Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise this afternoon in support of the freedom-loving people of Ukraine, our friends and our allies in Europe, and in warning to my fellow Americans, to my colleagues, about a threat coming from Vladimir Putin's Russian regime. I rise in support of this American ally whose right to democracy is being threatened. Its right to self-determination is being threatened. And I rise at this moment, when there are negotiations going on in this building between Republicans and Democrats as to how to urge the President of the United States to respond to a buildup of 90,000 to 100,000 Russian troops on the border of this sovereign country who is our ally.

The world has watched in recent weeks not understanding, not knowing what Vladimir Putin has in mind. But there is no question about it, there is the amassing of troops. They are moving in place all the supplies and troops it would need if they decide to launch an invasion of this Member of the United Nations, of this Member of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, this sovereign nation who wants self-determination.

Our Ukrainian friends are sounding the alarm. They warned us that Russia could be ready to invade their country by land, air, or sea as early as next month or February of 2022. I heard their concerns along with a bipartisan delegation of Senators who attended the Halifax International Security Conference just a couple of weeks ago in Nova Scotia.

These are concerns that were voiced today at a bureau meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co- operation in Europe. The threats are serious. The troops are there on the border of Ukraine, and we have a right to be worried and mindful about Mr. Putin's latest move in his long campaign to undermine Ukraine's freedom and sovereignty.

We should never forget what happened in 2014, when troops that he disavowed but were clearly under his direction invaded the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Since then, Russia has provoked a shooting war in Eastern Ukraine which has cost the lives of more than 13,000 people. More than 13,000 human beings have died because of the war Vladimir Putin has caused Russia to make against the people of Ukraine.

Moscow tries to deny and obfuscate the truth, but the world knows the truth. The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly plainly spoke overwhelmingly in a resolution that Russia had violated every precept of the final agreement of the Organization for Security and Co-operation.

Now is the time--and I know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with this--now is the time for the President of the United States to send a strong signal to Vladimir Putin and his oligarchs, his ruling inner circle, that there will be serious consequences not so much for the Russian people, there will be serious consequences for Mr. Putin and his henchmen on day 1 if he goes ahead with this invasion--on day 1.

And it troubles me to hear that our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle and my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle would like to pass an amendment on the NDAA that makes this clear and sends a clear message that on day 1, sanctions will be imposed by our Chief Executive--by the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces--and yet we are stuck on language that might have unintended consequences.

The purpose of my statement this afternoon is to urge the leaders of the Armed Services Committee, of the Foreign Relations Committee, on both sides of the aisle, to get together and get the language right so we make it clear what our consequences will be on Nord Stream 2. I think Nord Stream 2 should be disallowed on day 1 when Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine. And I think we can stop this.

I don't want a war with Ukraine and neither do my colleagues and neither does the President of the United States. The clearest way to prevent an invasion of our friends in Ukraine is for the United States to stand strong, to be resolute, to send a signal to the world that Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine will not be tolerated and that intolerable consequences will be meted out upon the Putin regime if this takes place.

We are not where we need to be on the language. There are negotiations, and I am hopeful the NDAA will be on the floor for amendments. But the way it is positioned right now, is that a Democratic amendment will be offered,

and it will not pass because we think there are holes in it. A Republican amendment will be offered on Ukraine on sanctions. It will not pass because, for some reason, the White House believes it is improper or inadequate. This doesn't have to happen when a clear majority of this body wants to send a strong signal to Mr. Putin.

I hope that happens, and I urge that on the leadership of this Senate and on the leaders of these two very important committees.

I yield the floor.

I congratulate my friend from Montana for his passionate and analytical and, in my view, correct assessment of this issue.

I rise this afternoon in support and encouragement of the public officials and the attorneys who will bring this case before the Supreme Court in argument tomorrow. I rise, as does my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Hyde-Smith, in appreciation for the State legislature, where she and I both served before coming to Congress, and in appreciation for the Governor and the legislature enacting the Gestational Age Act, which is the subject of this Dobbs case which will be argued tomorrow.

This is a serious issue. It is an issue that will determine whether millions of American children have an opportunity to be born and to enjoy the good life in this, the greatest system of representative government that the world has ever seen. It is a serious issue.

I am happy today. I am encouraged and hopeful today. One of the reasons that I am so encouraged is that the American people steadily over the decades have been moving in the direction of protecting life. This has not always been the case. As my friend from Montana so accurately pointed out, we just know so much more. Science knows so much more today in 2021 than science knew and Americans knew and the world knew back in 1973, so we see more and more people becoming pro- life.

Since 1995, the share of Americans who identified themselves as pro- life has jumped to 47 percent from 33 percent. You say: Well, that is not that great. Of course, it leaves some folks undecided. But when you sort it out and become more specific, two out of three Americans support a ban on second trimester abortions. This is what the Mississippi law does. This is the law that will be allowed to stay in effect if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mississippi based on the argument tomorrow.

Four out of five Americans oppose late-term abortions.

My friend the distinguished Senator from Montana encouraged people within the sound of his voice to take their smartphones out and type in ``15-week-old baby.'' I did that. I don't know if the rules quite permit that yet on the floor, but I dare say it is not the first time that has been done, so I did that. I clicked on ``15-week-old baby,'' and that very picture, along with other photographs, came up. As the gentleman says, it is every much, every bit a human baby--no question about it.

I am encouraged that the American people are moving in the direction of life because they have seen these pictures, because they listen to the science, and we know more than we did in 1973. The Supreme Court knows more than it did in 1973.

After 15 weeks, an unborn baby has more than 90 percent of its body parts that it will ever have. They have been formed, and almost every organ is functional at the 15-week period. That is a baby. That is a human, American baby. The child's heart is pumping 26 quarts of blood per day at 15 weeks and has already beaten approximately 15.8 million times by 15 weeks. That is a human. That is a baby. Babies at this stage respond to touch and taste, and a dominant hand begins to emerge. We know at that point--15 weeks--whether that baby is right-handed or left-handed. And, of course, we know that baby can feel pain. That baby deserves the constitutional rights that the gentleman from Montana mentioned of life and the pursuit of happiness as an American.

I do want to congratulate our friends across the sea for actually being ahead of us on this. We like to think that sometimes we know best and we are ahead of the curve, but it happens that almost every European country has legislation in place, rules in place, that are very much like the Mississippi law that will be in question tomorrow in the hearing.

Germany and Belgium have banned elective abortions after 14 weeks. Now, this law in Mississippi has set that at 15 weeks, but Germany and Belgium, 14 weeks. Denmark, Norway, France--a very ``live and let live'' country if ever I heard of it--draws the line at 12 weeks--12 weeks. So when the Supreme Court hears this case tomorrow, they will have an opportunity to decide to place the United States of America in the broad mainstream of international thought on this.

There are so many reasons why I am happy today and encouraged today that we have this opportunity to make a case based on the facts.

I will say this: My heart and my thanks go out to the millions of Americans right this minute who are doing what some think is a quaint thing--performing an act that many people are skeptical about at this point. But I stand with those millions and millions of Americans who are right at this moment praying for the Supreme Court, praying for wisdom in these nine appointed and confirmed figures. They are praying for the right words to be said by the attorneys, and they are praying for the future of our great country.

This is our opportunity, and we have every reason to believe that we are on the right side of history. I stand with the people who are bringing this case, and I stand with the people of Mississippi and the millions upon millions of Americans who are praying for the right decision.

I yield to my good friend from across the river, the junior Senator from Louisiana. I know that my friend from Mississippi is also waiting to speak.

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

Mr. President, this Saturday, the International Criminal Police Organization, better known as INTERPOL, will begin its annual General Assembly in Istanbul.

INTERPOL is a vital global law enforcement network that helps police from different countries cooperate with each other to control crime. Unfortunately, it has also become a tool in the hands of despots and crooks who seek to punish dissidents and political opponents in an effort to turn other countries' law enforcement against the rule of law.

Rooting out this sort of abuse should be the top priority going into the INTERPOL General Assembly. These abuses make a mockery of INTERPOL and are threatening its continued existence.

INTERPOL's Constitution cites the universal declaration of human rights as the basis for police cooperation. Importantly and significantly, Article 3 of that declaration forbids INTERPOL from engaging in any ``activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.''

All 194 member nations have committed to uphold Article 3 and the entire INTERPOL Constitution. So it is troubling--as a matter of fact, it is even worse than troubling; it is egregious--that INTERPOL chose to host this year's General Assembly in Turkey, a country that has become one of the worst abusers of INTERPOL's Red Notice and Blue Notice systems.

Turkey has repeatedly weaponized INTERPOL to persecute and arrest government critics on politically motivated charges. Journalist Can Dundar is a prime example. Mr. Dundar is one of Turkey's most prominent media personalities and has received international awards for defending freedom of the press.

In 2018, Turkey demanded that INTERPOL issue a Red Notice for Mr. Dundar's arrest. What had he done? He simply criticized his government. He had reported on the Turkish Government supplying arms to an Islamist group in Syria. He was charged by a Turkish court with espionage and aiding a terrorist group--the group was never named--and sentenced to 27\1/2\ years in prison in absentia.

Thankfully, Germany has refused to extradite Mr. Dundar, but this is the sort of thing we see from this year's host of the conference.

In June of this year, Turkish media reported that INTERPOL had rejected nearly 800 Red Notices sent by the Turkish Government.

A Swedish human rights group reported that in 2016, after the failed coup in Turkey, the Turkish Government filed tens of thousands of INTERPOL notifications targeting persons who were merely critics and political opponents of the government. Some of these people were stranded in international airports, detained and handed over to Turkey, where they ended up in prison.

There are also alarming signs that Turkey is trying to leverage this year's General Assembly to further its own authoritarian goals. This past June, Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Yavuz Selim Kiran openly asserted that the General Assembly in Istanbul ``will be an important opportunity . . . [to] explain in detail . . . our rightful position regarding our fight against terrorist organizations and our rejected Red Notices.''

Translation: Turkey plans to use this high-level event to mislead and lie to the international community. They will no doubt try to explain why President Erdogan should be able to hunt--hunt--down his critics in foreign countries, using foreign law enforcement through INTERPOL. This will be a travesty--one that indeed threatens the legitimacy and future viability of INTERPOL.

Of course, Turkey is not the only offender we could talk about. Russia, China, and Venezuela have routinely misused INTERPOL to oppress their critics. The case of Bill Browder, a fierce critic of the Putin regime and advocate for the Magnitsky Act, is probably the most well- known example of such abuse. Vladimir Putin has issued no fewer than eight INTERPOL diffusions seeking to have Bill Browder extradited--none of which, thankfully, have been obeyed.

These abuses should not be allowed to go on. INTERPOL needs protection on behalf of countries that actually believe in human rights, that believe in open dissent and the rule of law. Providing that protection is why I have introduced the Transnational Repression Accountability and Prevention Act, or TRAP Act. This is a bipartisan effort, with four Republican cosponsors and four Democratic cosponsors. This bipartisan legislation would fortify U.S. systems against INTERPOL abuse and would require that we use our influence to push forward due process and transparency reforms at INTERPOL. American law enforcement should never be doing the work of foreign crooks and dictators.

I hope that I can count on my colleagues in this Chamber to support this much needed legislation, and I invite my colleagues to be added to the cosponsor list.

Madam President, when we looked at the news this morning and we saw the evening news last night, when we tune in to the cable channels and we hear the radio, we see the astounding news of the voices of the voters on Tuesday of this week not just in Virginia and not just in New Jersey, but in the State of New York and throughout the Midwest and on over to the west coast.

The American people sent a strong message of disapproval to the Biden administration this week, and I hope our Democratic friends and the Biden administration will heed the message of the voters.

I normally don't bring the New York Times to the floor and quote it with approval, but it says here in the New York Times this morning: ``Bruised at Polls, Democrats Look at Their Missteps.''

I hope that is true. I hope our Democratic colleagues and our friends in the Biden administration are looking at their missteps because they are many and they have been harmful.

The Washington Post this morning, November 4, said: ``A sharp turn looms in Virginia.''

Yes, Virginia went from the three constitutional statewide offices all being held by Democrats to a Republican sweep, not only there but in the State General Assembly.

But then I see this other headline at the top of the page: ``Democrats race ahead on fiscal proposals.''

Presumably, our Democrat friends are not hearing the message that the American people in State after State after State sent just Tuesday of this week.

Even vastly underfunded GOP candidates, like the candidate for Governor in New Jersey, came within a hair's breadth of being elected. Vastly underfunded GOP candidates for legislative positions actually prevailed over candidates with millions and millions of dollars on the Democratic side.

The American people have sent this administration and this Democratic majority in the House and this tiny Democratic majority in the Senate a very unmistakable message. They are rejecting the malaise that we are under. And the Biden administration must understand that this election was the direct result of the President's failed agenda.

By all measures, our economy should be roaring by now. We are coming out of the pandemic. We should be back to the good news of February 2020, the month before the pandemic hit. The Trump and Republican tax cuts were in place. The unemployment rate was an astoundingly low 3.6 percent, something that we were told in our economics classes was impossible in the United

States of America. When I was taking kiddy economics, they said it couldn't go below 4 percent.

The unemployment rate in February of 2020 was 3.6 percent. Employment was up among women. Employment was up among minorities. Employment was up among veterans. Our economy was roaring.

And then the pandemic came, and we acted in a bipartisan way. But we are coming out of the pandemic now, and the administration acts as if we need a huge dose--$4 trillion, $5 trillion worth--of socialism.

The pandemic is in full retreat, and from the beginning of the administration this year, the Biden administration blew it. On day one, the President canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline, killing thousands of jobs, and almost in the same breath, he told the Russians to go ahead with their pipeline.

I mean, can Americans even grasp that?

I think they sent a message Tuesday about that sort of thing.

With the stroke of a pen, the President declared war on American energy. The result has been that fuel has become scarce, and, of course, because of its scarcity, it has become more expensive. After 4 years of relief under the last administration, U.S. energy producers are once again looking down the barrel of a hostile EPA.

This is a self-inflicted energy crisis. Coal and nuclear plants are shutting down as reliable natural resources are taken off the table, replaced by its administration's fantasy dream of green-only energy.

Taxpayers are being told to stomach higher gas prices while, at the same time, being asked to pay billions of dollars to subsidize wind, solar, and electric vehicles. There is a place for that, but they are all three unreliable. And, predictably, gas prices have soared.

Instead of reevaluating his own policies, it seems that the President is attempting to double down on them, and he has even gone to questionable governments across the sea in the Middle East asking them to produce more oil because we won't do that in the United States. It makes no sense at all.

Perhaps this administration should listen to the election results and hear the voices of the people from Tuesday.

But the economic damage is hardly limited to energy. Inflation spurred on by the administration's reckless spending is burning a hole in the wallets of Americans, and we simply can't get around it. The Consumer Price Index shows one thing, that prices have gone up 5.4 percent over the last 12 months.

Well, I will tell you, Madam President, I was speaking to a manufacturer from my home State of Mississippi just yesterday, and he said that figure is understated quite a bit. He said his costs have gone up around 20 percent in being able to manufacture goods for American people and hire Americans and hire Mississippians.

Meanwhile, the gears of our economy are slowing down, causing fears of stagflation, something we have not seen since the 1970s.

And I do want to agree with my friend from Wyoming about the gentleman from Illinois' point about the Climate Corps. This manufacturer in Mississippi said he has got 2,000 positions that need to be filled. Perhaps some of these people that the Senator from Illinois would like to employ in the Climate Corps can come to manufacturers like ours in Mississippi and take a good-paying job manufacturing things for Americans that we can sell in our country and all around the world.

GDP growth just slowed to 2 percent. Employers still cannot find enough workers, just like the manufacturer from Mississippi told me yesterday. Our supply chain is jammed up with endless delays, causing concern.

But, to me, one of the most serious and dangerous policies of this administration is the Biden administration's unprecedented and unconstitutional vaccine mandate on two-thirds of the private-sector workforce. We are being told that every employer with over 100 employees must comply with a Washington-mandated and unconstitutional vaccine mandate.

This is exactly what the President said 11 months ago he didn't want to do. Joe Biden was asked in December of 2020: Should vaccines be mandated?

And he said: ``No, I don't think they should be mandatory.''

The President was right when he said that to the press, and he is 180 degrees wrong

today and taking his cues from the most radical advisers that he has. As a result, the American people, on Tuesday, have said: Enough.

Now, I know a little about American workers. I know a little about American service men and women. I was one. We have been raised in a free country, in a free land, and we are not accustomed to being told by Washington, DC, by the Chief Executive of the United States of America, what we must put in our bodies.

And I can tell you, this is a looming economic crisis for this country. Millions and millions of hard-working American taxpayers are going to be forced to leave their jobs because they will refuse, as free Americans, to be told that they must take a vaccine that they do not feel good about.

Madam President, the Chief Executive of our land has grossly miscalculated the American people on this issue, and a looming economic crisis because of a lack of workers and mass layoffs and mass firings is about to occur.

The Biden administration should pause, do what the New York Times said this morning and, as they are examining their bruises, look at their missteps because they are many and they are hurting the American economy.

I would urge the Biden administration to let these tax cuts stay in place, to let these soft-touch regulations stay in place, to pause and listen to the clear voices of the American people as they voted in strong numbers this past Tuesday.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Rounds and I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes each before the vote.

Madam President, it gives me no pleasure to stand on the Senate floor today and talk about President Biden's ill-advised and chaotic withdrawal; to talk about the consequences for the people of Afghanistan, who trusted us and who took our side for 20 years; and to talk about the tremendous harm it has done to America's reputation.

The President, I think, believes that the cost of this debacle has been only a few weeks of bad press. I think he is, sadly, wrong. Perhaps the President is banking on the American people forgetting that the disaster took place on his watch, but it turns out this is a disaster of historic proportions. We will be reeling from this debacle for years and decades to come.

The President may try to change the subject, but the cold truth is that our

Nation will be paying the price when we are dead and gone and these pages are in the position of senior leadership in this country.

Last week, my colleagues and I, on the Armed Services Committee, heard directly from our Nation's top military leaders who had been advising the President on Afghanistan. Their testimonies made clear what we had known all along, that President Biden not only ignored their advice, which he has the power to do as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, but that he then misrepresented that advice to the American people.

In a national TV interview, when asked whether top military advisers had recommended leaving a small troop presence behind to keep a lid on the situation, which would have kept all hell from breaking loose, the President insisted that no one, to his knowledge, had made that recommendation.

We know that statement by Joe Biden was not true. The President got good advice, and then incredibly pled ignorance.

He also got good advice from Democrats. And I would point out my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, when this was first broached in an open meeting and the administration was explaining what was going to take place, Senator Whitehouse said this sounds like it is going to be a lot like the fall of Saigon in April of 1974. Senator Whitehouse, as the son of a Foreign Service Officer, had an all too close recollection of the disaster that occurred in Saigon back in the seventies, and he warned the administration officials that this might happen again.

And yet the President said no one, to his knowledge, made this recommendation or gave these warnings. This is a President who promised to shoot straight with the American people, who said in February: ``You can handle anything as long as you are told the truth.''

I wish the President actually believed that and subscribed to that and lived by that.

The American people can handle the truth, and they need to be told the truth. Here is one bit of hard truth from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley: ``Our exit from Afghanistan was a `strategic failure.' ''

From the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: ``It has caused `damage' to America's credibility.''

That is from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I appreciate him leveling with the committee and leveling with the American people.

That damage was on full display this past weekend, when the former Afghan Ambassador, Adela Raz, was asked by Axios: Do you still trust the United States?

Her answer was simple, bleak, and understandable: ``No. Sorry.''

That was her answer: ``No. Sorry.''

She does not trust the United States anymore.

This loss of trust extends far beyond Afghanistan. As General Milley noted, ``Our credibility with allies and partners around the world and with adversaries is being intensely reviewed by them.'' And he said, yes, ``damaged'' is the correct word.

Simply put, when we abandon our friends, our partners around the world start to wonder if they can trust us, if we will have their backs. This hurts our ability to cooperate with our allies to deter threats and to provide security for the American people, and it emboldens our adversaries to act more aggressively.

We have already seen this from China in the past week. China has been signaling to Taiwan by ramping up their air missions near Taiwan. They have been signaling to our friends in Taiwan that America is an unreliable partner. Even before our troops had fully left Kabul, Chinese media wasted no time predicting that we will also abandon friends in Taiwan if and when China invades that country--a matter of concern.

Will this embolden Iran? Terrorist groups in Pakistan who support the Taliban remain a serious concern.

But perhaps the worst breach of trust in this dark chapter was between our government and our own people. During the withdrawal, President Biden assured us on national television--and I quote the President's grammar--``If there is American citizens left in Afghanistan, we're gonna stay to get them all out.''

``If there is American citizens left in Afghanistan, we're gonna stay to get them all out.''

Days later, that promise went out the window. The President dismissed those Americans staying by saying many of them wanted to stay in Afghanistan.

This repeated pattern of broken promises and our failure to own these decisions will only further weaken our country, our alliances, and our national security.

Sadly, we must get about the business of rehabilitating our reputation with our allies and the way our enemies and adversaries look at us.

I stand with my colleagues today who are committed to holding this administration accountable.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is my honor to recognize Mr. Mitchell Waldman for his long and exceptional record of service on the occasion of his retirement at the end of the month. Mr. Waldman has served our Nation for more than 42 years in various national security roles across the executive and legislative branches of government and in the private sector, providing counsel to Senators, Secretaries, CNOs, and CEOs.

For the past decade, Mr. Waldman has served as executive vice president of Government and Customer Relations for Huntington Ingalls Industries, America's largest military shipbuilding company. At Huntington Ingalls, Mr. Waldman has been responsible for leading the company's engagements with the legislative branch, the executive branch, business and trade associations, and think tanks. Before this appointment, Mr. Waldman served as vice president for business development of advanced programs and technology for Northrop Grumman's aerospace systems sector.

Before joining Northrop Grumman, Mr. Waldman served as national security advisor to my good friend, former U.S. Senator for Mississippi Trent Lott, as well as a national security consultant in the office of the Senate majority leader. Mr. Waldman has held a number of executive positions for the U.S. Navy, including Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Ships), Director of Cost Engineering and Industrial Analysis for Naval Sea Systems Command, and Deputy Program Manager for Amphibious Warfare Programs.

Mr. Waldman received a bachelor of science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Florida and a juris doctor from Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law. He is also a graduate of Yale University's executive management program and the defense systems management college program managers course. He has been honored with the U.S. Navy Distinguished Civilian Service Award, the State of Mississippi Distinguished Civilian Service Award, and the D.C. City Council of Engineering Societies Architect of the Year award.

Mr. Waldman's contributions also extend to his service on the board of directors for the Shipbuilders Council of America, the National Bureau of Asian Research, the Armed Services YMCA, the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation, and the Naval War College Foundation. Additionally, he is a member of the external advisory board for the University of Florida's Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.

I would like to express a heartfelt ``thank you'' to Mr. Waldman for a career marked by the utmost devotion to our country. I would also like to wish him good luck as he begins a new phase in life; may the new journey be as fulfilling as his career has been. It is with sincere respect and kindest regards that I wish Mitch Waldman, his wife Debbie, and his daughter Emily: ``Fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Baldwin amendment. I appreciate Senator Baldwin's interest in making sure that the Coast Guard has adequate icebreaking in the Great Lakes.

I will note that there is currently no funding for the Coast Guard in the Democrats' budget resolution, and I hope that the vote we are about to have will show support for icebreakers. And perhaps Democrats will regret their decision to exclude the Coast Guard from the Commerce Committee's allocation of over $80 billion.

But I do support the amendment. The ranking member of the Budget Committee also supports the amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3648

Madam President, I rise this afternoon to announce my support for this bipartisan infrastructure legislation. Coming to this decision has not been easy or straightforward.

As the minority leader said recently, I am quite confident that out of 100 U.S. Senators, there are 100 of us who believe this bill is imperfect. I want to associate myself with that statement. The bill we are now debating is far from perfect. If I were the only one with a pen, I would have made many changes. But at the end of the day, I believe this package will do a great service for the United States of America and a great service for my home State of Mississippi.

Republicans and Democrats agree that roads, bridges, broadband, ports, and rail are the building blocks of a healthy economy. This bill makes historic downpayments on those core priorities.

I am pleased that this bill incorporates all of the Surface Transportation Investment Act of 2021, which Senator Cantwell and I cosponsored, and which passed out of the Commerce Committee by a vote of 25 to 3, with the support of 14 Democrats and 11 Republicans. The provisions of that bill ensure that Mississippi will get a fair shake in the competitive grant programs included in this bill, which total more than $20 billion.

This bill has a number of other vitally important provisions that will benefit Mississippi. It provides my State a lump sum of $3.3 billion for roads and highways, as well as $225 million to replace and repair bridges. We will also be able to compete for funding from another $12.5 billion in bridge grants.

Mississippi has nearly 6,000 miles of highway in poor condition, and over a thousand bridges are also in poor condition in our State. Commute times in Mississippi are up 5.6 percent over the last decade. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, Mississippi drivers, on average, are paying an extra $820 per year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs.

No one disputes that my State and other States are in desperate need of significant new funding for roads and bridges, and this legislation does that.

The historic investments in this bill mean that Mississippians can have an easier time dropping off their children at school and shorter commutes to work. First responders will also be able to reach those in need much more quickly, potentially saving lives.

Separately, Mississippi will receive $223 million for public transit, $283 million for water projects, and an estimated $100 million for airport upgrades and repairs.

Our ports and rail systems also stand to benefit. This bill authorizes $2.25 billion for U.S. ports; $5 billion for rail through the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements--or CRISI--Program; and $3 billion to provide safety features for grade crossings, something that is desperately needed across this country.

This bill will also clear away obstacles for major construction projects by streamlining the Federal permitting process. The Army Corps of Engineers will get $9.5 billion, meaning Mississippi will have new funding opportunities for flood control projects, which are badly needed.

And high-need communities will be first in line for those projects, thanks to an amendment I sponsored with the senior Senators from Delaware and Oklahoma. This should benefit urban areas, like the Pearl River Basin, as well as rural areas throughout Mississippi and throughout our Nation, which have faced the constant threat of flooding for far too long.

In another positive provision of this bill, the Senate adopted my amendment authorizing the Minority Business Development Agency--MBDA-- for the first time ever. It had never been authorized. This will send new business resources to rural areas and a boost of support to historically Black colleges and universities, which are economic anchors in their communities.

And I would add the good news we got just last month: Mississippi will soon be home to a new MBDA center.

I also want to mention rural broadband, which will see a tremendous boost because of this legislation. This bill lines up $65 billion to be spent on broadband deployment, taking us one giant step toward closing the digital divide.

Based on the Federal formula, Mississippi will receive a minimum of $100 million from these funds. That is on top of the $495 million Mississippi was recently awarded through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund--or RDOF--auctions, and the $275 million of COVID relief funds that we are spending on broadband infrastructure in Mississippi.

No Senator has been a stronger advocate than I have on broadband buildout. Reliable, high-speed broadband is critical to ensuring rural States are competitive for the next generation, and this bill will help us get there.

It is no secret that I have registered my concerns about the way this bill waives some of the normal processes that make for good Federal rulemaking. As written, this bill makes it so that the NTIA can choose not to receive public comment on its broadband buildout plans; and it short-circuits the judicial review section of the Administrative Procedure Act, giving stakeholders a much smaller voice in the overall buildout process.

I hope the NTIA will take care to avoid the wasteful and costly mistakes of the past and make sure these broadband dollars are spent efficiently, effectively, and with the benefit of stakeholder comment.

I was pleased that my colleagues included language to prohibit the Federal Government from setting broadband rates. This would have been an unwelcome intrusion into the private market, and the inclusion of this clarifying language was absolutely critical.

The internet in this country has been able to meet the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic in large part because of our light-touch regulatory framework, which has encouraged more broadband buildout. This stands in stark contrast to our European friends, who suffered severe slowdowns because of their burdensome internet rules.

One pivotal moment of this debate on this subject involved a colloquy that I shared last week with the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, the chief negotiator for this title. Senator Shaheen confirmed on the Senate floor that preventing regulation of internet rates was the express intent of the language in the broadband title. Without this specific language in the legislation and the assurance made during that colloquy, I would not have been able to support this bill on final passage.

Now, some have expressed concern about the cost of this bill. Offsets have been provided, and the negotiators provided pay-fors for every expenditure; but, admittedly, the Congressional Budget Office did not agree with all the pay-fors.

Republicans, for decades, have advocated more use of dynamic scoring, and I wish the CBO had used dynamic scoring in this instance. It is unfortunate that the CBO refuses to acknowledge that economic growth will result in higher revenues.

It should be clear to us all that the investments in this legislation will generate a stronger economy and larger sums of revenue. Experts have predicted these investments will make it less costly for businesses to operate and will lead to greater productivity.

For example, the widely used Penn Wharton Budget Model has projected this bill will increase hourly wages by .1 percent and reduce government debt by .9 percent. You heard that right. The Penn Wharton Model says this bill will reduce government debt, a prediction not to be taken lightly.

Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute, a respected conservative think tank, has said these investments in hard infrastructure will ease the pressure on inflation rather than contributing to inflation.

In other words, this investment in infrastructure will result in tremendous economic growth--growth that some of our budgetary bean counters are not willing to account for.

Now, it is important to make this point emphatically: This legislation involving hard infrastructure, which I support, stands in sharp contrast to the

Democrats' forthcoming bill, which will certainly not gain even one Republican vote, and which the 50 Democrats in the Senate and a slim majority in the House hope to pass with only Democrat votes.

They say their bill will be infrastructure part two, but a momentary glance of what they are proposing should dispel any notion that their bill counts as real infrastructure.

I will say it clearly and for the record: My Democratic colleagues are teeing up for next week a reckless tax-and-spending spree that our country does not need and cannot afford. The Democrats' reckless budget bill will amount to a staggering $3.5 trillion. It threatens the successful Trump tax cuts. It includes crushing tax hikes on job creators; hundreds of billions in wasteful giveaways to green corporations; and a slew of spending that would heat up inflation, jeopardize our recovery, and drive our Nation deeper into debt.

Democrats are even considering an amnesty measure--in the midst of the worst border crisis in recent memory--without giving a thought to improving border security, which would count as real infrastructure. But that is next week's bill, not this one.

This bill, the bipartisan bill that I am supporting tonight, is the real infrastructure deal that America needs.

As the Senate moves forward with this important debate, and as I consider the infrastructure needs of my own State of Mississippi, it is instructive for me to recall the history of infrastructure programs I have personally seen at the State level.

In 1968, my father was a first-term State senator from Pontotoc, Union, and Benton Counties in north Mississippi. One of his major goals that year was the passage of a comprehensive four-lane highway program. That was 1968. The legislature met from January until September of that year, with vote after vote on the highway bill, before finally adjourning in frustration with the hope of trying again next year. Sadly, the next year came and went, as did others, with no meaningful highway legislation.

It was not until 1987--a full 19 years later, when I myself was a candidate for the State senate--that a major four-lane highway bill was finally enacted, and only then by the tiniest of margins in a vote to override a gubernatorial veto.

If you ask almost anyone involved in economic development efforts during the decades that followed, and even today, they will tell you that the 1987 four-lane highway bill was one of Mississippi's most significant pieces of legislation for job creation.

For this smalltown boy from Mississippi, this is just as pivotal a moment. For my State's economy, today is such a moment.

When will it come again?

Maybe next year, maybe the next administration, maybe 19 years.

Can we afford to pass on this opportunity?

We cannot afford to pass this opportunity up.

I will be voting yes on this legislation.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shaheen and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy.

Senator Shaheen, the Portman-Sinema substitute provides in title 1 of the division on broadband that ``[n]othing in this title may be

construed to authorize the Assistant Secretary or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to regulate the rates charged for broadband service.''

It is my understanding that an agreement was made among the bipartisan group that no rate regulation of broadband services would be authorized or permitted by NTIA or the Assistant Secretary who leads the NTIA, as part of the State broadband grants program.

Is it the Senator's understanding that the language I just quoted accomplishes that goal?

I thank the Senator.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I offer today what should be considered a friendly amendment to the broadband section of this infrastructure bill.

Why is it a friendly amendment?

Because by using the Administrative Procedure Act, which my amendment would provide, it would save billions of dollars in broadband build-out funds. It would provide for consumer input, stakeholder input, local and State government input into NTIA--the Agency that will be in charge of this broadband build-out. And also because it will not delay the broadband build-out in any way.

Now, as written today, the broadband section waives the Administrative Procedure Act. The Wicker amendment would simply strike that waive and make the Administrative Procedure Act apply to the broadband section as it applies to so many big programs that are enacted.

If we pass this amendment, here will be the timeline: Let's assume the President doesn't get around to signing this bill until October 1. I would expect the President would sign it earlier than that, but let's assume that he does that. There will be 30 days of notice, 30 days of public comment after the notice is published, a review of those comments, which could take 30 to 40 days. At that point the regulations are published and, after 30 days, they go into effect.

So by my calculations, assuming the President is very, very late in signing the bill, the act and the regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act would be done by February 7.

Now, what we all know--what everyone in this Chamber knows--is that we have to wait on the FCC maps, and they will not be ready until the earliest--until the earliest--by spring of next year, and that is--that is very, very optimistic.

So we have time to do it right, to get public input, to have people who have already experienced this come to the Agency and say: You might want to do it this way; or: You might want to avoid doing it that way because here is our experience.

We did this one time before, and it was only $4.7 billion. This is $42 billion. That was the BTOP program, which was enacted in 2009.

We skipped this. We gave it to an Agency which is going to have it this time, the NTIA--a staff of only 157 people--to monitor back then $4.7 billion; this time it is $42 billion.

Here is what we learned about the BTOP program, which is an awful lot like this one: When Congress asked NTIA to administer this, the results were deeply troubling.

Let me quote the inspector general, let me quote the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy, and the Phoenix Center. Their own inspector general found that the Agency faced significant challenges in managing the size and complexity of the program. It is a program a tenth the size of what we are talking about today.

The Stanford Institute said NTIA's mechanism for selecting projects was incoherent. NTIA, had they adopted more a reasonable framework, many more households could have been connected with the same money, or the same number of connections could have been realized for a fraction of the cost, because they didn't do what I am advocating today.

The Phoenix Center, an independent think tank, said they found no positive effect on home broadband adoption from the BTOP program.

My fellow colleagues, years from now, when someone realizes we have wasted billions of dollars on this build-out, I would want, and I think my colleagues would want, to say: Well, I voted yes on the Wicker amendment to take the extra 130, 140 days to hear what went right and what went wrong in the past and to make sure we get it right.

No Senator has worked harder than I have on broadband build-out. I want this program to succeed. This is a way to make sure we spend the money correctly, to make sure we do it right.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article dated August 3, just yesterday, from the National Journal.

It says: ``How $65 billion for broadband infrastructure could fall short.''

I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at this point

Mr. President, I don't want this program to fall short; I want it to succeed. This amendment gives us a chance to get the money right, to take the extra time that we are going to have to take anyway to get the maps right. It is a good government amendment, a friendly amendment, and I urge bipartisan adoption of it.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I do appreciate the Senator from Maryland joining on this. Everything he said about the committee action today in the Commerce Committee is exactly correct. I subscribe to every statement that he made. I couldn't improve on it. I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I am indeed hopeful we can vitiate the rollcall vote and save some time by voicing this one.

I yield the floor.

Hear! Hear!

Mr. President, I, too, rise in support of this amendment. It is in response to a tragic automobile accident that affected a number of families.

I want to thank Senator Schumer's staff for working with me, the ranking member, and the chair of the Commerce Committee to get this language correct. It is in good shape. I entirely agree with the junior Senator from New York.

Vote on Amendment No. 2570

Madam President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joseph Calascione, an FCC detailee in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Madam President, I am told that the distinguished Senator from Georgia may have some followup unanimous consent. OK. If not, I am happy to proceed.

I rise today pointing out an injustice done by the authorities running the Tokyo Olympics. This morning, Americans learned the news that Sam Kendricks, an American double world champion pole vaulter from Oxford, MS, has been shut out from competing at the Tokyo Olympics after a positive COVID-19 test today--almost certainly a false positive COVID-19 test. This is an injustice that can still be rectified if the Olympic Committee will be fair.

For those of you who don't know Sam, he is an alum of the University of Mississippi, Ole Miss, where he took back-to-back NCAA championships before launching his professional career. He won the U.S. Olympic trials in 2016 and went on to the Rio Olympics, where he took home the bronze medal.

Then again, you probably do remember Sam Kendricks. He is the pole vaulter who stopped mid-run in the 2016 Olympics to stand and salute for his national anthem. That is Sam Kendricks, Olympic champion from the State of Mississippi. He has made his school, his State, and his Nation very proud, and by all accounts he was expected to be a contender for the gold medal this year.

But after testing negative for the COVID virus three times, Sam received a positive test result earlier today. The timeframe is different in Tokyo, but it was on Thursday. And under International Olympic Committee rules, he was immediately disqualified from competition, even though he had previously tested negative three times and even though he has already had the coronavirus. And even after a followup test, administered according to U.S. Olympic standards, came up negative, the rules are that you have to wait 6 days.

Well, guess what, his competition is Friday, and adherence to high- bound rules like that will bar him from the Olympics. There is no consideration for the fact that his test--one of thousands of tests administered daily--may very well have been a fluke.

As Sam told the world, he is not sick, he is not displaying symptoms, and he has already had COVID-19 and should be immune. And, again, he tested, according to U.S.A. track-and-field team tests, immediately after getting this false positive.

Obviously, the fair thing for the Olympic Committee to do would be to follow up immediately on another test to verify whether all these negatives were correct and, undoubtedly, they were. But the powers that be won't allow Sam Kendricks to get an official followup. No, according to protocols, he must wait 6 days. Then he can have a followup test, which no doubt would show that he doesn't have the coronavirus

What is magic about 6 days? What about the young athlete? What about fundamental fairness? As Sam Kendricks' father said: These athletes traveled too far, worked for too many years, made too many sacrifices not to confirm a positive test--a very inexpensive thing to do.

I agree with Mr. Kendricks. These athletes should be given a confirming test--one test to minimize the chances of a false positive. But that is not the way the Olympic authorities in Japan see it.

My question is this: What is the health risk of a followup test? How could it possibly hurt anyone or anything to make sure you have got it right when you tell a young American that he can't compete for his Nation in the Olympics?

So I say I am not just disappointed, I am outraged, outraged that a young athlete is unfairly missing out on his chance to show his talent to the world and win a gold medal on behalf of his country, and aghast that a proud global tradition like the Olympics, a celebration of sport, competition, and international cooperation, has been reduced to testing protocols and rigid rules that are fundamentally unfair-- inflexible rules that assume there is no such thing as a false positive

I send my best wishes and congratulations to Sam Kendricks and his family for the good grace they have displayed in the face of this unfair and pointless disqualification.

And allow me to state emphatically that I am not willing to be so gracious.

If this action stands--and I hope it will not stand--this high-bound decision by the decisionmakers at Tokyo should make them ashamed of themselves. It is not too late, even today. It is Friday morning in Tokyo. Even today, the Olympic committee can use common sense and fairness. It is Friday morning in Tokyo. When the Sun comes up, give Sam Kendricks a confirming test and allow this young man to represent his country.

I yield the floor.