Floor Statements

Madam President, I am really pleased to be able to come to the floor this afternoon to join my colleague from Ohio, Senator Portman. We twice traveled to Ukraine together. I have appreciated his leadership as cochair of the Ukraine Caucus and his advocacy for not only legislation to help Ukraine but also for these reports which weekly have kept the war in Ukraine in front of the American people, which is so important as we think about how we continue support in our public for what is happening in Ukraine and this fight that the Ukrainians are so courageously waging.

I am also pleased to be here with my colleague Senator Tillis, who, along with me, cochairs the Senate NATO Observer Group, because we are going to be voting this afternoon on ratification of the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO. Together, we led a bipartisan delegation to Madrid last month, which included three Democrats and four Republicans, and we were able to visit Helsinki and Stockholm on our way into Madrid to talk about just why it is so important that Finland and Sweden are joining NATO.

I wanted to talk about both of these topics this afternoon because they are connected.

As Senator Portman said, there is a reason why Finland and Sweden, after decades of maintaining neutrality, are looking at joining NATO. It is because of this unprovoked, brutal war by Russia against Ukraine. If they are successful in Ukraine, we don't know where that will end, so we need to make the connection for people.

A year ago, no one would have thought that Sweden and Finland would have wanted NATO membership, but, of course, a lot has happened in that year.

Vladimir Putin made one of the most consequential miscalculations in modern history. I think it is the biggest miscalculation in foreign policy since Hitler went into Russia in World War II. He went into Ukraine to wage this unprovoked, premeditated war upon the people of Ukraine. Part of his rationale was to talk about NATO and his opposition to Ukraine's joining NATO but also because he thought he would be able to stall the enlargement of NATO. He thought he would be able to split the NATO allies. In fact, just the opposite has happened. The global response to punish Putin for this war in Ukraine is unprecedented. Putin's barbaric campaign in Ukraine and threats to democracy around the world have resulted in the strongest iteration of NATO to date.

And now here we are. The United States is about to welcome two very capable, very qualified and deserving members into the alliance, which will further strengthen our global coordination to preserve our rules- based order.

I have spoken before in this Chamber about the strong bipartisan support for

Finland and Sweden's NATO membership. When Sweden and Finland announced their intent to apply for NATO membership, Senator Tillis and I led a letter to President Biden that within about 24 hours was cosigned by 80 of our colleagues, all pledging to support swift ratification of the accession protocols.

Just last month, Senator Tillis and I led that delegation to Madrid to the NATO summit, and we did it at the request of both the majority leader, Schumer, and the minority leader, McConnell.

When meeting with our allies and partners, we talked about our commitment to return to the Senate and to work hard to swiftly ratify the accession protocols, and we have done just that. We had hoped to be the first body to do that ratification. We are going to be the 22nd, which I think is very good news for NATO and for the effort to ensure that Finland and Sweden become members of NATO.

On July 19, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which Senator Portman and I sit, unanimously voted in support of NATO's accession protocols.

Today's vote is not just important for Sweden and Finland and for NATO, but it is also important for Ukraine, as Senator Portman laid out. The Ukrainian people are on the frontlines of a war for democracy and for our collective shared values--values that underpin the heart of the NATO alliance. Sweden and Finland's membership will bolster our efforts to hold Putin to account as he wages this war to eradicate Ukrainian culture.

Putin's decision to invade Ukraine affirmed what we have long known-- that Vladimir Putin does not respect the distinct history, culture, and identity of the Ukrainian people. His view of history, of course, is false. It is distorted, and it is deadly. His unprovoked war in Ukraine is a manifestation of his delusional ideas and his blatant attempt to wipe Ukraine off the map of Europe. But despite the challenges to their sovereignty, for generations, the Ukrainian people have maintained their own traditions, their own language, and their own dream of independence.

Putin is waging propaganda campaigns that seek to justify his goals to the Russian people. He has deployed deliberate, harmful rhetoric of ``de-Nazifying'' Ukraine. He is pursuing a broader, maniacal agenda to eradicate everything Ukrainian--the land, the people, the language, the culture.

We know that Russia established filtration camps in Russia and Ukrainian territory even before the February 24 invasion. Now reports are that there are over 1 million Ukrainians who have been forcibly relocated to Russia, including about 250,000 children--children who have been taken from their Ukrainian parents and sent to Russia.

We need to call Putin's actions what they are. They are acts of genocide. After the horrors of the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, Yugoslav wars, the international community vowed to ``never again'' let such immense human tragedy happen on our watch.

We must not let Putin accomplish his mission of destroying the Ukrainian people and dismantling the international rules-based order which has been in place for more than 70 years. We must hold him accountable because we know that if he is successful, Putin's Russification campaign is not going to end with Ukraine. Who will be next? The Baltic States? Eastern European countries? Romania? Poland?

As Americans, we have a moral obligation to work with our allies to hold Putin to account, and I am proud that this body is doing just that. Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which Senator Portman and I are both members, introduced a resolution recognizing Russia's actions in Ukraine as genocide, but, of course, we must do more.

Today's ratification vote is going to be another step in sending a message to both Vladimir Putin and the Ukrainian people that NATO is unified and that we are going to continue to support their efforts to push back against this brutal dictator.

I hope that our colleagues will join us in celebrating today's important moment of NATO's enlargement from 30 to 32 members. This historic accession is a testament to the global commitment to not be bystanders amid a war that violates all international norms and seeks to destabilize our rules-based order. I hope that our remaining NATO allies will move swiftly to advance Sweden and Finland's NATO membership.

Amid Russia's horrific campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Ukrainian people, we must recognize the importance of our shared transatlantic values to push back on Putin's dangerous and bloodthirsty war against Ukraine.

Again, I am pleased that we are here to support both Ukraine and the ratification of Sweden and Finland into NATO. I am sure we will have a very strong bipartisan vote this afternoon, and I look forward to continuing to work with NATO and with our colleagues as we do everything we can to support the success of Ukraine against Vladimir Putin.

I yield to my cochair of the Senate NATO Observer Group, Senator Tillis.

Reserving the right to object.

One of Congress's most basic jobs is the power of the purse. Americans rely on this body to provide Federal funds for programs that support national defense, small businesses, border defenses, conservation of public lands, food assistance for the poor, and so much more.

And as a longstanding member of the Appropriations Committee, I am proud of the work that the Appropriations Committee has done to meet the needs of this Nation. And as a senior Senator from New Hampshire, when I talk to small business owners, educators, healthcare professionals, community leaders across my State, it is unfortunate that not all of the needs of our State are being met.

And for years, New Hampshire, like most small States in this country, has received among the lowest apportionments in the country from formula grant programs that are administered by our Federal Agencies.

Congress has long used earmarks or congressionally directed spending to address funding gaps and inequities between the States. And, in fact, Senator Judd Gregg--whom I had the pleasure of serving with both when he was Governor and I was in the State senate and then when he was in the Senate and I got elected--was a big supporter of congressionally directed spending because he believed, like I do, that I know better how money should be spent in New Hampshire than a bureaucrat here who was making decisions about how to spend Federal dollars.

Congressionally directed spending levels the playing field for States like New Hampshire, and even for Indiana, to ensure that our communities can get their fair share to address our local needs.

Unfortunately, back in 2011, when Congress instituted a ban on congressionally directed spending, we ceded the power of the purse to unelected officials in the executive branch. And while I know that many of these individuals are dedicated bureaucrats, they are public servants. They don't necessarily understand the needs of New Hampshire in the same way that I do as somebody who has represented that State for decades.

So that is why I was very pleased that under the leadership of Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Shelby, Congress once again passed a bipartisan bill to include congressionally directed spending in our budget process.

And when we did that, the Appropriations Committee instituted some major reforms to improve accountability and transparency in the process of congressionally directed spending.

I am going to talk about some of those reforms because while I appreciate the perspective of my colleague from Indiana, I think he has not pointed out the reforms that exist in the process of congressionally directed spending.

First of all, Members are required to certify that neither we nor any member of our immediate family would financially benefit from the requests that are made. Secondly, those congressionally directed spending requests have to be made in writing and posted online by the Member and the Appropriations Committee so that the public has every opportunity to view the name and location of the project, the intended recipient, and the purposes of that request. For example, the requests for fiscal year 2023 are available online right now before they would be available if this government, this administration, were determining how to spend that money.

So the Senator from Indiana doesn't have to wait until those Senate bills are posted to inspect congressionally directed spending projects.

The reforms also include a 1-percent cap on discretionary spending for CDS items and a ban on congressionally directed spending items to for-profit entities.

Finally, the Appropriations Committee requires the Government Accountability Office to audit a sample of enacted congressionally directed spending items to ensure that Congress is being held accountable for these projects.

The chair and ranking member instituted these reforms to restore the trust of the American people in the appropriations process, and I believe it is

working. And I can tell you, as I travel around New Hampshire, it is one of the things that I hear from people in our communities that they are interested in.

They want to know about the appropriations process, and they want to know what other opportunities are there to support initiatives that may not fit within some grant program, that they may not be able to raise money in the private sector for but that are very important for our communities.

The resolution sponsored by the Senator from Indiana would require the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee to certify that not just Senate earmarks have been disclosed but that all House earmarks have been disclosed.

I think that bill is a solution in search of a problem. The House already has its own rule that governs congressionally directed spending items, and it is required to identify these items.

It knows what its Members have requested, and it is responsible for disclosing them. Requiring the Senate to confirm that the House has done its job before we can consider a message from the House is unnecessary, and it could stop consideration of appropriations bills before they ever get here.

The resolution sponsored by my colleague from Indiana would change Senate rule 44 in ways that could have unintended consequences and could delay critical funding for projects that are important in my home State of New Hampshire and in so many States across this country.

So given all of those concerns, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session and the Senate immediately vote on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 902, the nomination of Shereef Elnahal.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in addition to myself, both Senators Grassley and Carper be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each before the scheduled vote.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the current chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies because I want to pay tribute to the clerk who has worked with me for the last 6 years but who has been in public service here for the Federal Government for 27 years, including 26 years of service in the U.S. Senate, and that is Jean Toal Eisen, who is going to be retiring from the Federal Government.

And Jean is here along with two other members of the staff of the CJS Subcommittee, Blaise Sheridan and Michael Bednarczyk, as well as three members of my staff, Ariel Marshall, Janelle DiLuccia, and Chad Kreikemeier, my chief of staff.

We are here because we think it is important, and I especially think it is important to recognize the people who make this body run. And it is people like Jean, who have dedicated their whole careers to this institution, who allow us to--who mean that we can, on occasion, get things done that make a huge difference for the people of this country.

And I know I speak for all the members of the Appropriations Committee and its staff when I say that Jean will be sorely missed.

Just last week, as I looked at the breathtaking images captured from NASA's James Webb telescope, I thought about Jean. It is no exaggeration to say that those images exist, in no small part, because of her work on this subcommittee. And they serve as a fitting capstone for her distinguished career.

And, of course, then I thought about other ways that Jean's influence will endure, ensuring millions of people will get access to broadband because of her work on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--and there were many late nights that she and other members of my staff and Senator Collins' staff worked with the Commerce Department to try and ensure we could get those broadband sections done--and then also helping survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse receive access to critical services because of Jean's successful efforts to release more resources from the Crime Victims Fund. In fact, every year that I have been chair of Commerce, Justice, and Science, because of Jean's efforts, we have maximized funding in the Office of Violence Against Women so that each year over year we have done better.

She has also been there to ensure that the next generation of STEM innovators and leaders get record investments in the National Science Foundation and NASA. And it is really appropriate that we are considering bipartisan chips innovation legislation on the floor this week, Jean's last in the Senate, because she played a central role drafting and negotiating this critical legislation that will bolster American manufacturing and protect our national security interests.

And though Jean will no longer be in the Senate, her legacy is already felt everywhere, and the American people are better for it. Jean's journey in the Senate began as a staff assistant for Senator Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, her home State Senator.

Later, she served on the staff of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation as senior adviser and deputy policy director for Chairman Dan Inouye, before serving as deputy policy director at the U.S. Department of Commerce.

And since 2010, she has served on the CJS Subcommittee, and from 2014 to 2017, she was the deputy staff director of the Senate Committee on Appropriations for Chair Barbara Mikulski, who I know if she were here would also be on the floor to sing Jean's praises.

I have had the pleasure of having Jean as my clerk since 2017, when I took over the CJS Subcommittee as Vice Chair. And I think that words really can't capture Jean's personality, but I would be doing a disservice to this body if I didn't try to give a sense of why Jean is one of the most effective staffers on Capitol Hill.

And I think the first thing to know is that Jean always gives you the truth--whether you want to hear it or not. The second thing to know about her is that she always has a sense of humor, even when the going gets tough, and all of us who have been here through tough challenges know that maintaining a sense of humor is absolutely critical.

Her colleagues will remember her as incredibly knowledgeable, kind, and pragmatic because, at heart, Jean is a problem-solver. She understands that the U.S. Government is one of the most impressive institutions the world has ever seen, and she has dedicated her career to improving it.

Jean is also the proud mom of her daughter Pat, who is a rising sophomore at Longwood University and is, among other things, a saxophonist in the school's ``Stampede'' Athletic Pep Band.

Now that she is no longer drafting annual appropriations bills, we hope that Jean will have more quality time to spend with Pat, with her husband Pete, and with her many family members and friends and maybe even a little more time for hockey and gardening. Although if she is going to support hockey, she really needs to support the Bruins, so we are not sure how much time we want to give her for that.

But it gives me great joy to publicly thank Jean for her extraordinary work for this committee. Congratulations, Jean. Thank you for your decades of service to our country and your commitment to the U.S. Senate. Neither your expertise nor your good humor will soon be replaced, but your work will not be forgotten anytime soon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am really pleased to be able to come to the floor this morning to join my colleagues Senator Tillis, from North Carolina; Senator Ernst, from Iowa; Senator Blunt, from Missouri--and we are hoping to be joined by Senator Coons, from Delaware--to talk about the very successful congressional delegation we took in the first week of the 2-week break to Finland, Sweden, and the NATO summit in Madrid.

I want to especially acknowledge my colead for that delegation, Senator Tillis. He and I cochaired the Senate NATO Observer Group. And we have both been fervent supporters of NATO and efforts to ensure that the United States continues to be a leader on the world stage and a champion for freedom.

We were also joined on that trip by Senator Durbin, from Illinois, and Senator Fischer, from Nebraska.

A couple of months ago, Majority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader McConnell asked Senator Tillis and I to lead that bipartisan delegation to the NATO summit in Madrid to convey the Senate's strong bipartisan support for the alliance, especially amid Putin's unprovoked war in Ukraine.

I was very honored to represent the Senate amid what has been one of the most consequential moments in the history of the transatlantic alliance. And I think probably Senator Tillis and everyone who was part of that delegation felt the same way.

Our visit to Sweden, Finland, and Spain affirmed three important points: first, the NATO alliance is stronger than ever before--and this year's historic summit reaffirmed that; second, the Strategic Concept that was approved at this year's summit will ensure that NATO is prepared to address immediate threats on all fronts, from Putin's attempts to threaten the sovereignty of our allies to China's challenges to our alliance.

And, finally, as Putin attempts to rewrite history, working with our allies and partners is critical to ensuring that Putin or any leader that attempts to follow in his path is met with the might of NATO's democratic resolve.

One of the other things that I was very impressed with as we met not just with some of our NATO allies but with NATO aspirant country delegations and talked to leaders from the Indo-Pacific who were in Madrid is how everybody we talked to reaffirmed the importance of America's leadership in the world. So I think as we think about the future of NATO, about what we need to do in the United States, it is important to remember just how important our role is.

Now, our trip coincided with Turkey's announcement to support Finland and Sweden's ambitions to join NATO, which will significantly strengthen the alliance. In fact, as we landed in Madrid, we got the news that Turkey had dropped its hold on those applications. So we were able to celebrate.

Sweden and Finland's accession into NATO sends an unmistakable message to Putin: The alliance is stronger than ever and Russia does not have veto power over who joins NATO.

Our delegation was pleased to meet with the leadership from both Sweden and Finland to reaffirm the bipartisan support in the Senate for the swift approval of their NATO applications.

Our delegation's bipartisan message of support for Ukraine and NATO was reciprocated by our allies, which was evident during the meetings that we had with Japan and Germany. We met with Ukrainian officials and underscored our strong support to not only help Ukraine defend itself but to help Ukraine win. And that is what we heard from all of the allies we met with.

It is critical that, as Members of the Senate, we continue to do all we can to coordinate with our allies and support Ukraine's heroic efforts to defend itself against Putin's aggression because that war is not just against the people of Ukraine; it is an attack on democracies around the world, an attack on our shared transatlantic values--values that have maintained peace for over 70 years.

Our bipartisan delegation made clear that the United States will continue to support peace and stability in Europe and around the world. We will defend every inch of NATO territory and continue to look for ways to bolster Ukraine's defense.

We were pleased to share this commitment with members of the Biden administration who also traveled to the NATO summit. Our delegation met with President Biden, with Secretary Austin, and Secretary Blinken and reaffirmed that the Senate will continue to look for ways to help defend Ukraine and respond to emerging threats from the Balkans to the Indo-Pacific.

Again, I want to thank all of those who went on this very important trip, especially the staff who did such a great job putting it together. I was proud to colead that delegation, which was centered on our bipartisan resolve to support a strong and unified NATO and stand by our Ukrainian partners.

As Putin's war threatens democracies around the world, I think it is important that we send a clear message to our constituents at home and our allies abroad that the United States remains resolute in our commitment to the stability and freedom of all democratic nations because if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, there is no telling where his belligerence will end.

Last night, Senator Durbin secured unanimous consent for the protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Sweden and Finland to be referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This is an important development as we look at ratifying those protocols. I hope we can get this done as quickly as possible. I hope the Foreign Relations Committee will move on that process and we can act here in the Senate Chamber because swift ratification is in our national security interest.

Again, I am pleased to join my colleagues here on the floor and would like to turn it over to Senator Tillis to get his impressions from the trip.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the public service of Craig McLean who retired in April after a distinguished 40- year career within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. Within NOAA, Mr. McLean was as a dedicated leader, advocating for science to advance NOAA's mission to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, ocean, and coasts.

Mr. McLean has a deep dedication to our oceans and waterways, garnered from growing up along the Passaic River in Rutherford, NJ. As a child, he took a small boat out on the Passaic. As a teenager, he learned to dive and performed decompression diving in order to explore deep-ocean shipwrecks. These experiences helped inspire his career.

Mr. McLean began his NOAA career in 1981 as a uniformed officer in the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps and served for nearly 25 years before retiring at the rank of captain. During that time, he was instrumental to the founding of the NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, OER. Later, during his 16 years as a Federal executive, he provided continued leadership in driving forward mapping of U.S. waters to advance oceanographic scientific knowledge and discover deep ocean secrets including new species, historical shipwrecks, and undersea mountains. His leadership underlies OER's astounding accomplishments including mapping 2 million square kilometers and collecting ocean data in the waters of 16 countries and the high seas. This work contributed to key conservation decisions for vital marine habitats.

Most recently, Mr. McLean served as Assistant Administrator for NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research--OAR--for more than 6 years,

leading an enterprise of 10 Federal laboratories across the country and six major programs performing vital research to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, ocean, and coasts for the benefit of the Nation. Mr. McLean's preeminent leadership of OAR enabled vital advancements, including improved forecasting of weather extremes such as hurricanes, winter storms, extreme precipitation, and drought as well as a greatly increased understanding of the Earth's climate system. His leadership has enabled NOAA to better prepare society in order to reduce the severe impacts of these events on life and property.

On the international stage, as the U.S. Representative to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization--UNESCO--Mr. McLean's skillful collaborative approach helped advance U.S. scientific goals and garnered support from our partners in ocean observing around the world. He helped broker consensus for global biogeochemical ocean sensors, known as Argo, which enabled a $53 million international commitment to expand deployments to improve ocean health and climate forecasting. Through this role, Mr. McLean served as a leader for the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, championing this global undertaking to provide a common framework that ensures ocean science can support countries and achieve the United Nations' 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

Finally, I want to acknowledge Mr. McLean's commitment to scientific integrity within NOAA. During the last administration, he boldly stepped forward as a complainant when NOAA experienced political interference, putting himself at risk to uphold scientific integrity and the Agency's reputation. He also served as the Department of Commerce representative on the National Science and Technology Council Fast-Track Action Committee on Scientific Integrity where he cochaired a working group to provide responsive outcomes for the Presidential Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking. NOAA's science and the Agency's integrity has been made stronger through Mr. McLean's commitment and leadership on this issue.

On behalf of my constituents in New Hampshire, I thank Craig McLean for his decades of excellent service to our Nation and wish him well in his retirement. I hope he enjoys the chance to take his family out on the water more in retirement and enjoys the oceans he has championed throughout his career.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to pay tribute to Edward B. Garone, a long-time law enforcement official in the Granite State. There are many reasons to salute Ed Garone, including an incredible 50 years as police chief of the Derry, NH, police department and an extensive record of local involvement. I join Chief Garone's colleagues and countless friends in thanking him for his tireless work and recognizing the qualities behind his many contributions and accomplishments: a humble desire to serve others and strengthen his community.

After a 3-year tour of duty in the U.S. Marine Corps, Chief Garone began his law enforcement career as a police officer in the Lebanon, NH, police department. He would serve the city of Lebanon for 7-and-a- half years, rising to the rank of captain, before accepting an offer in 1972 to become the chief of police in Derry, NH. At 29 years old, he moved with his young family--wife Blanche and children Vicky and Michael--to southern New Hampshire and planted roots in a community he would serve for the next five decades. A local newspaper noted at the time that he was ``an experienced officer with a lot of skill.''

Chief Garone would tap into these skills to guide the town of Derry through a variety of law enforcement challenges. He also managed considerable growth within his department and witnessed significant development in the community it serves. Derry's population has nearly tripled since the 1970s, and its police department expanded from roughly 20 full-time officers in 1972 to over 70 full-time and part- time personnel today. Chief Garone is their strongest advocate, always making sure his officers have the most current and effective equipment, technology, and training. He is also their loudest champion, and he's quick to deflect any compliment or praise toward his officers who share his belief of `service above self.'

Chief Garone is a well-respected figure and sought-after voice in New Hampshire's law enforcement community. He has been on the board of directors of the Regional Information Sharing Systems--New England State Police Information Network for 17 years. He remains an active, 50-year member of the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police and has served as its secretary for the past 32 years. So many of his fellow officers across the Granite State--from the longest serving chief to the newly-sworn-in patrol officer--look to Chief Garone for guidance, for leadership, and for encouragement as they work to keep our communities safe.

Chief Garone's service goes beyond all he has given and all he has accomplished at the Derry Police Department. He is involved in a number of community and charitable organizations. Chief Garone is a 45-year member of the Greater Derry Boys and Girls Club board of directors and a past president of the club. He is currently the longest serving member and former president of the Derry Rotary Club. He has led the Viviana Leon Memorial Foundation, a charitable foundation that provides funds each year to local groups. He is the current director of the Derry Veterans Assistance Fund, a nonprofit that seeks to improve the quality of life for local veterans. Chief Garone also serves on the board of directors for the Alexander Eastman Foundation and the Seacoast Child Advocacy Center. He even lends his time

and expertise to the public safety commission of his hometown of Bradford, VT.

Exhaustive research conducted by his colleagues concluded that Edward Garone is the longest serving full-time chief of police in the history of New Hampshire and quite possibly the entire country. This distinction is a testament to Ed's unwavering commitment to bettering his community and helping others. The Granite State and the many communities he has served are grateful for Chief Garone's many contributions and acts of selfless service. In the coming month, friends and fellow officers will gather to salute Ed and thank him for all that he has given to the town of Derry and the State of New Hampshire. I am with them in spirit as they honor this good and generous man.

Mr. President, it gives me tremendous honor and pride to offer remarks in recognition of this truly historic moment. I was first elected to the Senate in 2008 and came to Washington alongside our Nation's first African-American President. I remember the aura of historical significance that permeated the whole country during those early days of the Obama administration. In particular, I remember the awe and joy surrounding the inauguration, with Americans lining our streets, packed on the National Mall and glued to television screens in New Hampshire and across our country. I have thought a lot about this recently because I see that same excitement, anticipation, and recognition of history unfolding before our eyes as we as a nation are on the cusp of elevating our first female African-American Justice to the highest Court in our land.

Our Constitution has served as a model for modern democracies around the world. Important pillars of our society like equality under the law, freedom of speech, press, and religion and the separation of powers are all innovations that have made America a beacon of democracy around the world. What makes our Constitution particularly exceptional is its ability to be adjusted and adapted to more faithfully reflect the interests and values of our diverse citizenry which it serves. Important amendments have expanded rights for women and communities of color, making our society more inclusive and pushing the needle toward justice. The Constitution guards our basic rights and freedoms, and the Justices of the Supreme Court serve as the guardians of that Constitution.

It is precisely because of the importance of this Court and each of its nine precious seats that the seating of a new Justice is such a momentous occasion. And in this instance, the significance of the moment has been met by a singular nominee whose achievements, experience and integrity are fully worthy of the history books. In addition, for the first time in history, a former public defender will soon serve on the highest Court in the land. Judge Jackson has already--truly--rendered outstanding service to her country.

Judge Jackson's lived experiences as a Black woman and a mother will bring essential insights to the Supreme Court which, for the first time in 232 years, will approach gender parity. While I fully believe Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have loved seeing Justice Jackson ascend to her beloved Court, we still have a long way to go before we get to Justice Ginsburg's vision of nine female Justices. But one step at a time, we are building a better, more inclusive country. More succinctly put: We are building democratic institutions that represent the public they serve. Justice Jackson will make history and bring the full bounty of her rich and diverse personal history to the Court, just as Louis Brandeis, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Sonia Sotomayor did before her.

I will end with one last reflection: Judge Jackson's historic nomination offers hope and optimism at a time when partisanship and division threaten to unravel our very democracy. During my conversation with her, I was struck by her genuine candor in discussing how she would approach working with other Justices from different ideological backgrounds. She seeks to appeal to shared experiences and values with Justices whose ideological backgrounds differ from her own. This recognition that we all have more that unites than divides us gives me faith not only in Judge Jackson's ability to forge consensus, but also that we as a nation have a brighter future ahead of us than behind us, and that we can, and must, work together to bridge our divides-- ideological and otherwise.

If I can paraphrase a fellow Granite Stater, the great Senator Daniel Webster whose desk I occupy today: ``Justice is what binds civilized nations together.'' And I believe that Judge Jackson will faithfully use her seat on the Supreme Court to deliver just that kind of justice. Judge Jackson is the very best of America, and I am honored and excited to cast my vote to confirm her to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Madam President, I rise today in support of my resolution to convey strong bipartisan opposition to Russian President Vladimir Putin's unprovoked aggression against the United States' partner, Ukraine. I was proud to lead this resolution with Senator Rob Portman, in addition to Senators Durbin, Cornyn, Menendez, and Risch, and was pleased to see 38 Senators join this resolution and push for its passage.

As the Senate prepared to adjourn for the next week, Senator Portman and I believed it was absolutely critical that we deliver this message of strong bipartisan support for the brave and resilient people of Ukraine. It is important to send a message of bipartisan resolve and to stand up to Putin in response to his continued aggression and especially given recent indications that he is increasingly likely to eschew the diplomatic path available and further invade Ukraine. And as I join a large bipartisan delegation to the Munich Security Forum this weekend, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agreed that it was paramount that the Senate pass this resolution. This resolution demonstrates the fierce bipartisan support for the NATO, for the transatlantic alliance, for our democratic partners in Ukraine and in repudiation of Putin's efforts to violate Ukraine's sovereignty.

This Senate has a long history of supporting an independent and democratic Ukraine. Since Russia's initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, this Congress has provided more than $2.7 billion in security assistance and supported critical reforms to help Ukraine on its journey to greater euro-Atlantic integration.

I am proud to have been involved in a number of bipartisan efforts to support Ukraine. Last month, I traveled to Ukraine with Senator Portman as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation to meet with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and his national security team to discuss the Russian threat and how the United States can help our Ukrainian friends. In January, I reaffirmed the United States' commitment to our democratic partners, which I also shared during a congressional delegation visit last June, that our Nation believes fervently that Ukraine and Ukraine alone should determine its future.

In our meetings, the message from the Ukrainians was clear. They see their future in partnership with the West. They share our democratic values, and their people are proud of their hard-won independence. I would like to make one point perfectly clear: The unprecedented Russian threat to Ukraine's sovereignty is on Vladimir Putin and no one else. He has designed this crisis to advance his own revanchist agenda. The global community is not blind to his malign ambitions. He wants to reconstruct the Soviet Union and recreate his own sphere of interest. And he--wrongfully--sees Ukraine as part of this authoritarian future.

Putin wants to diminish the U.S. presence in Europe and to rewrite the European security order for his benefit and in blatant disregard for previous international agreements and treaties that Russia signed. And Putin has shown repeated attempts to subvert democratic institutions in the United States, threaten our election security, attack our infrastructure, and compromise the sovereignty of our allies around the globe.

This is why what happens in Ukraine matters to the United States. How we respond to Putin's aggression against Ukraine will have implications for our national security and global stability for decades to come. It is important that we stand up for our values. It is necessary that we stand up to protect our national security. And it is critical that we continue to uphold and protect the European security order that has afforded us peace and prosperity for over 70 years. As Putin tries to dismantle and divide the very alliance that has kept us safe for over 70 years, it is all the more important that we strengthen our resolve through a strong message of unbreakable unity.

This is why the passage of today's bipartisan resolution on Ukraine is so important. I want to covey my appreciation to Senator Portman for his work and leadership. Especially on this issue, we believe that bipartisanship is critical in advancing U.S. foreign policy, especially in support of our partner, Ukraine. And we must lead by example and convey, as we have done to our Ukrainian partners and our transatlantic allies, that we must not leave any space for Putin to sow further discord.

On Monday, I spoke on the floor and said that the Senate does not have a choice; we must send a message of strong, unequivocal bipartisan resolve. And today, we did just that.

Along with my fellow Senators, I wish to send an unequivocal message to Putin; you will not divide this Senate. You will not divide this country. And you will not divide the transatlantic alliance. Diplomacy remains an option to deescalate this situation and pursue a peaceful resolution. But if Putin decides to further invade Ukraine, he will only succeed in uniting us all--Democrats, Republicans, Americans, and the transatlantic alliance--in sending a message of unmistakable resolve against his belligerence.

Madam President, I couldn't agree more with the comments of my colleague Senator Portman from Ohio.

We are here on the floor today to convey strong bipartisan opposition that exists in this Senate to Vladimir Putin's unprovoked aggression against our partner Ukraine.

Now, like everyone in this body, I have been closely following the deteriorating political crisis that has been fabricated by Russia because, as Senator Portman says, Ukraine has always been defensive. It has not been offensive going against Russia, but Russia intends to further undermine and threaten Ukraine's sovereignty.

This Senate has a long history of supporting an independent and democratic Ukraine. Since Russia's initial invasion in 2014, Congress has provided more than $2.7 billion in security assistance and supported its government in advancing critical reforms to help Ukraine on its journey to greater Euro-Atlantic integration.

I am proud to have been involved in a number of those bipartisan efforts to support Ukraine. As Senator Portman said, last month, we traveled with a bipartisan delegation of seven Senators--four Democrats and three Republicans--to meet with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and other officials. We met with his national security team to discuss the Russian threat and how the United States can help our Ukrainian friends.

The message from the Ukrainians was clear. They see their future in

partnership with the West. They share our democratic values, and their people are proud of their hard-won independence.

So it is worth asking, if Ukraine has made its sovereign wish clear that it wants a future with Europe, why does Putin have more than 130,000 troops at its border?

As Senator Portman pointed out so well, it is not just its eastern border with Russia; it is its northern border with Belarus. So it has been said--but I think it is worth repeating--that this unprecedented Russian threat to Ukraine's sovereignty is on Putin. It is on no one else. He has designed this crisis to advance his own revanchist agenda. He wants to reconstruct the Soviet Union and recreate his own sphere of interest, and he wrongfully sees Ukraine as part of this authoritarian future.

But make no mistake, this isn't just about Ukraine. Putin wants to diminish U.S. presence in Europe and to rewrite the European security order for his benefit and in blatant disregard for previous international agreements and treaties that Russia has signed. Senator Portman talked about the Budapest Memorandum. There have been other efforts to try and reduce tensions between Russia and Ukraine by Europe, but Putin has basically thumbed his nose at all of those efforts. He has shown repeated attempts to subvert democratic institutions in the United States, to attack our infrastructure, and to compromise the sovereignty of our allies around the globe.

This is why what happens in Ukraine matters here in the United States. It is important that we stand up for our values; it is important that we stand up to protect our national security; and it is critical that we continue to uphold and protect the transatlantic security order that has given us peace and prosperity for over 70 years, since the end of World War II.

As Putin tries to dismantle and divide the very alliance that has kept us safe for more than 70 years, it is all the more important that we strengthen our resolve through a strong message of unbreakable unity.

It is critical that the Senate take up and pass bipartisan legislation that shows our support for Ukraine and our opposition to Russia and what Putin is doing. I have been working toward this goal. I especially want to commend Senator Portman for his work and leadership because he has also been working toward this goal. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman and ranking member, Senators Menendez and Risch, continue their efforts to find a bipartisan path forward. And I am sure Senator Portman would agree with me that when we say we are committed to doing our part to forge a path forward on this legislation, we mean that is what we want to do; that this is an opportunity for us to show the rest of the world that we are united.

That is why we are here today, to send a strong bipartisan message to Putin, to Ukraine, and to our allies. We must lead by example and convey, as we have done through our Ukrainian partners and our transatlantic allies, that we must not leave any space for Putin to sow further discord.

Therefore, the Senate doesn't really have a choice; we must send a message of strong, unequivocal bipartisan resolve. For many years, Senator Portman and I and others in the Ukraine Caucus have worked closely to support the Ukrainian people. We traveled to Kyiv to ensure the U.S. resolve for our Ukrainian partners was absolute. We teamed up to increase military assistance to Ukraine, and we have spoken to ensure, on the topic of Ukraine, that this Senate speaks with one bipartisan voice.

So today we stand united here on the floor of the Senate to send an unequivocal message to Putin: You will not divide the Senate; you will not divide the United States; and you will not divide the transatlantic alliance.

Diplomacy remains an option, I hope, to deescalate this situation and to pursue a peaceful resolution, but if Putin decides to further invade Ukraine, he will only succeed in uniting us all--Democrats, Republicans, Americans, and the transatlantic alliance--in sending a message of unmistakable resolve against his belligerence. I hope he chooses peace rather than war, but we plan to be ready.

Would my colleague yield for a question?

Because as he points out, if Putin does invade Ukraine, as he said, it would be devastating for Ukraine, for those of us who believe in freedom, and the right of each individual country to determine their own future; but this would also be the biggest conflict in Europe since World War II; is that correct?

Absolutely.

Certainly, the Presiding Officer would agree with me that in the Democratic caucus we are also united with the Republican caucus in wanting to support Ukraine to ensure that they can determine their own future and to hold Vladimir Putin accountable.

As you say, hopefully, diplomacy will win out, and there will be some way in which we can work with Vladimir Putin to address some of his concerns. We are certainly not going to allow Putin and Russia to determine Ukraine's future--to say to Ukraine ``You can't join NATO'' or to say to Europe and NATO ``You can't expand into Europe if countries want to join.'' Hopefully, he will choose a path that is

going to be good not just for Europe and the United States and Ukraine but for Russia, because, as the German Chancellor said to us last week when he met with a number of Senators: In the long run, this will not be good for Russia--for its energy future--because Europe is going to get off Russian energy a lot faster if Russia invades Ukraine, and it is not going to be good for Russia's standing either in Europe or in the world.

So, hopefully, Putin will choose the reasonable approach, which is that he will choose diplomacy and not choose war.

It is our job--that of the transatlantic alliance and those of us here in Congress--to hold Putin accountable if he makes the wrong choice, to make sure that we put in place crippling sanctions, that we provide the assistance that Ukraine needs in fighting Russia, and that we make it clear to the world that the world order that we have defended for the last 70 years we are going to continue to defend.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support three extraordinarily qualified Department of Defense nominees: Melissa Dalton, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Hemispheric Affairs; Dr. David Honey, to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering; and Dr. Celeste Wallander, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.

These three individuals have been nominated to serve in critical national security positions, and they are tasked with confronting those challenges of national security and securing U.S. interests at home and abroad.

As a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, I attended the committee nomination hearings for all three nominees, and I came away convinced that all three were qualified for their positions and deserving of swift confirmation.

Melissa Dalton previously served as a career civil servant in various positions at the Department of Defense--for a decade--under both President Bush and President Obama. So she had bipartisan support, clearly, in that position. She also was a senior fellow and director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

If confirmed, one of Ms. Dalton's core responsibilities as Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense would be overseeing the Department's ability to operate through impacts to critical infrastructure, an area in which we have increasingly seen our adversaries are trying to exploit, particularly through cyber attacks. As Ms. Dalton has said, the resilience of our capabilities and infrastructure at home strengthens deterrence of aggression abroad, and DOD must be able to demonstrate its resilience.

The recent news of increased threats from Russia's cyber attacks, associated with their unprecedented troop buildup near Ukraine, underscores the need for this position to be filled as quickly as possible.

I also want to express my support for Dr. David Honey, who has dedicated a lifetime of service to the defense of this country. Dr. Honey has served in various research and development positions at the Department of Defense, including roles at the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, which is so important to our innovation. He has also served on the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research.

Today, more than ever, we need talented, qualified individuals like Dr. Honey at the forefront of DOD's innovation and technological efforts. Seemingly every few weeks we hear in the press about shocking technological breakthroughs made by the Chinese military that raise concerns about eroding our technological advantage. Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hyten, described the Chinese test of a fractional orbital bombardment system last summer as ``stunning.''

Our technological advantage has been a foundational part of deterrence for decades, and if lost it would be enormously destabilizing for global security. But if we are truly committed to preserving our defense technological superiority, it is vital that we confirm Dr. Honey as quickly as possible.

Finally, I want to speak to support Dr. Celeste Wallander, who is the nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. And as part of that role, she is responsible for defense policy toward Europe, NATO, the Middle East, and Africa--all places right now which are hotbeds of potential conflict.

In light of the ongoing and unprecedented Russian threat to post-Cold War European stability and Ukrainian sovereignty, Dr. Wallander's nomination comes at a particularly critical time. Dr. Wallander has demonstrated a history of expertise on Russia. As former President of the U.S.-Russia Foundation, top Russia expert on the National Security Council, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, Dr. Wallander is highly respected on both sides of the aisle.

With a bipartisan delegation, I traveled to Ukraine several weeks ago. We met with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and his national security team to discuss the Russian threat and how we can do everything possible to help our Ukrainian friends. You can't turn on the radio, read a paper, or watch the news at night without seeing the Russian troops that are massed on Ukraine's border.

The message from the Ukrainians was clear when we met with them. They see their future in partnership with the West. They share our democratic values, and the people are proud of their hard-won independence.

And every step that Putin takes toward escalating the situation at the border is a step closer to threatening not only Ukraine's future but the liberal democratic system that he fears and that we all have benefited from.

I can think of no one more qualified for this position at DOD at this time of immense instability than Dr. Wallander.

So, for these reasons, I believe we must move to confirm these three nominees as quickly as possible so they can fulfill the duties of these crucial positions that are so vital to our national security.

So with that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 476, 692, and 694; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's grandstanding on Afghanistan when he knows that in the NDAA, we passed a provision to create a Commission to look at Afghanistan. And I want those answers just as much as he does. I stood up and said, when the President announced the withdrawal, that I didn't support that withdrawal.

But that is beside the point that we are dealing with now because what we are dealing with now and what my colleague from Missouri is doing is making us less secure because he is holding nominees--he is complaining about the problems we have in Russia and Ukraine, and he is making it worse because he is not willing to allow those nominees who can help with that problem to go forward.

He is absolutely incorrect about Nord Stream 2. I opposed Nord Stream 2. I authored the legislation with Senator Cruz to sanction Nord Stream 2. For the 4 years that the previous President was in office, they didn't take any action to sanction Nord Stream 2 until the day Donald Trump left office.

The fact is, that pipeline is not operating now because it hasn't been certified, and so Russia is not making any money from the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. So he needs to get his facts correct.

He sits on the Armed Services Committee with me, where he has access to the same information about our pressing national security challenges. Yet he is holding up these nominees. He is disregarding the threats that we face because he would rather stand here and grandstand on Afghanistan. Well, we do need to get answers, and I am willing to work with him on that, but this is not the way to do it.

So let's remember that Senator Hawley declared China as the biggest threat to American security, and that is a quote. Yet he is blocking the confirmation of Dr. Honey, whose job would be to ensure that our defense research and development efforts are continuing on par with China's. So if his goal is to ensure that China's technological capabilities surpass ours, I can think of no better way to do that than to refuse to confirm Dr. Honey.

On Russia, my colleague has claimed that the Biden administration has coddled Russia. We heard him say it just now--that they failed to aid Ukraine. But in a recent op-ed, my colleague made his views clear on the current Russian-created crisis. In it, he suggests that the United States is better off closing NATO's doors to Ukraine and stating that our Nation's history of promoting and defending liberal democratic values across the globe has been a failure. Well, I am not going to agree to that.

We have an international order that developed after World War II that has had as a large part the containment first of the Soviet Union through NATO and now of Russia. Part of that world order says that a sovereign nation should be able to help determine their own future.

So I am not going to be part of some agreement that says we are going to turn our backs on NATO, we are going to turn our backs on Ukraine, and we are going to say to Russia: You go ahead; you go into Ukraine.

He argues that we should reduce our commitments to places like Europe because, he claims, Russia poses a greater threat to our European allies than to the United States. Well, the last time I looked, when the United States got attacked in 2001--and maybe he doesn't remember 9/11 because he was too young--the countries that came to our aid were our NATO allies.

So, with all due respect, I find my colleague's assessment both disturbing and shockingly uninformed. As members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, my colleague and I have been briefed on the multitude of evidence of Russia's attempts to subvert democratic institutions--including right here in the United States, by the way--to attack our own infrastructure, and to compromise the sovereignty of our allies around the globe.

In 2018, Russian private military contractor forces even assaulted an outpost of Americans in Syria. They were forced to defend themselves, and, of course, they did, and they ultimately routed the Russian force.

So my colleague's stated sentiments do just what Vladimir Putin wants. He wants to divide the United States from our NATO allies and other democracies. He wants to diminish U.S. presence in Europe and to rewrite the European security order in a way that favors his authoritarian interests. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

I could not disagree with my colleague any more on how he has chosen to associate himself. Continuing to block qualified leaders such as Dr. Wallander, Dr. Honey, and Ms. Dalton does not make us stronger, it does not contribute to productive discourse over our national priorities, and it doesn't accomplish what he is trying to accomplish.

If what he wants is answers on Afghanistan, then work with us. Let's work together. Let's make this Commission that we passed in the NDAA-- let's make it work. What he wants casts us an unreliable partner to our allies, and it forces the Department of Defense to operate with one hand tied behind their back.

So I am disappointed to hear my colleague--and he talks about regular order. Well, in the last 24 hours, we have confirmed three nominees by regular order. We held up the Senate to get cloture votes. Then we passed Alexandra Baker, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, 75 to 21. We passed Douglas Bush, Assistant Secretary of the Army, 95 to 2. I don't know if Senator Hawley was one of those two. I assume he was. We passed Patrick Coffey, general counsel for the Navy, 79 to 17. Then on February 2, by unanimous consent, we passed Gabriel Camarillo, Under Secretary of the Army, and Andrew Hunter, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, by unanimous consent.

So this is not about regular order; this is about trying to use the Senate process for his own personal ambitions, and that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because it doesn't get us the individuals we need to get confirmed to make government run, and it is unfortunate because it doesn't accomplish what he says he wants.

So I am disappointed to hear that we are not going to move these nominees forward, and I hope at some point my colleague will reconsider.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the MacBride nomination until 6 p.m. and that at 6 p.m. the Senate vote on confirmation of the Baker and Lewis nominations.

For the information of the Senate, we expect to line up to three additional votes this evening. Therefore, Senators should expect a series of up to five rollcall votes beginning at 6 p.m. Senators are asked to vote from their desks after the first vote so we can move these along and not spend all night here.

Madam President, I am actually on the floor to speak to a different issue, even though I think expediting votes is an important one, and I support that.

But I am really here to highlight the negative consequences for our country of continuing to fund our government through continuing resolutions.

One of the most basic constitutional duties of Congress is the appropriations process. The Nation relies on this body to provide Federal funds for programs that support national defense, small businesses, our border defenses, conservation of public lands, food assistance for low-income families, and so much, much more.

And as a long-serving Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am extremely disappointed that Congress is about to pass yet another CR that is going to take us to March 11, nearly 5 months past the start of the fiscal year.

Now, on a positive note, I understand that there is a tentative agreement on top-line funding, so that we should have budget numbers for an omnibus that would fund the remainder of the fiscal year. And that is good news. But the fundamental problem remains; long-term CRs create uncertainty and inefficiencies inside and outside of the Federal Government.

CRs prevent Agencies from issuing new grants or expanding programs. They curtail hiring and recruitment. And moreover, those who rely on government programs and Federal resources--and that could be either SNAP recipients or defense contractors, but everyone is forced into a budgetary limbo.

And simply put, when Congress refuses to act, people can't do their jobs, and this is especially true for our military men and women who are serving.

From Russia's efforts to undermine democracies in Europe to China's rapidly expanding sphere of influence, to the unpredictable threat of rogue actors like North Korea and Iran, the threats we face today are varied and numerous. And nothing hinders our national security more than funding our national priorities in piecemeal fashion.

Make no mistake, as we are engaged in this crisis right now in Europe, where Russia is on the borders of Ukraine, threatening to invade, we can bet that Vladimir Putin is watching our Congress to see if we can actually get an agreement to get a budget funded for the rest of this year.

Recently, several of my colleagues from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and the Armed Services Committee met with Marine Corps Commandant General Berger to discuss the challenges that are facing the Marines. The message from General Berger was clear: If we continue to fund our government through CRs, it will erode our military readiness, and it will cut training time and impede the maintenance processes we rely on to keep our soldiers safe.

The impact of continued CRs on our military would be wide-ranging, and the negative effects would continue to ripple for years. And we had this experience since I have been here. In 2012 and 2013, when we had the budget cliff, we saw what happened to our military. We saw readiness of our men and women in uniform erode.

Thousands of pilot flight hours would be lost. Critical exercises within our national allies would be canceled. Our overall global presence diminished at a time in which our adversaries are seeking to outcompete us in multiple theaters.

Aircraft like the brandnew KC-46 tankers that we are so proud to have stationed at Pease Air National Guard Base in New Hampshire, they are such a point of pride. They are an invaluable strategic national asset, but they would spend more time on the ground rather than flying the missions that they were designed for.

And submarines, the backbone of our nuclear deterrence and technological overmatch against our adversaries and, by the way, the ships that China is most concerned about, are an instantly recognizable symbol of American military might and the values of our country, they would be sidelined due to maintenance disruptions.

That would have significant impact not just for our readiness but also for places like the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which has as its responsibility the maintenance and repair of our attack submarines.

So what kind of a signal does it send to adversaries like Russia, as they continue amassing troops on the Ukrainian border and threaten the stability of Europe, when we can't get a budget?

Long-term efforts to recruit and retain the best and brightest to serve in our military would be undone as bonus and incentive pays are cut and overall end-strength numbers decrease by thousands.

Military families would be forced to bear the burden of greater financial uncertainty on top of the many sacrifices that they already make for our country. We would be left with a smaller, less capable force that is demoralized from pay cuts and forced to shoulder greater risks for their safety.

Now, in addition to the harm to our servicemembers and military families, we would also be undermining the critical modernization efforts that we need to keep pace at a time when competitors like China are experiencing technological breakthroughs.

Just 8 months ago, I am sure we all remember that China tested an advanced hypersonic missile that was launched into space before reentering the atmosphere and nearly hitting its target.

This test should serve as a wake-up call about the urgent threat that China's military breakthroughs pose. And if the U.S. research and development efforts are slowed down due to the constraints of operating under a continuing resolution, we will not be able to drive the innovation needed to keep pace with China, let alone regain a convincing advantage.

And make no mistake, Putin isn't the only one watching to see if we can get a budget agreement in this Congress. Xi is also watching from China.

The development of our next-generation fighter to ensure we maintain air superiority in the air will be slowed.

Our efforts to defend against cyber attacks that could cripple critical infrastructure or expose national security secrets would be hamstrung.

Simply put, for all the might and selfless service of our service men and women, we would be asking them to defend us while tying their hands behind their backs simply because we in Congress can't find the courage of compromise.

I would say to my colleague Senator Cornyn from Texas, who talked about the narrow focus of Democrats--who are in the majority in this body right now, very slim majority--worrying only about our own parochial interests, that this is an opportunity for us to work together. Let's work across the aisle and see if we can't find some agreement on budget that will get this done not just for the remaining months of this fiscal year but next year and the next year and the next year.

China doesn't just compete with us on military technology; China and our other economic competitors are pouring resources into scientific and technological innovation. And if we want to sustain our global prosperity, global leadership, and national security, we cannot afford to be caught flatfooted.

That is why last week the House of Representatives passed the America

COMPETES Act, which is a companion to the Senate-passed U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, which passed the Senate months ago with a very strong bipartisan vote.

These bills will soon be in conference, and, if passed, they will bolster innovation and international trade, but the investments to meet the authorizations that are contained in these bills can't be made under a continuing resolution.

I chair the Commerce, Justice, and Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, the CJS Subcommittee. Our bipartisan CJS bill included a $1 billion increase for the National Science Foundation to keep pace with scientific discoveries that can power the economy in fields like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, microelectronics, and advanced communications.

Under a CR, we would forfeit the chance to fund 2,300 additional research and education grants that will support 27,500 more scientists, technicians, teachers, and students compared to fiscal year 2021.

That means a lot of innovative research projects, and therefore potentially new discoveries, technology, and industries would never get started. It also would diminish our ability to train the next generation of innovators.

It isn't just the National Science Foundation; under a CR, NASA wouldn't have the needed increases that will help us return humans to the Moon--the high ground that China is also eyeing. We will lose out on the opportunity to provide the Department of Commerce additional funding to build next-generation climate and weather satellites, help small- and medium-sized manufacturers, enforce export and trade laws, and invest in economic development.

Furthermore, a CR would delay implementation of the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Last year, along with nine of our colleagues, we drafted the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which is bipartisan legislation to make historic investments in our Nation's infrastructure. The legislation provides $550 billion in new Federal investment to respond to the needs of the country, from rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges to providing clean drinking water and addressing harmful contaminants, to expanding broadband coverage to even the most rural parts of our country. The Senate passed that infrastructure bill by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 69 to 30.

When President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law, it became the single biggest infrastructure investment in U.S. history. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to invest in this country. But if we continue with CRs, the implementation of this bipartisan infrastructure law could be delayed.

In addition, as a result of its flat obligation limitations, a CR would prevent State departments of transportation from accessing higher amounts of formula funding provided by the highway trust fund.

The CR would also prohibit new starts for new formula programs authorized by the bipartisan infrastructure law, including the fiscal year 2022 portion of the carbon reduction program that supports emission-reducing transportation projects and the PROTECT formula funding to States to support transportation infrastructure resiliency.

Now, in addition to slowing meaningful infrastructure investments, a CR also fails to address urgent needs in our communities.

Americans want to be safe from international threats to our national and economic security, but more important, they want to be safe in their communities. Yet, in 2020, murders rose by 30 percent.

The Senate Commerce-Justice-Science bill includes significant funding to help local police departments fight crime and put officers on the street. It also includes a new Community Violence Intervention Initiative to implement strategies to reduce homicides and gun violence. But with a CR, we wouldn't have funding for this promising strategy.

We would also lose the chance to provide historic levels of funding for the Office on Violence Against Women. Today, it is particularly important because a bipartisan group of Senators will introduce a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. But without a CJS appropriations bill, we can't provide additional funding for the Sexual Assault Services Program, which is a formula grant released to States, Tribes, and other coalitions in order to provide support services like medical services, counseling, and crisis intervention for victims of sexual assault, and we cannot start new programs like Restorative Justice, a growing area in criminal justice to repair and address the harm experienced by victims.

Continuing to rely on last year's funding levels and last year's programs undermines our chances to improve our military readiness, to invest in our economy, and to address emerging challenges.

This week, instead of enacting funding bills for the fiscal year that began on October 1, 2021, Congress will instead extend the deadline again, passing another CR through March 11. Now, don't get me wrong, I am glad we are continuing to keep the government open, and I understand that Senate leadership--Chairman Leahy and Vice Chairman Shelby, along with their House counterparts--has reached a tentative agreement on total spending levels to allow us to use the next month to finish our work and enact a remaining year appropriations bill, but it is way past time to have made that happen. The American people deserve no less, and we need to do better next year.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I would like to ask unanimous consent that my Defense fellow, Leslie Cornwall, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 117th Congress.