Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to call for the rapid confirmation of Kenneth Wainstein to be Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security.

The Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, or I&A, sits at a critical juncture--between the analytic work of the intelligence community and the information-sharing role of the Department of Homeland Security.

The Under Secretary receives and analyzes intelligence and law enforcement information related to Homeland Security and ensures its prompt dissemination throughout the Department as well as to Federal, State, local, and Tribal departments that need this information to protect our Nation.

The nominee, who has been before our committee and passed out, comes with an incredible background for this position. Ken Wainstein served the United States throughout his career as a Federal prosecutor, at the highest levels of the FBI as general counsel and Chief of Staff to FBI Director Robert Mueller, as U.S. attorney for DC, and as the first-ever Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department's National Security Division, and as Homeland Security Advisor to President George W. Bush.

The truth is, after a remarkable career, he went into the private sector, and the fact that he is willing to come back and serve this administration, although he was a career official on the other side, speaks to his character.

The role of heading DHS intelligence is not without challenges, which is why we need this confirmed Under Secretary. The I&A mission continues to evolve and mature since its creation in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and there is a clear tension between its dual missions: national intelligence and departmental priorities.

Some Members, including myself, were very unhappy with the I&A's operations in Portland in 2020, and then disappointed that the I&A provided next to no warning about what was to come on January 6, 2021. These episodes clearly reveal work needs to be done to improve DHS and I&A in particular.

At the same time, we all know the First Amendment protects Americans' right to free speech and nonviolent, peaceful protest, and a fundamental role of our government is to defend the Constitution, including these First Amendment rights.

As the confirmed head of DHS's intelligence operation, Mr. Wainstein will be charged with ensuring that DHS I&A keeps upholding those standards and protects civil rights, while also ensuring that I&A's work is completely apolitical.

To summarize, the role of the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis is critical for the Department of Homeland Security and the country.

Consequently, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 792, Kenneth L. Wainstein, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I think we have an incredible nominee in Mr. Wainstein. He has served our government in the Justice Department at the FBI at virtually every level.

I think if my colleague, the Senator from Kentucky, is concerned about this, we ought to have somebody who is confirmed in this role.

And I would acknowledge that there are Members who share his concerns about First Amendment rights, including one of the members of our committee who has worked through Mr. Wainstein and was part of the group that unanimously voted to move him forward.

I am disappointed by the objection, and, unfortunately, both the security of our country and, candidly, the protection of those First Amendment rights is undermined by not having this nominee in place.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this explanation reflects the status of negotiations and disposition of issues reached between the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.

The explanation shall have the same effect with respect to the implementation of this act as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a conference committee.

I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Explanatory Statement for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 be printed into the Record.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022, which is included as division Y in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2471, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022. Cyber attacks and ransomware attacks are a serious national security threat that have affected everything from our energy sector to the Federal Government and Americans' own sensitive information. The SolarWinds breach demonstrated how broad the ripple effects of these attacks can be, affecting hundreds or even thousands of entities connected to the initial target. As cyber and ransomware attacks continue to increase, the Federal Government must be able to quickly coordinate a response and hold bad actors accountable.

Especially now, as the threat of Russian cyber attacks looms in light of Putin's horrific invasion of Ukraine, we shouldn't be relying on voluntary reporting to protect our crucial infrastructure. The Federal Government needs to know when vital sectors of our economy are affected by a breach so that the full resources of the Federal Government can be mobilized to respond and mitigate their impacts.

This bipartisan bill will take significant steps to strengthen cybersecurity protections, ensure that CISA is at the forefront of our Nation's response to serious breaches, and most importantly, require timely reporting of these attacks to the Federal Government so that we can better prevent future incidents and hold attackers accountable.

The plain text of the statute makes Congress' intent clear: although the reports themselves--and any ``communication[s], document[s], material[s], or other record[s] created for the sole purpose of preparing, drafting or submitting'' those reports--may not be received in evidence, the FBI and other law enforcement entities nevertheless may, as appropriate,

make use of reported information in their investigations of a cyber incident. In other words, the FBI cannot attach the report filed with CISA in a warrant application or submit it in evidence in a trial but, if provided information from reports under the process outlined in the statute, may as appropriate use information contained in the reports and derived from them for a range of purposes, including getting a warrant and prosecuting bad actors. Further, this statute also is not intended to prohibit or discourage entities from reporting to CISA and law enforcement concurrently.

The language of this bill makes clear that the information may be used for cybersecurity or investigative purposes. Section 2245 clearly states that reports submitted to CISA under this provision can be used for ``the purpose of preventing, investigating, disrupting, or prosecuting an offense arising out of a cyber incident reported pursuant to [the bill's requirements or voluntary provisions].'' Nor are facts developed during an FBI investigation of the relevant cyber incident using other authorities, including similar facts that may also have been disclosed to the Federal Government in the report to CISA, ``communication[s], document[s], material[s], or other record[s]'' subject to the evidentiary restrictions in 2245(c)(3).

Such actions by the FBI to hold accountable, disrupt, or deter perpetrators of cyber attacks are consistent with our goal of encouraging entities to disclose cyber incidents to CISA, which will share the information appropriately with other Federal agencies. As stakeholders work through the rulemaking process, we look forward to working with them to ensure that congressional intent is not misinterpreted and that this legislation is implemented as intended.

This balance ensures both that entities are encouraged to and feel protected in disclosing cyber incidents and that law enforcement agencies may make full use of evidence, gathered through a variety of means, needed to detect, disrupt, and deter perpetrators of attacks.

Mr. President, I rise today in response to Russia's alarming and impending threat toward its neighbor, the independent nation of Ukraine.

As we speak, Vladimir Putin continues to ready more than 100,000 soldiers, tanks, artillery, aircraft, and missiles along Ukraine's border.

To Ukraine's north, in Belarus, Russia has positioned tens of thousands more troops, nominally, as part of a military exercise. To Ukraine's south, Russian ships are amassing in the Black Sea.

Propaganda and disinformation are on the internet and on Russian TV channels as part of the Russian playbook we now know very well.

The Kremlin's intent is to manufacture a pretext for its aggression and sow divisions in the West. Russian troops already occupy vast tracts of Ukraine in Crimea and continue a ``low-grade'' war in eastern Ukraine, a war initiated by Mr. Putin that has cost already over 14,000 lives. Ukrainian soldiers have been bravely fighting and dying to protect their country from what has been naked aggression from Russia.

We hear--even from Ukrainian leadership--that their forces would face an unequal fight in a full-scale Russian invasion and, unfortunately, probably couldn't help but be outnumbered and overwhelmed.

And while Moscow has amassed the largest concentration of military forces seen in Europe since the end of the Cold War, it continues to make shrill accusations that it is not Ukraine but somehow Russia that is under threat, all the while making demands that Ukraine never join NATO or control its own destiny.

Even as he threatens war with Ukraine, Mr. Putin demands to be treated as head of a normal government. He thrills at being given one- on-one meetings with other world leaders or being invited to diplomatic fora. He rails that Russia has been unfairly singled out for sanctions.

He demands respect, even as he lays out a thesis denying that Ukraine is--or ever was--a country with its own traditions, language, aspirations, or sovereignty.

What Mr. Putin really fears is that if Ukraine succeeds in building a nation where Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers have genuine freedoms, can vote in free elections and control their own destiny--if that happens, then maybe Russians may start to wonder why they have to live in a country where Putin has practically made himself President for life, eligible to stay in office until 2036, where questioning the endemic corruption of the Russian state, trying to run a business without paying off officials, or even expressing an opinion can lead to detention, trumped-up charges, or, as we have too often seen, even death from a military-grade nerve agent.

Mr. Putin fears that Ukraine could prove to be a model of what Russia could become without his kleptocratic regime. Mr. Putin says he feels threatened by NATO. He wants to go back to the good old days, when the USSR held Eastern Europe--including Ukraine--in its iron grip. So he has decided to seize chunks of Ukrainian territory and unilaterally change Europe's borders.

Now, this isn't a new position for Putin. It reflects a long-held view. In 2005, he called the fall of the Soviet Union ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.''

In 2008, he invaded Georgia. When Russian troops seized control of Crimea, he sent in his ``little green men'' and adopted his doctrine of hybrid warfare. He felt unconstrained to send agents of the Russian state to assassinate those he sees as his enemies, whether in Kyiv or London or Berlin or Sofia or Vienna.

And he has built up his arsenal and threatened his neighbors. Putin, as we know and have read about, has crushed even the slightest hint of political opposition at home in Russia--all of this while wanting to be seen as a victim and as the leader of a normal participant in the community of nations. These actions are not and cannot ever be accepted or acceptable by the civilized world.

So what can the United States and the West do? President Biden and other Western leaders have undertaken the right approach offering Putin multiple diplomatic off-ramps--as recently, again, as the visit by the German Chancellor this week--and a dialogue about Russia's exaggerated fears regarding European security.

Nobody wants a military conflict between two nuclear powers so the President has clearly stated that U.S. troops are not being sent to Ukraine to fight Russia.

At the same time, President Biden has made it extremely clear that if Russia rejects this diplomatic path and conducts further aggression against Ukraine, there will be a heavy price to pay. Russia will face the immediate imposition of strong, robust, and effective sanctions-- including sectoral sanctions against its banking and financial system as well as stringent export controls that will damage Russia's economy.

At the same time, while we do not want to ensure that there are any miscalculations or an unintended escalation, the United States and European nations have increased their supply of defensive weapons to Ukraine to ensure that Putin knows that any invasion will impose costs on the Russian military. Mr. Putin may find that if he invades, he may not find the going so easy.

Ukrainians do not want to be part of Russia, especially at the point of a gun. As someone who has argued that Russia and Ukraine are one fraternal people, it will be difficult for Putin to explain why Russian soldiers are dying while trying to kill their Ukrainian brothers.

As a major part of his policy, President Biden has endeavored to keep NATO together and unified since one of Putin's major goals is to undermine that unity. The administration's approach is, frankly, significantly different from the previous President in this country, who undermined the transatlantic alliance, questioned the very need for its existence, and took every opportunity to weaken the shared bonds that have kept peace in Europe since World War II.

President Biden, though, has put thousands of U.S. forces on standby

and has deployed U.S. forces to NATO's eastern flank. I saw some additional troops from the 82nd heading over to Poland even as we speak. Now, again, these movements are not to inflame the situation but to ensure that there is no mistake about our commitment to NATO's collective defense, our willingness to defer aggression, and to make sure that we continue to bolster this critical alliance. The truth is, it is not just Americans. Other NATO members have agreed and are sending military forces to its eastern border to ensure that Putin knows that the alliance stands united.

Let us be very clear on who the aggressor is in these provocations. The eyes of the world have been on Vladimir Putin and Russia, as he has initiated a steady and deliberate buildup of Russian forces and military assets, as I mentioned earlier, to the north, east, and south of Ukraine, and he has rebuffed multiple diplomatic overtures to deescalate the situation. Through media reporting, satellite imagery, and intelligence shared by our government and by the British Government, much of Putin's incitement has been out in the open for all to see.

It is as clear today as it will be through the lens of history that this march of aggression has been led by one man, and that is Vladimir Putin. But it is important for Putin to know it is not too late to back down from this foolish and destructive course of action. Even at the eleventh hour, diplomatic avenues remain very much open. Putin can still choose against leading further aggression and invasion that would have the opposite effect from what he imagines.

While there have been some reports in the media that he may be moving, we have seen no clear efforts. This is clearly a case that we will believe what the Russians do, not what some of their leaders say, because if Putin does invade, he will have unleashed a tragedy not just for Ukraine but for the Russian people. Putin will rightly have earned the enmity of all free nations and people everywhere, and Russia's economy and citizens will suffer.

I want to be clear. In the event of an unwarranted, unjustified, and illegitimate attack on Ukraine, the United States will stand with the people of Ukraine. Russia will become a pariah nation, a rogue state. The legitimacy of Putin's regime will be significantly undermined. And the NATO alliance that Putin worries so much about? It will be reinvigorated to fulfill the mission it was created for: as a defensive alliance against Soviet or, now in the 21st century, Russian aggression.

I urge President Putin to choose the right path. Deescalate tensions. Don't just talk about deescalation but actually deescalate. Engage in a real and honest diplomatic process, and end any plans leading towards a violent confrontation in Ukraine. By doing this, he would ultimately spare Russia the crippling economic consequences that would be necessitated by his aggression.

I also say, I was very proud yesterday, when the administration briefed the bipartisan leadership of all the committees that are dealing with this potential invasion, to see the broad and bipartisan support behind standing with the people of Ukraine and the message that should Putin take these actions, the level of sanctions that we will impose upon him and his economy will be unprecedented.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I apologize to my good friend the Senator from North Carolina for being a bit late. I have never seen him be this timely and this brief in his comments.

But I wanted to take a moment to echo what I know he said about Chris Joyner, who has served with enormous distinction for Senator Burr in both his personal office and on the Intelligence Committee. I want to particularly recognize Chris and my staff director, Mike Casey, who managed to work together and, frankly, negotiate a peace treaty between Senator Burr and me. When we started the Russia investigation, we had a few bumps.

But, as I am sure Senator Burr has pointed out, Chris served with enormous distinction in a very, very challenging time, putting together an investigation that came with integrity, truthfulness, and bipartisanship in a period--particularly under the previous administration--where those milestones were not often highly regarded.

Chris has decided to move forward in his career, and I simply want to join and echo Senator Burr's comments about his commitment and service and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I appreciate the courtesy of an extra couple of minutes.

Mr. President, thank you for that recognition, and it is great to see you safe and secure, out of your vehicle, presiding over the Senate.

It is a great honor for me to follow my friend the Senator from Michigan on this important day, and I want to start by thanking my friend and chairperson of the Rules Committee, the Senator from Minnesota, for organizing us to come together today to commemorate or acknowledge what was a dark, dark day in American history, what happened a year ago.

I want to thank--and I will do this in a more formal way in a moment--all the folks who helped protect us on January 6, a year ago. And I want to commend an organization that I know the Presiding Officer is aware of, as is the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Colorado--the World Central Kitchen, led by Jose Andres, who is right now downstairs--Jose is not, but the organization is--serving Capitol Police and other Capitol personnel free meals today.

It is a wonderful organization that supports those in need all across the world and all across the country, and the fact that they are here today saying ``thank you'' to our Capitol Police and others is appropriate.

Mr. President, I rise today to mark the anniversary of the January 6 insurrection in which a mob broke into this Capitol, broke onto the floor of the Senate, in an effort to overturn the 2020 Presidential election. This was an effort to undermine democracy, plain and simple.

In the last year, I think most of us have reflected a lot on the effort by our U.S. Capitol Police, the DC Metropolitan Police, the Virginia State Police, and the Maryland State Police that day. They quite literally held the line to protect our democracy. I am personally indebted to those individuals who saved so many lives and some of whom lost their own.

And while others, I know, have already come before me and talked about the incredible role of the Capitol Police and other allies--the Metropolitan Police--as the Presiding Officer knows, the first State police to arrive on the scene were Maryland and Virginia. They actually got here quicker than the National Guard.

But I would like to highlight in my comments today another group of people who helped quell the insurrection, and that was the Virginia National Guard, a group of men and women that I and the Presiding Officer have great pride in. We both have served as Governors of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and one of the most important roles in being Governor--beyond the fact of the incredibly important title you carry when you are Governor--is the fact that we served during those each of our 4 years, the Presiding Officer and I, as the commander in chief of the Guard.

One of the most meaningful parts I recall was seeing off those Guard members, young and old--these are folks who have day jobs and lives and studies and work--seeing them off, deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and to respond in the aftermath of hurricanes and floods and welcoming back these citizen soldiers in a way that oftentimes doesn't get the recognition that they deserve.

But I, again, think back to January 6. As the crowds grew here on Capitol grounds and steadily advanced their positions, eventually into this building itself--and, again, so many of us were here. And I think the Senator from Oklahoma was speaking as we heard the glass break and people shouting, ``Quick, let's secure the doors.''

I think all of us who work here, our pages, the great members of the floor staff, with particular recognition of the Parliamentarian staff-- we come racing in, and we think about those doors upstairs, which are, frankly, pretty flimsy. We all remember that day and those moments. It was obvious pretty quickly that we were going to need additional force to augment the Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police.

Now, a year ago, it took much too long than was needed to get the National Guard to provide that assistance. We had, at that point, a convoluted system in place that resulted in delays in getting the Guard to the Capitol. I am proud to say that since then Congress--again, under the leadership of our chair of the Rules Committee, Senator Klobuchar--has passed on a bipartisan basis and the President has signed into law the Capitol Police Emergency Assistance Act, which empowers the Capitol Police chief to request the assistance of the DC Guard or other Federal law enforcement agencies in emergencies without the prior approval process that was used in the past: the Capitol Police Board and the kind of bureaucratic hurdles that, frankly, didn't allow the Guard to get called in a year ago.

When the decision was finally made to utilize National Guard personnel, men and women from the DC National Guard, the Maryland National Guard, and the Virginia Guard were literally the first ones to be called up. Within hours of the riot and the Capitol being stormed, while personnel here on the ground were still working to secure and fully regain control of the Capitol Complex, men and women in the Virginia National Guard were ready for deployment

(Mr. KING assumed the Chair.)

As I mentioned earlier, those of us--and I see now the Presiding Officer is the former Governor of Maine. He had that same responsibility that I had and the previous Presiding Officer had as Governors to be commander in chief of our Guards.

We know firsthand that the National Guard in each of our respective States is a civilian force. These men and women who were called up on January 6 and 7 were called from their jobs, their studies, and most importantly, their families. They were called from cities and towns and big cities and small farming communities all across the Commonwealth. Within hours, they mobilized for a domestic deployment to our National Capitol.

I remember one Guard member I met, who lived in Arlington--he was working, got the deployment call, rushed back home to pick up some clothes, take a shower, and had, frankly, to drive all the way down--I think they were mustering in Newport News at that point and then were redeployed up here at the Capitol the next morning.

On January 7, the morning following the riot, the first National Guard personnel arrived on the scene to support the ongoing security effort and to protect against the possibility of future threats.

Folks in this room remember how uncertain the immediate aftermath was. The men and women of the Guard arrived in DC fully armed and had been told to prepare for the possibility of confronting heavily armed rioters and protesters--not tourists; heavily armed rioters and protesters--and even the possibility that some of those rioters and protesters might bring bombs or IEDs that could have been placed in the vicinity of the Capitol. We still haven't found the source of those bombs that were placed at the Democratic and Republican National Committees.

The weeks leading up to the inauguration, after the 7th and before the 21st, even more National Guard personnel poured into DC from across the country. The Virginia National Guard continued to perform a critical and outsized role in this response, with nearly 2,500 men and women--close to 10 percent of the total Guard presence in DC--securing the Capitol grounds and Library of Congress, providing quick-reaction capabilities to Capitol, Metropolitan, and Park Police, and adding critical communications, medical, logistical, and chaplain support.

I want to specifically highlight the Virginia National Guard's 116th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, which played a leading role in protecting our Capitol in the weeks following January 6.

The IBCT, under the command of COL Chris Samulski, led a task force of more than 7,400 airmen and soldiers from 12 different States and was responsible for maintaining the physical security of the Capitol grounds leading up to the inauguration.

Twice during their mission here at the Capitol, I had the privilege of meeting with the Virginia Guard. What I heard time and again was the great mix of emotion that came with this deployment. These women and men had volunteered for duty to serve the United States and protect our Constitution, but what they normally expect that duty to ensue was protecting us against our foreign enemies.

I see my friend, my colleague from Virginia. I know he visited with the Guard as well.

Many of these men and women had been deployed--in some cases, multiple times--to Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these soldiers and airmen had been deployed in the aftermath of hurricanes and storms and natural disasters. None of them, not only from Virginia but from any other State that was mustered here, had ever been deployed when the frontline against people who wanted to overthrow our government was not abroad but right here in our Nation's Capital. They were as shocked as all of us that this very building where we work every day needed National Guard protection.

The truth was, they would spend weeks on duty, camped out in our Capitol and around the congressional office buildings. Again, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee. When sometimes they didn't get a fair shake or tried to get pushed aside, many of us, under her leadership, said: No, these folks should not be pushed out in the cold because somebody wants their parking space back.

I remember their kind of uncertainty. They were kind of saying: Senator, we didn't think we would ever be here. But I also remember their pride in serving as part of this historic mission and their direct role in safeguarding our democracy. Their presence during that time, all the way through the inauguration when there were still concerns that the mobs might be back, I think helped calm the Capitol, not just Members but those who were pages at that point and the many, many staff. They helped calm the Capitol and our country.

While we faced and still face unprecedented challenges as a nation, the work and dedication of the men and women of the Guard demonstrated that our democracy is stronger than the destructive behavior of any mob.

This is important because the events of January 6 were not an isolated event. What happened that day was the product of the Big Lie, perpetrated by a former President and cultivated by those who wished to chip away at the sacred values upon which our Nation was founded. Those same individuals--those same individuals--in many instances continue to stoke that lie that our elections are not secure and that they are better off in the hands of partisan officials with the authority to overturn the results if somehow those partisan officials don't like the results of the people.

Fueled by the Big Lie, a number of States across the country are changing laws to undermine the right to vote in free and fair elections. The rights of all Americans but especially minority Americans--people of color, young Americans--are being attacked, and the basic tenets of our democracy are under siege.

These changes to voting laws are un-American; for example, what happened on Wednesday, where, as we heard yesterday--oftentimes in precincts of color, particularly precincts with a heavy concentration of African Americans, you wait not an hour or 10 minutes in line; you wait 2, 5, 8, 10 hours in line. So the idea that we can't give you any water or food while you are waiting that 10 hours in line, who is going to vote? In States like Texas, where they are saying a local government can overturn the results of a local election--that is not democracy. It is despicable that some people want to make it harder for eligible Americans to participate in our democracy.

One of the things that we saw and that I am very proud of in the Commonwealth of Virginia is that we dramatically expanded our voting rights this year. We had an unprecedented turnout. It resulted in favor of one party. Our candidate of choice didn't win. The Republican candidate won because he helped turn out the early vote.

The notion--I don't understand those who are trying to restrict. What are people afraid of when more people participate? Consequently, that is why we need to act now to protect our democracy by passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. Since the Senate has shown it cannot do this basic duty and find 60 Senators to support basic voting rights, it is time to change the Senate rules so the filibuster can't be abused to continue blocking vital voting rights legislation.

I can think of no better way to honor the sacrifices that were made in defense of our democracy last year than by passing these bills to prevent further subversion of our electoral system and safeguard our democracy for future generations.

I note my former colleague passed today. I wish many of my Republican colleagues were here so they, too, could stand up and express their views and thoughts on what happened a year ago. I hope, even if they are not here today or tomorrow, that next week, they will come to the floor as well. Let their voices be heard. What do they think a year after on January 6? Is that acceptable behavior? What do they think about the efforts to try to restrict voting all across many places of the South? But that is going to change as more and more State legislatures come in this year. What are their views on these critical issues? Where do they stand on protecting Americans' right to vote and preserving our democracy, which was under assault a year ago?

With that, I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to seek unanimous consent to confirm Amanda Howe, President Biden's nominee to be the next Assistant Administrator for Mission Support at the Environmental Protection Agency.

I believe that my friend Senator Lee is going to object to this consent request. I hope when he does that he will explain his objection to this extremely qualified nominee.

I have known the nominee for more than 20 years and can speak directly to her talents and abilities. Amanda held a number of roles in the Commonwealth of Virginia, including serving as my assistant secretary of commerce and trade during my 10 years as Governor.

Amanda also served then-Governor Kaine's administration and Governor McAuliffe's administration and has held other leadership positions, including serving as deputy and then acting chief of staff to Mayor Bill de Blasio in New York.

Amanda led the planning and organization of the Queen's visit to Virginia in 2007, when we celebrated 400 years of connection to the UK. She helped plan the first-ever ticker tape parade for the U.S. women's soccer team to celebrate the first World Cup victory. She organized Pope Francis's visit to New York.

Beyond being a talented operator, Amanda also possesses a wealth of knowledge on issues under the EPA's purview, having worked on roles focused on renewable energy.

Amanda has been nominated to lead the EPA's Office of Mission Support, which directs the Agency's efforts to

improve efficiency, coordination, and customer experiences for internal and external stakeholders and the public, including the protection of EPA's facilities and other assets nationwide that are terribly important to our government; IT management, for example, inside the

Will the Senator yield for a question?

It is my understanding your concern with the nominee is not about the nominee's qualifications.

Thank you.

I thank the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, I do hope this matter is resolved. I believe Amanda needs to be installed and doing her job. She has been up for this nomination literally for months.

I also feel this is just one more example--I think probably every Member of the Senate, including the Presiding Officer, has a number of individuals he supports. I know many of my colleagues on the Republican side have nominees they support. The kind of blanket holds that are taking place on way too many of our nominees means that this President can't put in place his team.

The Presiding Officer was a Governor. He is about to be replaced by another Governor. I was a Governor. I can't imagine running an administration a year into my term if I didn't have two-thirds of my appointees serving in office.

The Presiding Officer, I know--I will end very briefly--is an extraordinarily valuable member of the Intelligence Committee. We see America's national security concerns on a daily basis. Those national security concerns will be better met when every major nation in the world has an American Ambassador. It is great that we have State Department personnel, but without that Ambassador in these offices-- Amanda is not up for ambassadorship, but there are a host of Ambassadors in critical nations that need to be confirmed.

I hope--as we wind down these last few days of this session before the end of the year, I implore my friends on the Republican side, give these folks who have waited for months and months and months a kind of assurance of their ability to serve, especially when they are noncontroversial. Please remove their objections. Stop objecting. Let's let the government have these people, personnel in place. I hope Amanda Howe will be one of those. I look forward to my friend from Utah resolving this issue.

I thank the Presiding Officer for listening to my extra 5 minutes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 60th anniversary of the National Reconnaissance Office, NRO.

Born in September 1961, the present day National Reconnaissance Office was formed by agreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence during the height of the Cold War. In the first decade of the Cold War, American ingenuity and engineering had enabled significant advances to meet the demand for better reconnaissance as new, high-altitude aircraft like the U-2 and its high-speed successors, the A-12 and SR-71, were developed. However, even this new technology had its limitations. This became acutely clear with the shoot-down of CIA pilot Francis Gary Powers' U-2 in 1960. Thankfully, American aerospace engineers were also maturing new rocket and sensor technologies that enabled the United States to meet the increasing national security challenge of how to analyze Soviet forces to avert a nuclear war.

Carrying over from the Eisenhower to Kennedy administrations, a group of remarkable Americans brought the foresight of combining a number of government satellite efforts into a single U.S. intelligence organization that would become the modem NRO. These optical experts, chemists, physicists, engineers, military officers, mathematicians, and photography entrepreneurs recognized the value of a national policy of peacetime strategic reconnaissance in addressing the Soviet threat as well as future, unforeseen, national security challenges.

Assuming control of the previously initiated Corona photoreconnaissance program and following up with the Gambit, Hexagon, and signals intelligence programs, the NRO was able to supply the essential intelligence information needed to understand Soviet missile capabilities. The intelligence information the NRO provided to analysts and policymakers was critical in keeping nuclear tensions in check at the most tense points of the Cold War.

With the arms limitation treaties of the 1970s, the need for the verification of Soviet military capabilities posed a new challenge for policymakers. The scientists and engineers of the NRO would once again rise to the challenge by designing and building the Kennen digital imagery satellite and other unique overhead technological capabilities to respond to these daunting intelligence requirements.

In recent times, the capabilities of the NRO have been vital to helping us better understand and react to our Nation's toughest challenges, helping to see the unseen across the globe, from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and supporting counterterrorism operations around the globe, to helping us recover from natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires here at home.

While this 60th anniversary is an appropriate time to celebrate the rich history and innovations of the NRO of the past, I think it is also important to recognize where the NRO is moving today and into the future and for the American people to understand why the NRO is so vital to our security.

Our colleagues on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and I have challenged the NRO to move faster in building and acquiring the next generation of space reconnaissance capabilities, including commercial technologies, as the great power competition with Russia and China takes shape.

NRO is rising to this challenge. Even as the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted so many parts of our society, economy, and supply chain, the NRO's workforce has stayed on task. In the last 18 months the NRO has not only maintained 100 percent of its mission capability, but the NRO also has had a record series of launches and payload deliveries into orbit, with 8 launches and 16 payloads in 2020 and 2021, including a launch from Wallops Island, in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am also pleased to point out that the NRO also delivered its 12th consecutive clean financial audit during this pandemic period.

The NRO of today and tomorrow is growing its partnerships in both the private and public sectors. Within the Department of Defense, the NRO is partnering with the U.S. Space Force and U.S. Space Command to integrate national space operations with the combatant commander and Federal decision-maker requirements and to protect and defend our Nation's assets in space.

Likewise, the NRO is increasing engagement with allies, and particularly the Five Eyes nations, to better leverage capabilities and take advantage of new opportunities, such as the NRO's first satellite launch from an overseas location in 2020 from New Zealand. The NRO works side by side with intelligence community partners such as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to support the NGA's imagery analysis mission and the National Security Agency to support the NSA's analysis of signals and radio frequency signatures.

In the private sector arena, the NRO is building off a 60-year history of working with U.S. industry by embracing the benefits of the growing U.S. commercial space industry and delivering more capabilities at a lower cost to the taxpayers, taking advantage of a full range of services from commercial imagery and commercial cloud services to commercial launch.

Speeding innovation in anticipation of tomorrow's intelligence needs, the NRO is working with universities and research institutions across the Nation, looking for new ways to adapt existing capabilities and to bring online new technologies, The NRO is pushing the boundaries of advanced science and technology for new phenomenology and applications that will improve and enhance the NRO's ability to provide policymakers and warfighters with advanced warning of events and provide critical insights into the capabilities and intentions of our adversaries.

None of this work could be done without the women and men of the NRO. The NRO workforce, a blend of military, civilian, and contract employees, is one of the most technical and highly skilled in the government. They are engineers, scientists, IT professionals, space system operators, and acquisition and program managers, with advanced degrees and a diversity of backgrounds and experiences. They are some of the best our Nation has to offer. They are the vital piece that makes the NRO not only a great place to work but makes the NRO the best place to work if you want to build the satellites, rockets, and ground systems that support our national security.

From the NRO pioneers to the workforce of today, the women and men of the NRO can always be counted on to stand true to their motto, ``Supra Et Ultra,'' always going Above and Beyond. I offer my congratulations to the NRO on an exceptional 60 years, and I look forward to seeing how the NRO will lead us into the next 60 years of space reconnaissance.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider Calendar No. 390, and that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 392 through 399; 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 nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.