Floor Statements

Madam President, this is my fourth speech this year arguing how we are going to have to match our defense resources to our national defense strategy. And this is a reminder--this is the National Defense Strategy. People seem to be forgetting about this. It was put together in 2018. Here are the names of the individuals. One was a former colleague; it was Jon Kyl. So we had 12, 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Everyone agreed that this is what we need to do, not just for 2018 but for each year afterwards. For this year, for example, they actually have in here that we should be increasing the defense budget by between 3 and 5 percent. I show this because we all adhered to these, Democrats and Republicans, up until this year.

This is the first time I have had a chance to talk about this budget in the Biden administration where we now have a lot of the details actually released in terms of the budget and what it does to our military.

Remember, our expert, bipartisan NDS Commission Report said that we need 3 to 5 percent real growth in the defense budget each year to actually execute this strategy. The defense budget the Biden administration sent us does not achieve this goal. In fact, it is really a cut, in this administration.

Even worse, just last week, the Fed predicted that inflation next year will be bigger than predicted. If that continues, this budget will mean even bigger cuts than expected and will hamstring our troops even more than we thought.

A lower defense top line than last year is just the first problem. The details of this budget are also worse than we forecasted. We have a flow chart here that shows that the budget puts shipbuilding on a starvation diet. The Navy tells us that we need 355 ships, probably more than the 400 that we have--that we are talking about right now. Right now, we are under 300 ships, and the trend is down, not up. What is the administration's answer? They joke around about having a 355- ship Navy with only tugboats, but we don't have the luxury of jokes.

The people don't know this out there. The people don't realize that China is ahead of us and that Russia is ahead of us in some of these areas. They assume that we are always like it was right after World War II for so many years.

The Chinese Navy already has 355 ships. They already have them. That is not something they are looking for like we are right now. We are at 300 ships and looking for 355. They already have them. Then there are the Russians to add to that. That is another 223. So we are talking about far more that they have right now than we have, and nobody understands that. It is as if we have only one opposition out there, one adversary. We don't. We have several. The two prime adversaries are China and Russia, and they are up right now to 595 ships, and we are at 300. So what does that tell you?

I am not the only one who is concerned about this. A lot of people say: Well, the Republicans are the only ones who are concerned about our military.

And that is not true. Democratic Congresswoman Elaine Luria said it well. She said: The Navy budget is not a serious budget for great power competition.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record her recent article about the Navy's fleet

This budget also fails to make any progress in a growing or modernizing Air Force. Instead, the Biden budget procurement actually decreases by almost 15 percent across the entire military. The Air Force is 20 percent. President Biden's own nominee for the Secretary of the Air Force told us that one of the best things that we could do is to accelerate the buying of additional F-35s, but this budget doesn't do that. The fleet just gets older and smaller.

Perhaps the greatest casualty of the Biden budget is the Army. I guess I am used to that by now. I was a product of the Army, and all my Army friends remember what happened back in 1994. I was in the House at that time and on the House Armed Services Committee. At that time, I can remember when someone who was in a hearing--an expert--predicted that, in 10 years, we would no longer need ground troops. Of course, we know what has happened since that time. The greatest casualty is always the Army. Instead of investing, it deeply cuts the Army across the board in its modernization, procurement, force structure, and readiness.

I can't understand why we decreased full spectrum training just as we have started to get healthy after the readiness crisis of 2017, and we all remember what happened in 2017. That was the last 5 years of the Obama administration, and they were the years that cut our military substantially. They actually did reduce our budget in the last 5 years by 25 percent, the military budget. At the same time, China was increasing theirs by 78 percent. This is the problem that we had back then, and it is still going on.

Don't take my word for it. General McConville told us last week that most of the Army's weapons systems are 1980s vintage. Yet the Biden administration is slow-walking the Army's modernization efforts while our adversaries are relentlessly advancing--and they are. Secretary Wormuth, who is the Secretary of the Army, said the service is still under stress in some areas, including defense, which is a critical priority, and that is unacceptable.

Additionally, while Secretary Austin kept his promise to fully fund nuclear modernization, this is an area I can't blame anybody for because this has been going on for a long period of time, since after World War II, that being that our nuclear modernization program has not been substantial. Others have been catching up with us slowly but surely, and that is where we are today. So he kept his word. His promise was to fully fund nuclear modernization.

I remain concerned about the $600 million cut in the NNSA's deferred maintenance budget. Now, with the NNSA, we are talking about nuclear now, our nuclear capabilities. It would have fixed crumbling infrastructure that is necessary to keep the nuclear weapons program on track.

Now, you can't see this very well, but when you look closely, it is worth coming up to look. We see some of the oldest equipment here, and it is obvious just by looking at it that it doesn't work. So not only are other countries catching up and passing us, but our equipment has not been modernized. That is what we were going to do, and this is what Secretary Austin wants to do, but we have not been able to pay for it yet. We have to get that done. It would have fixed crumbling infrastructure that is necessary to keep nuclear weapons on track.

The reality of this budget cut is on display in the unfunded priorities list that was put together by military services and the combatant commanders. No one knows more than the combatant commanders about our state of readiness. In total, we are looking at $25 billion in key equipment weapons--and more that our services could use--but this budget can't support it.

Many people call these wish lists. I call them risk lists. The reason we don't hear a lot about people who are talking about the risks, the military people, is that ``risk'' means lives. When military people talk about risk, they talk about losing lives. People don't like to talk about that, but we are now in the position whereby we have to talk about it. We can only kick the can down the road so far, generating more and more risk. We don't talk about risk. We never do. We just demand that our military do more with less. We keep divesting, but the investments never follow. This trend of increased risk has only accelerated. It is already clear that the administration is signaling they want to cut the military even deeper next year.

Earlier this month, I read in the press about a memo by the Acting Secretary of the Navy as he tried to minimize the damage and risk of his sailors resulting from the significant budget cuts. He was very sincere about this. He said the Navy is forced to choose between modernizing ships, subs, and aircraft. Does anyone in here believe that the Chinese are choosing between ships, subs, and aircraft?

Recently, our Nation's highest ranking military officer, General Milley, told us that the Chinese and Russians combined actually spend more than we on defense. Now, think about that for a minute. You don't hear that. Nobody is talking about this. We have been told for so many years that we don't need to spend more on defense because we already spend more than our competitors. It turns out that this is just not true, and the American people are not aware of this.

Now, part of the difference is that the Chinese and the Russians don't take care of their people. I have talked a lot about the fact that we don't do that. Do you remember all of the housing problems that we were all concerned about? Are we spending enough on housing for our people? Communist countries don't care about that. They just give them the guns and say: Go out and kill people. They don't care about people. The greatest expense that we have in supporting the military is the expense that we have for housing and for the quality of life of our troops.

By the way, I am drawing out a couple of Democrats when I talk about the problem and the fact that this is a concern. It is not just a concern of the Republicans. These are Democratic Members, and they are concerned. Democratic Congressman Anthony Brown made this point recently, and I agree with him.

He wrote:

We spend $1 billion more on Medicare in the defense budget

than we do on new tactical vehicles. We spend more on the

Defense Health Program than we do on new ships.

Now, that came from a Democratic Member of the House.

He concluded:

In total, some $200 billion in the defense budget are

essentially for nondefense purposes--from salaries to health

care to basic research.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Congressman Brown's article because I think it gets it exactly right, and this is coming from the other side

We can disagree sometimes about how we compete with China on nondefense areas. It is important. That is an important debate. We want to do that, but we have to be on the same page when it comes to national security.

Some people would say that my criticism of cutting the military is because President Biden is a Democrat. I want to be really clear that this is not about politics; it is about protecting this Nation and making sure our men and women in uniform have the training and the resources and the equipment they need to compete and complete their missions and come home safely. I mean, this is what we are supposed to be doing, and that is what we are doing.

I told President Trump, back when he sent his initial budget up when he became President of the United States, that it was not adequate at that time. I called up Secretary Mattis, and we met the President at the White House. We showed him why it was inadequate, and it was inadequate. So we were able to get something done at that time, and that is something that we are concerned about today.

I happen to think President Trump wanted to spend even more on his troops, but I think he got some bad advice from his advisers. I think the same is true with President Biden. I think he wants a strong military when he is up against our adversaries. I know this President believes that a strong military underpins all of our other tools and national power, including diplomatic efforts. I know the President believes in America's role in the world and in the value of deterrence. I know the President believes in the importance of our allies and the partners who look to us for commitments and for investments to know that we are very serious. Our President knows that. President Biden knows this, but we don't have the budget to support it.

The President needs to be coming forth with adequate budgets to take care of the problems that we are faced with today. We all know how painful Obama's readiness crisis was as flight training hours were slashed, and we didn't know all of the things that happened during the last 5 years of his administration. This administration should remember how dangerous that was not just for our deterrence but also because there was a human cost. That is one of many reasons I am struggling to understand the administration's cuts to the defense budget.

One thing we have been told is that anything more than this defense budget is just not affordable. We have been told by the Pentagon that we have to live more fiscally. That is one way to tell the military that you don't care about them. This administration wants to spend trillions in taxpayers' dollars on everything you can think of except on the military, and this comes through very clearly when the amount of increase they are having right now is between 16 and 20 percent and ours is 1.6 percent.

In reality, the investments we need to strengthen our military in the decades to come are minimal when compared to overall Federal budgeting. Defense spending compared to our GDP is half of what it was in the Cold War, and we live in a much more dangerous world now. We have been told that the Pentagon must make hard choices as if hard choices are a substitute for strategy-based budgeting. Yet we are not making hard choices; we are just making bad choices.

All of our current military and senior DOD officials agree that we have a

good military strategy for China and Russia, but the budget doesn't support that strategy. As a result, I am worried that deterrence will fail maybe today or maybe 5 years from now, and when it does, the cost will be much higher than any investment we would make today.

We have made a sacred compact with our servicemembers. We tell them that we will take care of them and take care of their families. We do that very well, but we also tell them that we will give them the tools to defend the Nation and to come home safely, but we are not holding up that end of the bargain. With this proposed budget and the prospects of further cuts, we are failing to give them the resources they need.

We can't simply spend our way out of our military problems, but we can spend too little to give ourselves a chance. We have seen the high cost of underinvesting in the military. Underfunding in the military tempts our adversaries, raises doubts in our allies, and makes war more, not less, likely.

So we need to make a generational investment in our defenses so that our children and grandchildren don't have to, and we are not doing that now.

We have a lot of impatient people right now who want to vote.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for such time as I shall consume.

Madam President, last year, the Federal Communications Commission approved an application by Ligado Networks to repurpose the Federal spectrum in a way that will drastically interfere with GPS and satellite communications. This a big deal. There are so many people who understand this situation. There is a list of companies behind us that grows every day. Almost every company in America that you know of or have heard of--their name is on this list.

The decision that was made will threaten GPS and satellite communications reliability for millions of Americans who depend on it. The reliability of GPS and satellite communications is necessary for safety of life operations, national security, and economic activity.

I am going to pause here for a minute to drive home what this actually means for every American because people don't know this. They don't know how important GPS is. Yet there is not an American I can think of by description who isn't using it every day. So if something happens to it, there is a serious problem. Here are some of the day-to- day activities that would be difficult when experiencing GPS interference from Ligado.

A big one--using your credit card or your debit card. When you are making a purchase or using an ATM, our financial systems rely on GPS timing in order to work.

Another one--making a phone call. Cell phone networks rely on GPS to synchronize cell towers so calls can be passed seamlessly. If they experience interference, your call could be dropped when moving from one tower to another.

Another one that people are not aware of and don't expect is energy, whether that is filling up your tank with gas at the pump or electrical grids to light our homes. We rely on GPS timing to safely operate underground pipelines and our electricity grid.

Farmers and ranchers--this is something that a lot of people are not aware of, but they depend on GPS and satellite communications when planting crops, applying fertilizer, and during harvesting operations to move large and critical machinery with precision.

Working out--a lot of people don't. I don't as much as I used to, but a lot of people do. They say that one-fifth of the population, 20 percent of the population, of all Americans, use a fitness tracker or a smartwatch. The majority have used GPS to count steps to track distance. We all know that. You see them out there every day. They depend on GPS.

Taking a flight--I have been involved in aviation for over 70 years now and had occasion with three friends to fly around the world in 1991 using GPS. At that time--it may have been the first--the equipment I used was a Trimble TNL 2000. Trimble is one of the big GPS companies. I was using one, the TNL 2000. At that time, that may have been--we are checking to see--the first time that had been used for private

aviation, flying all the way around the world. Again, that is GPS, and that was 1991.

Driving around right now, each day, countless Americans rely on Google Maps, Waze, Apple Maps, and any other navigation system to get them from point A to point B. While no one hopes to ever need a firetruck or an ambulance or the 9-1-1 operators, the EMS, they use GPS on a daily basis.

There is more--weather forecasting, the movement of goods on our highways, surveying maritime harbors, channels, and everything else. The list goes on and on.

How do we know that Ligado will cause interference? The FCC told us when they approved the Ligado order. I will read that now because people need to understand. I guess you could say we were warned.

The FCC said in their document--that was the document they used on their approval order. They said:

Ligado shall expeditiously repair or replace as needed any

U.S. Government GPS devices that experience or are likely to

experience harmful interference from Ligado's operations.

That is a quote. That is what they said. That is what the FCC said at that time.

Over 21 organizations and companies and industries filed petitions for reconsideration after the order was released, documenting the damage they would face from the Ligado interference. This thing right behind me is now up to 82; it was 78 this morning. The list goes on and on. You can hardly think of a corporation in America that isn't on this list. So it is something that is a very serious problem and widespread.

Here is one way to put the interference into perspective. Because GPS signals travel from satellite in space, by the time those signals get to Earth's surface, they are low power. Because the FCC order allows Ligado to repurpose spectrum to operate a terrestrial-based network, Ligado's signals on Earth's surface will be much more powerful than GPS, causing substantial and harmful interference.

While the FCC required Ligado to repair damage to Federal Agencies that results from the interference, congressional action is needed because the FCC's Ligado order fell short in two important ways.

First, the order did not provide an adequate description of costs to the Federal Agencies that would result from Ligado's interference.

We took bipartisan steps to correct this last year in the NDAA.

The NDAA is the largest bill of the year. I happen to have been for several years the chairman of this thing. The NDAA is the national defense authorization bill. It does all the things that we do in the military. So that is the bill we are talking about.

We included in that bill a provision directing the Department of Defense to produce an estimate of damages and costs associated with the harmful interference to GPS. We also directed DOD--Department of Defense--and the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent technical review of the harmful interference that Ligado can cause.

Secondly, the FCC failed to require that Ligado bear the costs of interference in State governments or pay for interference to devices owned by individual users. Now, we are talking about all Americans out there now--not just government, not State government, not Federal government, but everyone else, these individual users. I talked already about how many ways we rely on GPS in everyday life. None of that would be protected from interference under the existing Ligado order.

That is why I am introducing legislation--it is a long name, but I am going to say it anyway. It is called the Recognizing and Ensuring Taxpayer Access to Infrastructure Necessary for GPS and Satellite Communications Act, 2021. Got that? All right. I call it the RETAIN Act. That is a little more accurate and easy to understand.

My legislation ensures that Federal Agencies, State governments, and all others negatively impacted by the actions of a private actor are not left holding the bag when it comes to costs, the amount of money it would cost to rectify, and, worse, aren't put in a position where they have to push the costs onto the American consumers.

Why is this legislation necessary? Reliable GPS and satellite communications are important to everyone in the world and drive much of the Nation's economy. That is why I am going to ask my colleagues to embrace, endorse, and cosponsor this legislation. Otherwise, others may be forced to pay for damage that is done by the system.

Anyway, I am going to ask our colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. If we don't do this and something happens, then it will be paid for not by those responsible parties but by the taxpayers.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object.

I object.

Madam President, I am joining others who have the same problem with what the majority party here in the U.S. Senate is trying to do. It is something that surprises a lot of people, something that would completely revamp, completely change, a system that has been in place since 1787.

I understand that they are soon going to be forcing a vote on a bill they are naming the For the People Act, and it is anything but for the people.

For those unfamiliar, this is a Democrat bill to nationalize our elections and to give Washington unprecedented and unconstitutional power over States and local governments.

Each speaker, including myself, who has spoken so far has been jealously guarding their system because we have put into place a very safe and honest way of handling our elections.

Now, keep in mind, this bill is not new. House Democrats passed this back in 2019, right on party-line votes. In fact, the only bipartisan aspect of the bill is its opposition, as was just stated by another speaker.

Back in March, along with every single House Republican, one brave House Democrat voted against this bill, and the reason is clear--and it has been stated--but let me put all five of these things into one area so that it is a little easier to understand.

The bill is filled with dangerous, anti-democratic provisions-- provisions that make it easier to steal votes.

One, legalizing ballot harvesting. Each Member has been talking about ballot harvesting and the threat that is out there.

Banning voter ID. In my State of Oklahoma, we have ID laws to safeguard our votes.

They are attempting to restore felons' right to vote. Why would you want to restore a felon's right to vote? And I have not heard anyone yet give a good argument that is persuasive.

Allowing voters to cast ballots outside of their precincts. That is just one step further and one step easier to falsify ballots.

Subsidize political candidates with Federal funds. We are going to talk about that. It is unbelievable. I mentioned some of the--how it might affect some individuals.

It is more accurately named the ``For the Liberal Politicians Act.'' In their mind, it not only ensures that they can control elections forever with ballot harvesting and other questionable practices, but they would also give millions in taxpayers' funds to bulk up their campaigns.

I just reminded them, and others have mentioned this, too, it sounds like you might be criticizing Ted Cruz when you say this, but it is not because he knows it is wrong. He observed that--when he was running for office, that if he had been able to harvest the opportunities you have from the Federal Government, he would have raised some $24 million in Federal funds in the first quarter of this year for his campaign.

The Oklahoma State Election Board Secretary, Paul Ziriax, shared with me his strong concerns about this bill and what it would do to my State of Oklahoma and our election integrity laws. It would impose policies that contradict State law, like legalizing ballot harvesting and preventing voter ID for in-person voting.

As he is responsible for managing the elections in Oklahoma, he knows how bad this would be for Oklahomans.

Today, Oklahoma's elections are safe, secure, and fair. Secretary Ziriax said it best in 2019, when he testified before the House, that Oklahoma's voting system is ``one of the most reliable, most accurate, most secure, most efficient, most cost-effective, and speediest voting system in the entire world.''

We pride ourselves on that. That is Oklahoma doing it, not the Federal Government--not the Federal Government doing something that might benefit one segment of our society.

It is clear the Democrats are playing politics with S. 1.

Now, following the 2020 Presidential election, Democrats complained about efforts to remove States from running their elections, but now Democrats are seeking sweeping Federal control over elections.

I am going to mention something that no one has mentioned before, and I guess the only reason it comes to my mind is I have been doing this for a long period of time--being concerned in trying to preserve our electoral college.

Back in 1787, we had a problem. They were putting together a Constitution to try to establish a way of voting in the United States of America that would be safe for everyone and be equitable.

And so they came out and--they didn't want to do it just on a one- person vote because if you do that, that is a decided advantage for all of the large States. And so what they did was come up with what they called the electoral college, and that was that they made the effort to correct the problem. We are talking about back in 1787.

In 1787, we had a system where we had four very large States and nine small States. So if you just--the four large States were comprised of more than 50 percent of the electorate so that wouldn't work. That wasn't going to work. And, of course, the same thing is true today. Today, nine States have a majority of the votes.

And so it was the clear intent not to let the large States have control of our system.

Now, I am sure some of the large States disagree with that. Some Democrats--a lot of Democrats disagree with that because it would be a decided advantage in an interim election.

So what we did, we established the electoral college, and I have committed that is my main cause right now because it is in jeopardy now. The electoral college is being attacked on a regular basis.

In fact, one of the prominent Democrats who is currently in the leadership in the Democratic Party has introduced a resolution to do away with the electoral college. That is something we cannot allow to happen.

And, oddly enough, it has survived for, what, 233 years now--233 years. And yet, it has survived all that time, but there are those attacking it right now.

So that is another one of the major issues that we are concerned with, and that is that we are not only giving up all the creativity and the safeguards that are in a secure system, put together not by the Federal Government but by the States, and trying to take that over for the Federal Government. They have been attempting to do this, now, for 230 years. They haven't been successful, and I am hoping they will not be successful on my watch.

Thank you

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, the chairman of our committee and I have both agreed that we need to be debating this during our markup, and we intend to do that.

For that reason, I object.

Madam President, today I honor a superb leader, liaison, and soldier for his tireless commitment to the U.S. Army, which includes 2 years of service with the Army Office of the Legislative Liaison, as the chief of the Army's Senate Liaison Division. As COL Nathan E. Cook II prepares to retire after 28 years of dedicated and distinguished service to our Nation, I believe it is fitting to recognize his exceptional service and relationship with this Chamber.

Colonel Cook's congressional liaison assignment is only the capstone to what has been an outstanding career of service to the Army and our Nation. Colonel Cook is a 1993 graduate of The United States Military Academy at West Point. He was commissioned into the Army as a field artillery officer and has served in command and staff positions from the tactical to the strategic level in the 2d Armored Division, 4th Infantry Division, 8th Army, 3d Infantry Division, 1st Cavalry Division, Headquarters Resolute Support, and Headquarters Department of the Army. He has led our Nation's soldiers during multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan during OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, OPERATION NEW DAWN, and OPERATION RESOLUTE SUPPORT. Likewise, he commanded our soldiers in combat as the commander of the 3d Battalion, 82d Field Artillery Regiment from Fort Hood, TX, and the 75th Field Artillery Brigade from Fort Sill, OK. Prior to his assignment as the chief of the Army's Senate Liaison Division, he served as the senior advisor to the Afghan Minister of Defense, where he provided timely and critical advice across the Ministry of Defense and the NATO coalition. The Army has continuously relied upon Colonel Cook for his exceptional leadership and unparalleled work ethic throughout his career.

Over the course of the last few years, Colonel Cook's tireless efforts proved invaluable in broadening the understanding of Members and staff on Army priorities, policies, and initiatives that ultimately provided resources and authorities for the Army and enhanced trust and confidence across the Senate. He managed all of this while leading and managing numerous congressional delegations to various locations around the world. Colonel Cook has become a trusted adviser and friend to many of us, distinguishing himself by continuously going above and beyond the call of duty to serve the needs of Congress.

This Chamber will feel Colonel Cook's absence. I join many past and present Members of Congress in my gratitude and appreciation to Colonel Cook for his outstanding leadership and unwavering support. There is no doubt that the strength of our soldiers comes from their families. Colonel Cook's strength comes from his wife Traci and his two sons, Nathan and Joshua. This Nation is grateful for their commitment and personal sacrifices made throughout Colonel Cook's career.

On behalf of the U.S. Senate and the United States of America, I commend Colonel Cook for his tireless efforts in the support of our Army, our military, and our Nation. As Nate and his family transition from the military, I congratulate him on completing an extremely successful military career and wish all of them the best in all their future endeavors.

Madam President, today I honor a servant leader, liaison, and combat warrior. After 2 years of service as Director of the Air Force Senate Liaison Office, Brig. Gen. Neil Richardson is deservedly moving on and assuming the responsibilities of Deputy Director of Operations of Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base, IL. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize General Richardson's distinguished service and dedication to fostering the relationship between the U.S. Air Force and this Chamber.

A C-130 weapons officer and navigator by designation, General Richardson has led our Nation's men and women in combat, overseas, and at home. He has led at every level with highlights as an instructor navigator at the C-130 Weapons Instructor Course, the commander of the 447th Expeditionary Operations Support Squadron, leading joint and coalition airfield operations at Baghdad International Airport, Iraq, and the 87th Air Base Wing commander at Joint Base McGuire-Dix- Lakehurst in New Jersey, the Defense Department's only triservice joint base. The Air Force has consistently relied upon General Richardson's exceptional leadership and unparalleled work ethic.

General Richardson has excelled in numerous other leadership positions in the Air Force, most recently as the Director, Air Force Senate Liaison. In the Russell Senate Office Building and around the globe, General Richardson facilitated communications between the Chamber and the Department of the Air Force in establishing the U.S. Space Force. He supported the Department of the Air Force in twice gaining confirmation of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

General Richardson and his team twice supported successful legislation of the National Defense Authorization Act despite challenges resulting from the unprecedented coronavirus pandemic and heightened security on Capitol Hill. His team facilitated 200 congressional engagements with Air Force and Space Force senior leaders to include seven Air Force Caucus events and the establishment of our new Space Force Caucus. Furthermore, his team escorted congressional delegations for more than 84 Members of Congress on visits both stateside and abroad to include our annual trip to the Ronald Reagan National Defense Forum.

Next month, General Richardson departs Washington for Scott Air Force Base, IL, to serve as the deputy director of the greatest airlift, aerial refueling, and aeromedical evacuation logistical force in the world. This Chamber will feel General Richardson's absence. I join many past and present Members of Congress in my gratitude and appreciation to General Richardson for his outstanding leadership and unwavering support of the missions of the U.S. Air Force and especially recognize his patient and supportive family, Mrs. Melissa Richardson, their daughter Megan, her husband Air Force SSgt Nathan Brock, along with the rest of his children; Katie, Garrett, and Gage. I wish this Air Force family safe travels and endless gratitude for their dedicated service to our Nation.

Mr. President, I have been down here a lot talking about why we need to increase the defense budget: We face more threats than ever before. China and Russia are investing more in modernizing their militaries than ever before. We need to strengthen our alliances to discourage our adversaries from acting, and the best way to back up our friends is with a strong military.

These are all good reasons, but we have 2.2 million other reasons we need to increase our defense budget: all the brave men and women who serve our country in uniform.

May is Military Appreciation Month, and I could talk all day about all the ways our servicemembers are the best in the world and how much I appreciate them. But we shouldn't just talk about it; we need to show these brave men and women just what they mean to us.

When I travel, I always eat in the mess halls with our troops--not the officers, the enlisted men and women. When I do that, I get a real sense of what our troops need to do their jobs and defend this country. So I have a pretty good idea of what will show them our appreciation. We should show them by providing adequate, consistent and stable funding on time.

When budgets are delayed and defense spending is cut, you know who feels it the most? Our troops. It hurts their morale. It hurts their readiness. It hurts their families. It affects everything.

We should show them with more and better training that focuses on their safety. We should show them by giving them modem weapons and equipment that work and work well. We should show them by taking care of their families, making sure their spouses have good employment opportunities, their kids have access to high-quality childcare and education, and they all have the best healthcare. We should show them by giving them high-quality housing.

Over the last 2 years, this was my priority, and it will be this year too. Senator Reed also understands this sacred duty we have.

The last two years, we have given our troops a pay raise of 3 percent or more--some of the largest annual pay raises ever. We increased hazardous duty pay by 10 percent last year; that is what we give our troops in the most dangerous jobs. We have made changes to fix the broken housing system because no servicemember should ever be living in bad housing. We are continuing to keep an eye on this until all the necessary fixes are in place, including the Housing Bill of Rights we are waiting for. We have helped make sure military spouses have good jobs, even when they move. We have focused on building a modern healthcare system that works for our servicemembers and their families, and we have prioritized mental healthcare for those who serve. I am proud we have been able to do all this.

But here is the thing: Taking care of our troops--that is at least a third of our defense budget right there. That is the right thing to do. Our servicemembers are the backbone of our national security. It's also the necessary thing to do for our All-Volunteer Force. No one is forced to enlist anymore. The military needs to compete for our country's best and brightest, and that takes money.

The troops lay everything on the line to defend our Nation. They sacrifice time with their families and friends. As we remember each year on Memorial Day, many make the ultimate sacrifice. There aren't enough words to express our gratitude. That is why we have to show them.

But the math of President Biden's budget doesn't add up when it comes to taking care of our troops. Not when we have to do all these other things--defend against more than one serious threat, support our allies and partners, and take on new domains. We can do things to make things more cost-effective for the taxpayer, but we can't go back on our promises to those who agreed to serve. They are all volunteers, after all.

So it concerns me when people talk about us spending more than China, Russia, and other countries--it is just not true.

One of the reasons our defense budget is large is because we take care of our people. China and Russia--they don't do that. They give them a gun and tell them to fight. No one else takes care of their people the way we do. That is why they don't have the caliber of people we do. Our military personnel are the best in the world.

So yes, a strong military budget is about sending a message to our enemies. It is about sending a message to our allies and partners. But it is also about sending a message to our troops: that we are going to take care of you and your families while you serve. We are going to make sure you have what you need to defend this country--the equipment, the training, the personnel, the weapons, the support.

President Biden's budget equals a cut to national defense. While we are going to prioritize taking care of our troops they are going to feel that cut somehow, someway, no matter what we do. We are asking them to do more with less, and we have been asking them for decades now.

There are things President Biden and I agree we need to do when it comes to our national defense--keep the Indo-Pacific open and free, enhance our cyber defense, innovate and modernize, and beyond. But President Biden's got more on his list of things he wants to ask our military to do--stuff that really falls outside the core mission of the Department of Defense--and he is not even giving them more budget to do it with. This is not a message we should send our troops. It is not what they deserve.

One month for military appreciation--it is really not enough. But we can show our troops our appreciation year-round by giving them the budget they need, a budget with real growth to match the strategy they are carrying out.

Mr. President, over the weekend, the State Department-- that is, our State Department--imposed visa restrictions on several Ethiopian and Eritrean Government officials. They claim these officials have not done enough to end the hostilities in the Tigray area.

Now, the Tigray area is in the northern part of Ethiopia, and it is an area that is one of the very old parts of that continent.

First, we need to be clear. Everyone, especially the Ethiopian Government, wants nothing more than a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Tigray, but this action puts the terrorist organization TPLF--that is a terrorist organization--on equal status with the Ethiopian Government. Now, that is unacceptable, and it is wrong. It is outrageous that we have them in the same issue as if they are somehow equals.

Let me say something to be 100 percent clear, to make sure no one can misunderstand this, and that is that humanitarian atrocities are wrong and have no place in our world. I am proud that Prime Minister Abiy of Ethiopia has clearly stated that any atrocities are not condoned by the government and those responsible will be held accountable. That is going to happen.

To truly understand this issue and why putting the Ethiopian Government on equal footing with the TPLF is so offensive and downright wrong, you need to understand how we got here. Indulge with me in just a little bit of history.

Now, I know the changes Ethiopia has seen over the last decade. Since 2005, I have visited Ethiopia 19 different times, engaging and developing relationships with Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, legislators, businesspeople, aid workers, and everyone else in between. I say this to show that I know Ethiopia probably better than anyone else in this Chamber. But more than that, I know its history.

Ethiopia is the oldest independent country in all of Africa but one that is newly democratic. That comes with problems, and we understand that.

The current controversy and why we are here today started back in the 1970s with a man named Mengistu. From 1974 to 1991, Mengistu was the leader of the Communist Derg. That is the Communist Party in Ethiopia. This was the

controlling party at the time. It is a Communist Party. They ran Ethiopia. It was a terrible time for Ethiopia. That was during one of the worst famines they ever had on that continent or actually anywhere. It killed over a million people. That might be the most significant famine in history in terms of deaths.

Then, in 1991, the Communists were booted out. At the time that this took place, one person who was responsible for the getting rid of the Derg Communists and the Communist threat in Ethiopia was a guy named Meles. He was a member of the Tigrayan political party.

Now, we got to know him quite well. He is the one who got communism out of that part of the world. He ended up as Prime Minister. This is really the election that a lot of people don't like, and they forget about the fact that he was the Prime Minister who actually got rid of the Communists in Ethiopia.

So he became the Prime Minister. He started to build democracy. He died in 2012. I got to know him quite well during his lifetime, and I saw the progress that he made and the advances that they made.

He was then replaced by another Prime Minister whose name is Hailemariam. Now he became Prime Minister, and he continued to push for democracy. Hailemariam worked diligently to improve things. Under his tenure, Ethiopia established the Independent Ethiopian Human Rights Committee that reported on violence and human rights problems, and it was tremendously successful. They didn't just establish it; they acted on it. They came out with a report and acted on it to hold perpetrators accountable and to make the improvements that were being made at that time. Our relationship wasn't just government-to-government; it was brother-to-brother.

In February of 2017, Prime Minister Hailemariam suggested that since the provinces were all fighting at one time--and at that time, there were nine provinces in Ethiopia. Each province had a Governor. We suggested on the phone with the Members of the Senate here in Washington and the House prayer group in the House of Representatives that what we ought to do is follow the recommendation of Eisenhower. We are talking about former General Eisenhower, President Eisenhower. He was a great, great President of the United States. This was right after World War II. He said--this is a quote. I am quoting Eisenhower now. He said:

The problems of this world are so great that we will never

resolve the problems until we learn to sit down and pray

together.

So we decided, let's all get the Governors, the Prime Minister, Members of the House, Members of the Senate, and the rest all together, and we will pray with them. We did this. In fact, we had five Senators with me at that time, and we went over. The problem was, only two of the Governors showed up, out of nine, so it didn't work.

Eight months later, we had occasion to be back there, and we put together the same thing, but we talked to them to let them know--we talked to the Governors at that time, the nine Governors who were in Ethiopia. So we got them and explained what it was all about. The Governors who had been fighting with each other and had been fighting with Hailemariam all prayed together, and we were joined in prayer by 18 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. We were joined with them by phone, and the Prime Minister and all of us, Members of the Senate and others who were there, we all rejoiced and embraced each other.

That was really significant. The nine Governors had never been together before. They didn't like each other. They never had been in the same room before. But most of the people didn't live in cities, and that made this effort that much more difficult. The vast majority of people who live there are in rural communities, and that made this widespread change in development a longer and more difficult path.

In Ethiopia, the tribal factions also played a great role. If you go from province to province, that used to be from tribe to tribe, and they historically have not gotten along until this time. So it made it more difficult because of the factions and all of that, but it worked. We unified them together, and that was unlike anything that has ever happened.

One of the Governors who was there at the time was named Dr. Abiy. You might remember that name because he is now the Prime Minister of Ethiopia. I have often said that Dr. Abiy is arguably the most educated, the smartest guy I have seen in that position in--of the entire continent of Africa. He is just a tremendous person.

We got them together at a leaders breakfast. We put something together where he told the story of his journey in faith in Jesus. This is Dr. Abiy.

We met a year later, where we prayed and talked about how to unify the country in peace, not conflict. It is from these meetings that I know Abiy is committed to democracy and committed to the future of Ethiopia. He is showing that with his actions as well.

Abiy was elected Prime Minister in 2018 after active and spirited protests against the existing ruling party, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, which had run the country for almost 30 years. Abiy was elected by a country looking for fresh leadership. He immediately took steps to create positive change. He promised unity and reconciliation, and against all odds, he delivered. He passed liberal democratic reforms, and he freed political prisoners and journalists. Abiy even did what was once believed impossible: He negotiated a peace treaty with Eritrea after decades of long cold war and was recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize for his work. He was the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize for all the wonderful work he had done. That was in Africa. It was a leading operation.

So how does all this play into the situation before us today? The Ethiopian People's Democratic Front--the previous ruling party--is dominated by people from Tigray, the area up north that we talked about before, one of the regional provinces.

When Abiy set up a new governing body and focused on governing for the whole of Ethiopia, and not just a few politically powerful regions, the TPLF wasn't happy. That is the terrorist group. They felt like they were losing the outsized influence that they held for decades and decades.

They also weren't happy about the peace deal with Eritrea, the TPLF, who were ruling Ethiopia in the 1990s when the bitter Eritrea-Ethiopian conflict was going on. Decades later, they still feel aggrieved and didn't want peace. The result, they started acting out.

In 2019, they started to refuse to participate in the new government and the new ruling party. They expressed their frustration in more overt and destabilizing ways. They held their own regional parliamentary elections in September during the height of the coronavirus pandemic instead of agreeing with the other provinces and the Prime Minister that they should be postponed because of the pandemic.

The militia affiliated with the TPLF--that is the terrorist group that has been designated by the Ethiopian Parliament as a terrorist group--attacked an Ethiopian army base in Mekelle on November 4 and stole weapons there.

Let me restate this plainly. A regional party, TPLF, attacked a government military base. The government rightfully responded, and the regional terrorist group is well equipped and has been fighting back and continuing the conflict for a long period of time now.

That is what is going on right now. That is the situation we find ourselves in, and that is why it is astounding to me that our government continues to treat this situation with both sides being equal when clearly they are not. One side is the democratically elected government, and the other side is a disgruntled faction that is reacting with violence because they are no longer in power. It is a terrorist group.

And again, the Ethiopian Government has been clear that they do not condone any of the reported atrocities, and they will hold anyone who commits atrocities accountable. We, the United States, need to continue to engage Ethiopia and try to understand how what we are seeing today is a product years in the making. It is not a simple matter of two aggrieved parties. It is Prime Minister Abiy working to protect a unified, peaceful, stable Ethiopia.

We should be talking to him about how we can help him restore peace, not slapping punitive sanctions on his government--an action that does nothing but demonstrate that we can't or won't

appreciate the history and the regional differences that lead to this situation.

And I want to close by speaking to Prime Minister Abiy and our friends in Ethiopia directly: Brother, I am with you. Those of us who understand the history of what you are facing and what you are working to support, we are with you, Prime Minister Abiy.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, next week is a summer anniversary, 100 years since the Tulsa massacre. Before 1921, Greenwood District, also known as Black Wall Street, was a vibrant, thriving, prosperous Black community. But then, on the evening of May 31 into the early morning of June 1, 1921, there was a horrific massacre where hundreds of Black Tulsans were murdered and thousands were made homeless overnight. It was awful.

But as terrible as it was, that is why it is important to come together to honor the victims and their families and share their stories today with future generations. I am honored to cosponsor Senator Lankford's resolution today to remember this anniversary.

Together, we can all work to lift up the story of Black Wall Street and use this anniversary to remember, reflect, and work, as we do every day, toward reconciliation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman, Chairman Reed, that this important issue deserves a robust debate as we consider this year's National Defense Authorization Act. I would also like to thank Senator Gillibrand for her leadership and her tenacity on this issue.

As Senator Reed referenced, I am one of those who do not support removing the commanders from the decision-making process. Nevertheless, I appreciate Chairman Reed's commitment to ensuring this issue is debated and voted on during the full committee markup of the NDAA.

The NDAA markup process is unique in the Senate. We debate and resolve contentious issues every year. But the regular-order process is important and has served us well for many, many years--actually 60 years.

When it comes to important issues like this, we should not rush anything without making sure it is going to do the right thing by our servicemembers, and so I thank Chairman Reed for his action

Mr. President, China is a 360-degree threat. They are competing with us in every area--economics, technology, military, diplomacy, information warfare. You know, we operated for the better part of a decade under the idea that we should have parity in defense and nondefense increases. I mean, this is a bipartisan thing. This is Democrats and Republicans alike. We did this every year for--every 2 years as we did the Budget Control Act, and that was an agreement until all of a sudden, somehow, we are changing from that.

So what Senator Shelby's and my amendment does is very simple. It says that for every dollar that we increase nondefense spending, we have the same amount of money that is going to increase defense spending. I talked about this yesterday at some length.

How can you justify changing that policy when the greatest threat that we are facing right now is China? You know, they are competing in every area, and to leave that out conspicuously is not reasonable at all. So I think that the--I remember that the majority leader and the Speaker of the House back in 2019 said: ``Democrats have always insisted on parity in increases between defense and non-defense.''

So why would they change now? And I don't think that they will change now. So, again, I am unsure people understand what this is all about. This is a very simple thing. It says that--our amendment says that for every dollar we increase nondefense spending, we also increase defense spending by the same amount. It is called parity. We have lived with this right now for 8 years. We have been in agreement, and somehow this has changed, as if the threat that we are facing right now with economics, technology, diplomacy, information warfare are more important than military. Military is the No. 1 threat.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Texas leaves the floor, I want to acknowledge that in Oklahoma, last Sunday, I was with a group of people, and, independent of each other, they asked the same question: Where is America, and what is happening over there right now? Our best friend and most loyal ally in that part of the world, Israel, is being hit by terrorists, and we are sitting back and not doing anything. It is just not thinkable that that could happen.

I think one of the most meaningful things that I had not heard before, stated this way, that the Senator from Texas stated was, if Hamas were to stop the attacks on Israel, Israel would do nothing, but if Israel were to stop responding, there would be no Israel left.

That is the situation we have there. It is something that is not understandable. It is something that we are going to do everything we can to reverse.

That is not why I am here on the floor, but I just wanted to mention that

Mr. President, it's my honor to recognize Roger Beverage, a distinguished Oklahoman and dear friend, who recently retired from his role as president and chief executive officer of the Oklahoma Bankers Association. While Roger is a native of Plattsmouth, NE, he has called Oklahoma home for decades. He began his career as a trial lawyer, where he transitioned to a leading role with the Nebraska Bankers Association and later as the director of the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance. For the past 33 years, Roger has led the Oklahoma Bankers Association. He devoted much of his life to advocating for the banking community across Oklahoma and Washington, DC. There is no question his tireless work has left a lasting impact on our State. While it is sad to see him retire, I have great confidence that his successor and son, Adrian, will carry forward the influential legacy of his father in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize MAJ Aimee A. Mack, U.S. Army, on the conclusion of her current assignment. Since May 2020, Major Mack has served with great distinction as the legislative liaison for the Countermeasures Acceleration Group, which was previously known as Operation Warp Speed. Throughout the development, production, and distribution of the various coronavirus vaccines, Major Mack has been an outstanding source of information for my staff and me, helping us understand a fast-moving and game-changing program that is saving millions of American lives.

I think we all need to pause and marvel at the miracle that Operation Warp Speed fostered. Today, based on the successful foundational work of Operation Warp Speed, it is extremely easy for any eligible American to receive a coronavirus vaccine. So it might be hard to remember just how far-fetched that objective seemed when Operation Warp Speed was launched during the height of the pandemic, approximately 1 year ago. At the time, many in the mainstream media doubted that a coronavirus vaccine could be produced so quickly. President Trump's plan to make a coronavirus vaccine available by the end of 2020 was repeatedly ``fact checked,'' and leading political and medical figures viewed the program as either a low-odds gamble or a political stunt.

This was the very difficult information environment that Major Mack confronted when she was appointed as Operation Warp Speed's legislative liaison in May 2020, but she was uniquely suited for the assignment. Like all of the best legislative liaisons, Major Mack had the confidence of her commanding officer, GEN Gustave A. Perna, and was meticulous in her provision of precise, detailed information to Congress. She is also a Nurse Corps officer, and her medical knowledge made her an exceptional asset to Members of Congress and their staffs, particularly when it came to explaining the program's revolutionary scientific and medical testing decisions, which were vital to finding, testing, and receiving emergency approval for three vaccines in record time. In this sense, Major Mack was not merely a source of information but of education. Thanks to her efforts, when the first coronavirus vaccines were administered in December 2020, there was broad, bipartisan congressional confidence in the vaccines' safety and efficacy because she taught our staffs and us what we needed to know.

In the months that followed, as attention shifted from the development of the vaccines to their production and delivery, Major Mack continued to provide regular and detailed updates for Members and staff. Again, I think we need to admire Operation Warp Speed's achievement here: For the first time in history, vaccines are effectively going from conveyor belts to arms within days. Major Mack's deep knowledge of the process and her outstanding work in sharing it with us bolstered congressional confidence in the program. To put a finer point on it, when our State health departments needed the latest information on vaccine allotments and projections, we knew who to call--MAJ Aimee Mack.

Major Mack will soon depart for Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS, and she will be greatly missed. I want to thank her for her exceptional service and thank her family as well--her husband, MAJ Jamaal Mack, and her children, Daunte and Alisa. I wish her every success in the future and sincerely hope we get to work with her again soon.