flag officers in the military right now were the lieutenants and captains right after 9/11. This is a group of senior military leaders who have seen more combat than certainly almost any other generation since World War II. And General Smith was one of those: wounded in action in Iraq, did not want to go home; frontline commander in combat; served in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, like a lot of commanders during these challenging wars, he had a number of marines and friends killed in action whom he was in command of. So he knows war. He knows the Marine Corps.

I look forward to working closely with General Smith on a whole host of issues related to the Marine Corps and now, as a member of the Joint Chiefs, related to the national defense of our country, including Marine Corps force design, including the Navy's requirement that is in law--in law, if you are watching, Secretary of the Navy Del Toro; it is in law--31 amphibs for the Marine Corps.

So these and many other issues I look forward to working with General Smith on. But again, 96 to 0.

Great job, General. Semper Fi.

Mr. President, I also think it is important to just talk a little bit about how we got here, and to be honest, we should have gotten here a lot earlier--weeks, if not months, earlier.

I am a pro-life and pro-military Senator, so I have been very involved in these negotiations between leadership

and some of our Members on issues of moving forward nominees but also on not agreeing with Secretary Austin's memo as it relates to travel issues.

There have been a number of us who have been trying to get to a resolution on some of the holds that are happening here on the Senate floor.

By the way, holds happen all the time. The way they are resolved 98 percent of the time is through compromise. So that is why I am trying to help my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the administration and the Department of Defense. But in the meantime, there was nothing preventing the majority leader from bringing qualified military members to the floor for a vote--nothing. As a matter of fact, in the Senate, we vote on members of the Joint Chiefs all the time. That is a tradition here--when the Democrats have been in charge, when the Republicans have been in charge--but that has not been the priority here.

In the last several months, we have had 76 rollcall votes, everything from the Assistant Administrator of the EPA to district court judges, NLRB judges, Board members for the National Archives, Assistant Secretaries of Education, HHS. You name it, we have been confirming them, with the exception of one group: military officers.

A lot of the press is saying: Well, that was the Senator from Alabama.

That is not true. That is not true at all. We could be voting on individual members of the Joint Chiefs. That wasn't the priority. That wasn't the priority.

Senator Tuberville was going to make a resolution, signed by 17 Senators, to file cloture on General Smith, and all of a sudden, the majority leader thought it was important to start moving forward on Joint Chiefs of Staff nominees. I think that is good. That shows some compromise. And I think even that little bit of compromise is going to help us on the broader issues that we are all trying to address.

But I do want to just correct the record. In our Ukraine briefing yesterday, Secretary Austin, Secretary of Defense, said he really appreciated Senator Schumer's leadership on filing cloture on these Joint Chiefs we just voted on. Well, with all due respect to Senator Schumer and Secretary Austin, it wasn't his leadership; it was our side of the aisle that forced his hand to do it. That is a fact. That is a fact.

So, Mr. Secretary, I know the Senate procedures can be a little confusing, but you might want to thank this side of the aisle for actually moving forward to make sure that Joint Chiefs are getting confirmed.

So I hope we continue to do that and continue to work like a number of us have been on a broader compromise here to move forward on these other military nominees.

By the way, I do welcome many of my Democratic colleagues' newfound interest in national security. A number of them have been howling about national security and we are not ready and readiness issues. A lot of them, I have never heard them talk about national security, but they are all talking about it now. That is great. Welcome.

By the way, join me in criticizing President Biden for sending to us 3 years in a row three budgets each year that dramatically cut our Department of Defense.

President Biden's budget this year shrinks the Army, shrinks the Navy, shrinks the Marine Corps. It is exactly the wrong message to be sending Xi Jingping and Putin during one of the most dangerous times our has Nation faced since the end of World War II.

So if you are worried about national security, join me on some of these. It is great. I hear a lot of howling from silent voices on national security from the other side of the aisle, so I welcome you to be caring about these issues.

I want to end where I started, and I want to thank and congratulate again General Smith. I also want to congratulate the new soon-to-be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General C.Q. Brown, who is also exceptionally qualified, and the new Chief of Staff of the Army, General George. All three were recently confirmed by the U.S. Senate in overwhelming numbers--overwhelming. That is progress. On both sides of the aisle, that is progress. That is what we needed. I am hopeful that progress will lead to more compromise on these other issues that we all know are important.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, my colleagues and I are down on the floor, talking about national security.

It is clear--and this is testimony from admirals and generals and Department of Defense officials over the last few years--that we are certainly in one of the most dangerous times globally anytime since World War II. We have this new era of authoritarian aggression, led by the dictators in Beijing and Moscow, who are very aggressive and paranoid about their neighbors. They are certainly willing to attack them. So we need to be strong as a nation.

As a matter of fact, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan often talks about situations of strength. Now, this

is actually a phrase that came from Dean Acheson, one of our fabled Secretaries of State. When the Cold War began right after World War II, he talked about confronting the Soviet Union--the strategy of containment--but emphasized situations of American strength. So that is a good framework. It is a good framework. Unfortunately, the Biden administration, especially in a couple of key areas, is not focused on situations of strength at all. Let me give you two, and I really want to focus on one.

The first one, of course, is our military. Pretty obvious. It is a dangerous world. The dictators in Beijing and Moscow understand hard power, and hard power is U.S. military power. So what have we seen from the Biden administration since the President came into office? Three budgets for 3 years in a row that are inflation-adjusted cuts to the U.S. military. That is a fact. Next year's budget will actually go below 3 percent of GDP spent on our military. It is probably one of 4 or 5 times in the last 70 years that we have gone that low on investments in our military at one of the most dangerous times we have faced since World War II. This year's budget from the Biden administration shrinks the Army, shrinks the Navy dramatically, and shrinks the Marine Corps.

Do you think that impresses Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin? It doesn't. So that is the military going in the wrong direction.

White House, take note. That is not a situation of strength. That is a situation of weakness.

Here is the other one that is quite remarkable, actually. It is America's natural resources and energy, and I am talking everything.

We are the envy of the world in terms of oil, gas, renewables, critical minerals--all of the above. We are the envy of the world, and what does this administration do from day one--day one?

With this incredible American strength, with this incredible comparative advantage we have relative to China, there is reporting that Xi Jinping looks at American energy dominance and knows how vulnerable they are in terms of importing energy, particularly oil and gas, and they are frightened by it. Frightened by it. Our biggest adversary, the Chinese Communist Party, is scared to death of American energy independence and dominance.

So what does the Biden administration do? On day one, they come into office, and they say: We are going to shut down the production of American oil and gas. We are going to go to Wall Street and the investment firms in America and pressure them not to invest in American energy, and we are going to kill and delay key infrastructure that moves energy.

Well, of course, the predictable result is the $90 oil that we are seeing right now and working families in America being hit the hardest. That is a fact. What I just stated are facts. That has been the policy of this administration's since day one.

Of course, it hurts working families, as I mentioned, but this is a gift to our adversaries, one of the great strengths of the United States of America that administrations--Democrat and Republican--for decades have pursued.

Read the history of World War II. A big part of how we won is because we were the dominant energy producer in the world. We have been seeking energy independence for decades. We got it during the Trump administration. The Biden administration comes in and unilaterally surrenders that great competitive advantage.

How do I know? I see this every day in the great State of Alaska, my home State.

Alaska has been ground zero on the radical, irrational policies of the Biden administration to undermine American energy and natural resource strength. Let me give you two examples.

We have an area in Alaska called the Ambler Mining District. It has one of the richest deposits of critical minerals anywhere in the world. There is no road to it. So in Federal law, in 1980, Senator Stevens got a provision in what is called the ANILCA Act to mandate a road to the Ambler Mining District.

In most States, if you want to build a road, nobody cares. In my State, if you want to build a road, every lower 48 radical environmental group sues to stop it. It is unbelievable, but it is true. It is sad, but it is true.

So during the Obama administration and the Trump administration, the State of Alaska applied for a road. They got an environmental impact statement--it cost about $10 million--a 7-year EIS to build a road to the Ambler Mining District so America could have critical minerals. What happened? That is good news, supported by two different administrations. The day the President of the United States, President Biden, held a critical mineral summit telling the world that we need critical minerals to compete with China and for our renewable energy future, do you know what they did? Do you know what they did, Madam President? I know you have seen it in your State so I know you are frustrated on these issues as well. They reversed the Record of Decision granting Alaska the ability to build this road to the Ambler Mining District. What? Where are we going to get our critical minerals? Where are we going to get our oil and gas? We need these things. Let's get them from America, with the highest standards on the environment in the world. My State has the highest standards on oil and gas development in the world.

They said: No. Alaska, go back to ground zero. We will continue to get our critical minerals from China. And as for oil and gas, we will shut it down in America.

Where are we going to get it? Well, we have seen this administration. Three months ago, they lifted sanctions on Venezuela so now we are importing 100,000 barrels a day from Venezuela. It is a terrorist country. It doesn't matter. They are still going to import from them. They have the worst environmental standards in the world. They have a greenhouse gas emissions profile 20 times higher than the State of Alaska does in terms of energy production, but we are going to get oil and gas from Venezuela and shut down Alaska. That is No. 1.

No. 2, the President was recently, last year, over in Saudi Arabia literally on bended knee begging the Saudis for more oil and gas. But America, Alaska--no, we are going to shut you down.

And recently--and I know every Member of this body is like what? We are now going to do a deal with the Iranians, lifting sanctions on their ability to put oil on world markets. The largest state sponsor of terrorism, no environmental standards, but we are going to let the Iranians produce oil and shut it down in America.

We just had another attack on my State--55 Executive orders and Executive actions from the Biden administration singularly focused on Alaska to shut my State down. We have so many resources for America, for Alaskans, for the world. They are shutting them down. And what are we going to do? We are going to get them from adversaries like Venezuela, Iran, and other countries. It makes no sense, and it is illegal as well.

Last week, the Biden administration announced that the lease sales that this body--the Congress of the United States--mandated for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they just canceled them. The Secretary of the Interior said: Hey, I know Congress said shall put out two lease sales. They said: We didn't like the process by which they were given out so we just canceled them.

This is ``banana republicville.'' This is Venezuela. That is what we are doing in terms of energy security.

It is national security suicide when we favor our adversaries who have no environmental standards at all and we shut down the production of American energy in Alaska, in America, in the gulf.

In August, they took over a million acres of land from the State of Wyoming to produce energy. It makes no sense. It makes no sense.

If you care about the environment, you need to produce it from the place with the highest environmental standards, not the lowest. That is my State. If you care about energy security, you should produce from America, not Iran or Venezuela. If you care about American workers--the best workers in the world who get paid a very high wage to work in the oil and gas fields in my State--you should produce in America and Alaska, not Saudi Arabia.

None of it makes sense. It is national security suicide, and the vast majority

of the American people know it. They know it, and it has got to change.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is my favorite time of the week here in the U.S. Senate. I like to come down on a regular basis and talk about the Alaskan of the Week. The Alaskan of the Week can be someone who is doing something great for their local community, their State, their country. Maybe it is someone who is helping to actually save the world. That is who we have today--someone who literally helped to save the world.

Before we begin, I know we have some Alaskans in the Galleries here. Today, the Boys & Girls Club is in town, and we have some of our great, young leaders from my State who are here, and I am really glad to see them. It is appropriate, I think, as some of the Boys & Girls Clubs' awardees can probably be Alaskans of the Week soon, right?

But I always like to begin my Alaskan of the Week remarks by just giving a little update of what is going on back home in Alaska. We are having a great summer. It is actually a really cold summer for us. The Sun is high in the sky. People are fishing. Tourists are flocking to our State.

By the way, if you are watching on TV, come up to Alaska, and you will have the best vacation of a lifetime, I guarantee it. The midnight Sun is out, and the scenery is spectacular. Of course, we are a place of big skies, big places, a big ocean, big rivers, some of the most resilient, interesting, special people in the world, and some of the most patriotic. We have more veterans per capita than any State in the country.

I have the pleasure of frequently speaking about our veterans in Alaska, about our military in Alaska. Many of them have been honored by being Alaskans of the Week. That is going to happen again today with a very special veteran, Elverda Lincoln.

So let's talk a little bit about our Alaskan of the Week. She served in the U.S. Navy during the Second World War. And I am going to talk a little bit about a program, the WAVES Program. It is a very famous program, the Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service. That is the acronym, WAVES.

Elverda is a World War II vet, an Alaskan pioneer literally. She is an author, a mother, a grandmother, a great-great-grandmother. She has such an amazing story, and here is the deal: She is turning 100 in a couple of days--100--and is still going strong.

So let me spend a few minutes talking about this extraordinary woman who is such an inspiration to so many in Alaska and hopefully, after millions of Americans listen to this speech, to so many Americans across the country.

Elverda was born in 1923 in Minnesota as the oldest of 14 kids. She was about 6 years old when the Great Depression began. Of course, it was a very tough time for most Americans. In her words, there was no work. Her family literally did not know where the next meal was coming from. They ate a lot of soup, she said, and when there was not enough to go around for the 14 kids her parents had to take care of, they just added water to the soup. They were tough times, but she and her family survived.

She said, ``We,'' like so many other Americans, ``were all in the same boat.''

After graduating from high school, Elverda worked for some time in Washington State, from working in a fruit cannery to waitressing, but none of these jobs gave her a sense of fulfillment or adventure or satisfaction.

Then December 7, 1941, happened, and our great Nation was at war. So what did this young woman do? She said she noticed a huge sign in her local post office. You know what the sign was--one of the most famous recruiting posters ever. It was Uncle Sam literally pointing at her. Every day, she said she walked past that sign that said: ``I WANT YOU.'' She was a patriot, so eventually Elverda heeded Uncle Sam's call, and she joined the Navy--like I said, the WAVES Program. She was soon on a train to New York and on a journey then that took her across the country--a 5-day train ride.

The WAVES Program was set up in 1942 by President Roosevelt to free up positions primarily stateside but very important positions. You are going to hear about what Elverda actually did for her country and the Navy so that male sailors could deploy overseas.

So she got on a plane with eight other women who had also joined WAVES. They had to take turns sleeping on the floor of the lavatory for 5 days because there were no assigned seats on this train going across our great Nation.

There were 4 weeks of boot camp--tough duty--from 4:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. every day for 4 weeks straight.

When she completed boot camp, Elverda was filled with a sense of accomplishment and patriotism. She had done something hard, something fulfilling, something worthwhile. Beyond that, she felt connected with her fellow WAVES. These were sailors in the U.S. Navy, women sailors. Then, of course, she was connected with probably one of the most important causes our country has ever undertaken--to win World War II and free the world from tyranny and oppression.

Her confidence soared, she said, when she received her Navy uniform and her $50-per-month paycheck--a lot of money back then. She was first stationed in Seattle. Get this: Her job was to keep track of the exact locations of U.S. ships and enemy ships and planes throughout the Pacific. She then was transferred to Tongue Point Naval Air Station in Astoria, OR. At this point, of course, the Pacific theatre--the war in the Pacific--was in full force.

She aided in modifying, updating, and correcting naval communications manuals. She helped to code a great deal of radio signals and manuals that were used in battles like the Battle of Iwo Jima and were also used in the invasion of the Aleutian Islands by Japan. A lot of people don't know that Alaska was actually invaded by the forces of Imperial Japan and occupied in the Aleutian Islands. Our military had to go fight brutal battles in the Aleutian Islands to kick out the Japanese on American territory, our great State.

It was only after the war that Elverda realized the great importance of what she had done. Like I said, she is an Alaskan of the Week who helped save the world--literally helped save the world.

She saw her time in the Navy as a great transition in her life, where she found out what hard work and dedication and patriotism were all about. And, importantly, she also met her husband, Bob Lincoln, a U.S. marine--so we know Elverda has very good taste by marrying a U.S. marine--while he was stationed in Oregon.

Both Elverda and Bob wanted to live a continued life of adventure and travel, so after the war in 1950, with one child already born and another one on the way, they packed up their car, and they drove north to the great State of Alaska. Now, it wasn't a State back then. It was still a territory, but you get the picture. They wanted an Alaskan adventure, and they got it. They settled in the Matanuska Valley in the town of Wasilla on a homestead.

Elverda and her husband Bob added to Wasilla's population, which, back then, was 100 people. It is much bigger today. They felled trees. They built a cabin. They built a life. They raised three wonderful kids. Bob did everything from dairy farming to putting up telephone lines to being a butcher. And, of course, they fell in love with Alaska.

``It's like one big family,'' Elverda said. ``Our friends range from the preachers to the alcoholics and everybody in between.''

Eventually, Elverda began to write about her life in Alaska--some funny and some very serious stories about life on the homestead in the Last Frontier. She has written four books so far; and talking to her, you have no doubt that she has at least four more in her.

Unfortunately, her husband, Bob, passed away. But before he did, he and Elverda traveled the world, something that she continued to do until recently.

Elverda now lives in the senior center in Wasilla, and she stays busy. She walks every day. She quilts for charities, including Quilts of Valor and quilts for Children's Place. During COVID, she made masks.

She has 5 grandchildren, 19 great-grandchildren, and 2 great-great- grandchildren. In her hundred years of life--hundred years of wisdom-- Elverda attributes her longevity to the following--and this is a great lesson for everybody: living healthy, staying active, being positive, and staying out of other people's business.

``I've loved every minute of my life,'' Elverda recently said. And what a life it has been.

So, Elverda, thank you for your service to our country. Thank you for your service in the U.S. Navy in WAVES, to the great State of Alaska, and to Wasilla. Thank you for being such a positive inspiration for so many. Happy hundredth birthday from the U.S. Senate. And, of course, congratulations on the great honor of being our Alaskan of the Week.

I yield the floor.

To my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, I will gladly pass along your birthday greetings to Elverda. Thank you very much.

Mr. President, the Alaska Railroad Corporation-- ARRC--is a renowned institution in my State, and I would like to first congratulate the Alaska Railroad on its 100-year birthday and take a few minutes to discuss the immense impact the railroad has had not only within Alaska, but

also across our Nation. The Alaska Railroad, its builders, operators, and leaders have been foundational to Alaska's development for a century. Throughout its storied history, the railroad has supported war efforts, transported passengers between Alaska's largest cities, helped build the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, invested in real estate, and facilitated tourism and commerce across miles of my State's remote and wild landscapes.

It took decades of twists and turns before the Alaska Railroad Corporation charged forth. What would later become the ARRC laid the first track in Alaska in 1903, starting in Seward and extending 50 miles north. In 1914, the U.S. Congress, acknowledging the national importance of expanding the railroad, funded construction and operations from Seward to Fairbanks at an estimated construction cost of $35 million.

On July 15, 1923, President Warren G. Harding drove a golden spike into the ground at Nenana, uniting the track and marking the completion of the Alaska Railroad. During World War II, from 1940-1943, the railroad played a key role in moving military and civilian supplies that were essential in supporting the war efforts. In 1943, two tunnels were built through the Chugach Mountains to allow rail access to Whittier, a military port and fuel depot essential to the Nation's defense. This important partnership with the U.S. military continues to this day.

In 1962, the railroad established its first car-barge service in Whittier, followed by train-ship service, revolutionizing Alaska by enabling rail cars from the lower 48 to be shipped to any point along the Alaska Railroad. In the early to mid-1970s, the railroad supported construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline; shipping and storing pipeline between Valdez, Seward, and Fairbanks, from where it was then trucked to the North Slope. In 1981, the railroad entered into agreements with Fairbanks and Anchorage school district career centers for a tour guide program that trained high school students to serve as hosts onboard summer passenger trains.

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the authorization of the transfer of the Alaska Railroad to the State of Alaska. Shortly thereafter, the Alaska Railroad Corporation was born. By 1996, the ARRC showed a profit of $8.0 million and passenger ridership had grown to 512,000. Former Governor Bill Sheffield became CEO in 1997. In the early 2000s, the Alaska Railroad Corporation's real estate operations exceeded $11 million in profits for the first time and a web-based passenger reservation system was implemented. Simultaneously, the Alaska Railroad began a program to reduce diesel emissions and noise. 2003 was the railroad's most profitable and safe year in its history up until that point.

In 2013, the Railroad's own Bill O'Leary was named CEO, becoming the first lifelong Alaskan to lead the railroad. Today, the ARRC operates a regularly scheduled public transportation service connecting Alaskans and visitors to communities from Seward to Fairbanks. Passengers gain access to wonderfully remote regions and areas off the road system including Alaska's Chugach National Forest and Denali National Park, which are visited by hundreds of thousands of people annually.

Like Alaska itself, the Alaska Railroad's story is full of peaks and valleys. Every mile of this legendary railroad was earned through grit, bravery, skill and sweat. Alaska Railroad Corporation trains are iconic symbols, in Alaska and around the world, of the ``can do'' spirit of Alaskans. The railroad's irreplaceable team, as much as the iron and steel of the locomotives, have served as foundational infrastructure driving economic development in The Last Frontier. I respectfully urge my fellow Members of the 118th Congress to join the proud Members of the Alaska Delegation in congratulating and thanking the Alaska Railroad Corporation for 100 years of service to our State and to our Nation.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to bring forward, once again, my bill--the United States-Russian Federation Seafood Reciprocity Act.

This is a really important bill for our fishermen throughout America. This is a really important bill as it relates to sanctions against Russia. It is a really important bill as it relates to not letting Russia and China evade sanctions that the President of the United States has put on them--the Russians, in particular.

It should be a bipartisan bill with regard to unanimous consent. I tried to move it last year. It had an objection. We worked through the objection and amended the bill to address the objection, in working with the Biden administration, to try to fix this from an administrative standpoint, but we were not getting anywhere.

Once I explain what is happening, I think every person watching-- every American watching--and every Alaskan, certainly, is going to go: What the heck? Why on Earth are we not passing Senator Sullivan's bill?

What is the background?

Well, here it is.

You know, I often brag about the great State of Alaska as being the superpower of seafood as over 60 percent of all of the seafood harvested in America comes from Alaska's waters. We have the most sustainable fisheries and the best managed fisheries literally in the world. They feed Americans. They feed the whole world.

So this bill is about that, certainly. But it is about all fishermen, including in Massachusetts. I guess my colleague from Massachusetts is going to come and object, which is a real disappointment. But this bill is also very much about geopolitics and going after the Russians, which is all what we think, collectively, we should be doing after their brutal invasion of Ukraine.

So what is the background?

Let me start with some explanation.

In 2014, when Russia invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia in a whole host of different areas. The Russians retaliated with their own sanctions, and one of those sanctions was that Russia banned the import of all American seafood into Russia. It is a big market. It is certainly a big market for my fishermen. But what was crazy about that is that the Russians had banned the importation of America's seafood into Russia in 2014. So what is that--8 years ago? 9 years ago? Yet we have kept our market open to Russian seafood.

If you want to talk about an unlevel playing field, Russian seafood pours into the United States pretty much duty free, and American seafood--Alaskan seafood--going into Russia is banned. So that is just wrong. That is just wrong. Russian seafood imports into the United States have increased by close to 200 percent--200 percent.

Russian seafood companies are largely owned by Russian oligarchs, who are supporting this war--Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine--and, of course, they have been stealing market share from American fishermen, undermining the markets for our U.S. fishermen that we have worked hard on in our own country.

Does anyone in America think this makes sense? It doesn't. It doesn't.

Much of this cash, the Russian imports--we are talking hundreds of millions, up 200 percent--go back to the Russian oligarchs, the Russian Government to help drive their war machine.

So since I came to the Senate 8 years ago, I have been trying with every administration to stop this unlevel playing field. Again, Russia imports hundreds of millions of dollars of seafood into our market almost duty-free, going after American fishermen, and we can't export one fish to Russia. Who thinks that is fair? So I tried with President Obama--he wouldn't help; President Trump--he wouldn't help; and President Biden. Well, it took a war--literally, it took a war--to get some administration to try and fix this.

President Biden--to his credit and at my urging--when he issued his Executive order targeting the Russians with sanctions, part of that order included a prohibition of Russian seafood coming into America. Great. That is what we needed. That is only fair. It goes after the Russian war-machine oligarchs. That was welcome news, intended to isolate the Russian economy. However--however--the Biden Executive order--which, again, we appreciated very much. It is about time. It took only 8 years for our own government to say: Wow. Look at this unlevel playing field between Russia and America with regard to our fishermen and our seafood. But the Biden Executive order has a loophole. It has got a massive loophole that, of course, the Russians are taking advantage of.

The vast majority of Russian seafood is harvested and frozen in simple product forms and then--guess what--it is shipped to which country? That other great dictatorship in the world--I am joking when I say ``great''; it is a brutal dictatorship--China. So Russian fishermen now send all their fish to China to get it reprocessed--laundered, essentially. They fill it with phosphates. And guess where they ship it to. The United States. Hundreds of millions of dollars of Russian seafood now gets sent to China--another dictatorship--and they send it back to the United States almost duty-free. That is a giant loophole. It is happening every day. It is an outrage.

By the way, it is really bad seafood. It turns Americans off from eating seafood. They fill it with phosphates, plump it up, nasty, and they send it back to the United States.

So now Russia and China are colluding to avoid the Biden Executive order. It is hurting American fishermen, once again, and it is strengthening Russia: the oligarchs, the government, the Putin war machine.

I have been working patiently--patiently--for a year with this administration. The Deputy Secretary of the Treasury is supposed to call me back today.

You better call me, Mr. Secretary.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, let's close this loophole. Let's close this loophole. It is only benefiting Russia and China, for goodness' sake, and it is hurting our fishermen. So I am not sure why this isn't happening.

Again, I have been talking to the administration. The Secretary of Homeland Security said: Senator, we will take care of this. You are right. This is a loophole we can't abide by. CBP will enforce this. The Deputy Secretary of the Treasury: Senator, we will work with OFAC to close this loophole. That has been a year, and we are still waiting. And the Russian war machine benefits from this. The Chinese, of course, benefit from this. And American fishermen are getting screwed. Why isn't our government helping?

Come on, Mr. Secretary. Come on, Mr. Deputy Secretary, call me today. Let's fix this.

But we are not waiting. We are not waiting.

What I am trying to do now with my legislation is close the loophole. It is going to broaden the application of the President's Executive order to encompass seafood products harvested in Russian waters or by Russian vessels. That is it. That is what my bill does. Who in America, who in the Senate would be against that?

This will capture Russian-origin products, including those being laundered in China. That is it. That is all I want to do.

With the U.S.-Russian Federation Seafood Reciprocity Act, every Republican is cleared on it. Pretty much every Democrat has cleared on it. And who wouldn't want to? Because if you are against this bill, you are for Russian oligarchs who are still avoiding sanctions on seafood. You are against the American fishermen, whether in Alaska or Massachusetts, because they are getting screwed by this uneven trade relationship, and you are helping the Chinese. I can't imagine anyone being against this.

I am frustrated, as you can tell. My fishermen have been hurt by this. The Russian war machine keeps giving revenues. The Russian oligarchs who control these companies are getting richer. The Chinese are getting richer, and the American fishermen are getting poorer. By the way, American consumers are getting a pretty gross product from China, filled with Chinese additives and phosphates.

So I told the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury: Hey, I have had enough. Come on, you guys have got to fix this. It is not hard. We do Russian origins--we do origins of seafood. Buyers know where this is coming from.

I see my good friend--and he is my good friend--Senator Markey is on the floor and probably is going to object, which would be really disappointing. But even that, a year ago, when Senator Markey objected to this, I said: Well, let's work together, so we did. And one of the things we put in my bill is in this bill now; it has got a 90-day provision to enforce it. So if you are an American seafood company still importing Russian seafood--and you know it, by the way, so shame on you, shame on you--but you are like: Hey, boy, I know. I am kind of addicted to this Russian seafood that goes through China. I am going to need some time to get other seafood markets for my seafood processors in Massachusetts or New Hampshire. This bill says: OK. We will give you 90 days.

By the way, I have talked to Alaska fishermen. They say like, hey, you need fish? Get it from us. Get it from America. Get it from Alaska. Why are you getting it from the Russians and the Chinese? For goodness' sake. Who the hell is for that? Who can be for that?

Our importers know how to trace, so that is not a good excuse.

This isn't about lost jobs. Like I said, we can supply the seafood from Americans--great Alaskan and Massachusetts fishermen.

I am down here frustrated. The Biden administration won't close a loophole that they promised me they would. It is not that hard. Come on, guys. Really? You are OK with a loophole and the President's own sanctions that provide hundreds of millions of dollars to the Russian Government and oligarchs because you are cheating and going through China? You don't want to close that loophole? I doubt if someone told President Biden about this; he would want to close that loophole.

I am here on the floor, and I am going to ask unanimous consent for my U.S.-Russian Seafood Reciprocity Act. It is the right thing to do. Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it.

I hope my colleague Senator Markey is down here on the floor to say: I support this bill because it is the right thing to do for fishermen in Alaska and Massachusetts, and it is certainly the right thing to do to keep the screws tightened on the Russian war machine.

So, Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2011 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I certainly will continue to work with my friend from Massachusetts--and he is my friend, and I have a lot of respect for him. He and I work together on a number of things, but with all due respect, that was a bit of a rope-a-dope tapdance you just witnessed here on the Senate floor because he pretty much made the same arguments 16 months ago--16 months ago; the same arguments, right here, the two of us. Let me address a couple of these.

The issue of this tough on CBP to do this, it is not that tough. I have talked to the head of CBP. Heck, I have talked to the Secretary of Homeland Security. They can do this. The U.S. market demands a high level of scrutiny on seafood supply chains. We already have certification systems in place that require the kind of information needed to enforce my legislation. Any seafood supplier who is serious about their job knows that they have this information.

By the way, most seafood suppliers are getting off Russian seafood because they know what is happening. They don't want to support this Russian war machine.

Unfortunately, we are seeing some certification efforts, such as the Marine Stewardship Council--shame on them--allowing themselves to be pulled into a profit-driven mindset that is focused on one thing: money and benefiting Russia. What do I mean by that?

You can hardly believe it. When I heard the MSC--supposedly, an organization with a good reputation--the Marine Stewardship Council has recently

certified Russian fisheries as sustainable, this is a joke. It is ridiculous. Shame on you, MSC, helping fund the Putin war machine.

Regardless, I am 100-percent certain that any companies in America now laundering Russian product--and you know who you are--companies which, unfortunately, I worry my colleague from Massachusetts is defending--they absolutely have the ability to trace and certify exactly where the products are coming from. That is a fact. So this argument, which was made 16 months ago, still doesn't work.

On the job loss issue, we put into this bill a 90-day provision to prevent the disruption. U.S. harvests of seafood are largely from U.S. citizens, including thousands of independent owners and operators of fishing vessels and small businesses in coastal communities in Alaska, in Massachusetts, and all over this great country. And they are being hurt by this.

There are Massachusetts fishermen right now who want my bill to be passed--100 percent. We know that. Certainly, thousands of Alaskan fishermen. But if you want to compare jobs, let's go. Commercial fishing is the top employer in terms of jobs in my State, and it is a big employer in Massachusetts.

So to my colleague from Massachusetts, what I offered last year I still offer now. Let Alaskan fishermen send their fish to you guys. Or, heck, Massachusetts fishermen, don't rely on Russian fishermen laundered through the communist Chinese economy to go to a few processors in Massachusetts. That is why you are blocking this. No offense, but that is why you are blocking this.

So, look, I know you are vigorously supporting Ukraine and so am I, but this is a chink in the armor here. On this issue, you are not. And we can solve this right now if you change your vote, my colleague, and say: You know what, I am not going to object. Senator Sullivan is right. My fishermen need this. Alaskan fishermen need this. Let's clamp down on the Russian war machine.

Sixteen months ago my colleague from Massachusetts made these same arguments--16 months ago. It is outrageous. I will continue to work with him, but the rope-a-dope tap dance isn't convincing. We need to move on this, Mr. President. How you could be down on the floor of the U.S. Senate defending this laundering and undermining of President Biden's Russian sanctions is beyond me. I will keep working it.

Maybe the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, or maybe the White House--Jake Sullivan, you should care about this. But for goodness' sake, let's not come on the Senate floor and make the same arguments that were made 16 months ago that we addressed in the bill that I just brought to the floor.

The only benefit, right now, of this objection--the only benefit--is the Putin--the Russian war machine, the oligarchs who own the Russian fishing industry, and the Chinese Communist Party leaders who are part of the laundering process in China.

Every American fisherman loses right now. So I am going to keep working this. And I am disappointed in my colleague, who made these same arguments 16 months ago and is still not convinced.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will take my colleague and friend from Massachusetts up on his offer. Round 1; 16 months later, round 2. That is a lot of people hurting, including Massachusetts fishermen, by this unfair trading that we have with Russia--completely unfair. Again, they can import all they want into the United States now through China. We can't import at all there.

So I will work with him. The new provisions, by the way, are meant to enhance the ability to trace the Russian seafood being laundered. So that helps. It still has the 90 days to help Gorton's of Gloucester and others to address this.

But at least my colleague is being honest, right? This is about Gorton's of Gloucester. That is kind of what we knew. By the way, to Gorton's of Gloucester, here is my message to you: Continuing to import Russian seafood is a bad business idea. It is a bad business idea. Funding the Putin war machine is a bad business idea. Most American business companies have realized that.

So, Gorton's of Gloucester, here is my idea for you: Buy more Alaskan seafood. Buy more Massachusetts seafood. Get off your addiction to Russian war-machine seafood that is laundered through China. It is an unsustainable business model, and at some point, even your U.S. Senator is not going to be able to defend you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to join the other Members of Alaska's Federal delegation--Senator Lisa Murkowski and Representative Mary Peltola--in honoring our dear friend Dr. Reverend Anna Frank. For decades, Reverend Frank has been a force for good in Interior Alaska and across our State. As the first female Alaska Native Episcopalian priest, she has given thousands of sermons and has officiated over countless weddings, funerals, and baptisms. She has served as a counselor for those in need, has been at the bedside for those souls passing on to heaven, and has provided much needed solace to those here on earth.

Reverend Frank was born in 1939 in Old Minto, 1 of 14 children. Growing up in a village of less than 200 people, all living a subsistence lifestyle, everyone in the village had to play their part to survive and thrive. Her mother taught her how to trap muskrats and set fish traps. She also had many other women in her life--her aunties, who mentored her, as she has since mentored hundreds of other young women.

After moving to Fairbanks, she married Richard Frank, a World War II veteran and respected Athabaskan leader who was also from Minto--and with whom she enjoyed a 57-year-long marriage. Together, Anna and Richard Frank raised four children. During this time, Reverend Frank earned her high school diploma. Her ability to persevere through adverse conditions instilled in her the idea that, ``You have to do things for yourself: don't live off people.''

Reverend Frank became a health aide and midwife in Minto--her grandmother and aunt were midwives who had passed their knowledge on to her--and again, she demonstrated her strength, compassion, and skill. She was hired by Tanana Chiefs Conference to create their first health education department in 1975.

Reverend Frank's job was to travel to the villages in the Interior and to talk to Alaska Natives about modern health and medicine. It was in this environment where Reverend Frank's experiences--the lessons she had learned from her elders and knowledge that she had gained from her western education--all came together. She found a way to reach out and get the help they needed, in a way that worked for them. Soon after, she was recruited to be a counselor, a position at which she excelled.

In preparation for Easter one year, Reverend Frank decided that instead of giving something up for Lent, she would volunteer at the village church. After that, she became a deacon. Nearly 10 years later, she was ordained as an Episcopalian priest, the first Alaska Native woman to be ordained. She worked for the diocese for over 12 years and traveled internationally on behalf of the church. For her work, Dr. Reverend Anna Frank was awarded an honorary doctorate of law by the University of Alaska-Fairbanks in 2019.

Reverend Franks spent the majority of her life doing what needed to be done. The countless problems she encountered, she tackled head on. Reverend Frank traveled around Alaska, to numerous Native villages, and held church services for anybody of any faith, who wanted to be ministered to.

``I understood two roads: our Native ways and the other world,'' she once said. She was, and still is, a bridge between the old and the new. She has served on numerous boards, including the Denakkanaaga Elders group, the Alaska Commission on Aging, as well as the Fairbanks Native Association. She continues her journey in ensuring that Alaska Natives are seen and heard. She prays with them and for them. Reverend Frank has given her all to enrich and enliven the lives of those around her.

She spoke to a reporter a few years ago about her lifelong journey. ``As long as you're breathing it's never too late,'' she said. ``So that's what I did in my life, I changed me, and I grew, and I tried to help others. From where I came from, I have moved mountains.''

We thank her for the mountains she has moved, her faith, her tireless service to our State and to her community and for all the many blessings she has bestowed on so many. ``Ana Baasee','' Reverend Anna.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes for my remarks as well as 10 minutes for Senator Wicker and Senator Collins' remarks before the vote.

Mr. President, I think my colleagues are making the really important point of the national security implications of the bill that we are looking at and voting on. And I agree with what my colleagues have already said. Speaker McCarthy had a difficult job. I think there is a lot in this debt agreement that is important, that is positive. But the one thing we are not doing here--and, by the way, it is the most important thing we do as U.S. Senators--is have a strategy for the national defense of our Nation during an incredibly dangerous time globally. We are not doing that.

We need a strategy. Already, my good friend from South Carolina mentioned some ideas. I am going to touch on those, but let's just reiterate. The Presiding Officer sits on the Armed Services Committee. Many of us do. We get witness after witness, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense, saying this is the most dangerous time since any period in history since World War II. That is the consensus. Not a lot of people would disagree with that. Authoritarian dictators, with an immense appetite for conquest, are on the march, and yet what does this budget agreement do? It cuts defense spending significantly, as already mentioned.

Now, some people will say: Well, look at the top line. We never had a higher top line--$800-plus billion. As the Presiding Officer knows, the actual real measure of how serious we are as a country isn't the top line. Because of inflation over the years it is hard to compare.

The real measure of how serious we are, in terms of what we are putting toward defense--what the No. 1 priority of the U.S. Congress should be, in my view--is what percentage of our national wealth we are dedicating to defense. This budget will take us, in the next 2 years, with the cut this year, an inflation-adjusted cut of 4 to 5 percent, and a nominal increase next year of 1 percent, which would be about a 5- to 6-percent cut--it will take us below the 3 percent of GDP number for defense for the first time since 1999, during the peace dividend era of the Clinton administration. So we will be below 3 percent of

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 125 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, unfortunately, does not meet the moment in terms of defending our Nation.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and others have said we are now in the most dangerous period of any time since World War II. And yet this bill cuts defense spending in inflation-adjusted terms by approximately 3 percent this year and 5 percent next year.

By endorsing the President's defense budget, this bill shrinks the Navy, shrinks the Army, and shrinks the Marine Corps. Next year, it will take us below 3 percent of GDP spending for the first time in 25 years.

My amendment does what the Armed Services Committee and this Chamber have done in a broad bipartisan manner over the past 2 years. It significantly pluses up the inadequate defense budget submitted by the President. My amendment fully funds the Biden Pentagon's unfunded priorities list by----

By $18 billion.

And it raises----

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds more.

And for fiscal year 2025, it raises the defense top line by 5 percent to simply keep pace with inflation. These increases are offset by rescinding the additional amounts from the President's $80 billion plus-up from the IRS.

So, my colleagues, the choice is clear: more Navy ships, soldiers, and marines to protect America or more IRS agents to harass Americans. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important amendment.