Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1242, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.

This amendment provides $650 billion of immediate relief to those Americans who need it most. It is focused on the COVID crisis before us, not on future unrelated spending priorities. The amendment provides $160 billion to bolster vaccine production and delivery, as well as testing and much needed support for healthcare providers.

It includes $1,400 checks for lower and middle-income Americans and extends unemployment insurance.

It targets money to reopen schools, something that needs to happen as soon as possible, and to expand access to childcare.

It has funding for substance abuse programs to combat the opioid epidemic that has worsened.

This amendment would save tax dollars. It would save taxpayers more than $1.2 trillion while meeting immediate needs.

The emergency we are facing should not be an excuse for funding partisan priorities. Instead, we should come together----

--just as we had on the five previous bipartisan bills.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Native Plant Species Pilot Program Act. I am pleased to be partnering with Senator Cantwell on this initiative. Our bipartisan bill would create a new pilot program at the National Park Service to support the use of native plants, and would direct the Park Service to review existing data and study the cost-effectiveness of using native plants.

Native plants are species found naturally in regions and can add beauty and value to our National Park System. Benefits range from using less water and pesticides, purifying the air, and recharging groundwater in wetlands. By using native species, the Park Service can also improve habitat for wildlife and restore important species of birds and butterflies to their natural environment.

In Acadia National Park, native plants are an important part of the ongoing conservation efforts undertaken by Superintendent Kevin Schneider and all those who work to encourage the use of native plants. Acadia National Park protects more than 900 plant species, including some that are globally, nationally, and locally rare.

Acadia is home to the vibrant rhodoras that flower along wetland edges in the spring and stunning wood lilies that bloom on the mountain tops

in August, helping to attract the more than 3.5 million visitors a year to the seventh most-visited national park in the United States. The Wild Gardens of Acadia, located at Sieur de Monts, are a collection of more than 400 native plants maintained almost exclusively by park volunteers and represent the natural plant communities found within Acadia National Park. This partnership project with Friends of Acadia allows visitors to easily step through the park's myriad habitats and learn about the splendor of Acadia's native plant species. The Wild Gardens celebrates its 60th anniversary in 2021.

Native plants, however, face many threats, such as non-native pests, non-native plants, diseases, and a changing climate. Today, almost one quarter of Acadia National Park's species are non-native to the park. The red spruce, iconic to Acadia, is projected to lose a substantial amount of its habitat in coming decades because of climate change. In addition, invasive pests, such as the Emerald Ash Borer and the hemlock woolly adelgid are affecting northern forests and have expanded into Maine. Hemlock woolly adelgid recently infested hemlock trees just outside of the park on Mount Desert Island.

Our bipartisan bill has earned endorsements from the Garden Club of America, Friends of Acadia, Scenic America, and the Native Plant Center at Westchester Community College. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to help protect the natural landscapes at our national parks for years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Native Plant Species Pilot Program Act. I am pleased to be partnering with Senator Cantwell on this initiative. Our bipartisan bill would create a new pilot program at the National Park Service to support the use of native plants, and would direct the Park Service to review existing data and study the cost-effectiveness of using native plants.

Native plants are species found naturally in regions and can add beauty and value to our National Park System. Benefits range from using less water and pesticides, purifying the air, and recharging groundwater in wetlands. By using native species, the Park Service can also improve habitat for wildlife and restore important species of birds and butterflies to their natural environment.

In Acadia National Park, native plants are an important part of the ongoing conservation efforts undertaken by Superintendent Kevin Schneider and all those who work to encourage the use of native plants. Acadia National Park protects more than 900 plant species, including some that are globally, nationally, and locally rare.

Acadia is home to the vibrant rhodoras that flower along wetland edges in the spring and stunning wood lilies that bloom on the mountain tops

in August, helping to attract the more than 3.5 million visitors a year to the seventh most-visited national park in the United States. The Wild Gardens of Acadia, located at Sieur de Monts, are a collection of more than 400 native plants maintained almost exclusively by park volunteers and represent the natural plant communities found within Acadia National Park. This partnership project with Friends of Acadia allows visitors to easily step through the park's myriad habitats and learn about the splendor of Acadia's native plant species. The Wild Gardens celebrates its 60th anniversary in 2021.

Native plants, however, face many threats, such as non-native pests, non-native plants, diseases, and a changing climate. Today, almost one quarter of Acadia National Park's species are non-native to the park. The red spruce, iconic to Acadia, is projected to lose a substantial amount of its habitat in coming decades because of climate change. In addition, invasive pests, such as the Emerald Ash Borer and the hemlock woolly adelgid are affecting northern forests and have expanded into Maine. Hemlock woolly adelgid recently infested hemlock trees just outside of the park on Mount Desert Island.

Our bipartisan bill has earned endorsements from the Garden Club of America, Friends of Acadia, Scenic America, and the Native Plant Center at Westchester Community College. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to help protect the natural landscapes at our national parks for years to come.

Madam President, last week, I was pleased to join my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Joe Manchin, in introducing the Advancing Uniform Transportation Opportunities for Veterans Act, better known as the AUTO for Veterans Act. I am pleased that Senators Boozman, Hassan, and Blunt have joined as original cosponsors.

Our bill would lessen the financial burden on severely disabled veterans who require special adaptive equipment to drive a motor vehicle. It would do so by increasing access to the Department of Veterans Affairs automobile grant program.

The VA currently provides eligible veterans with a one-time grant of approximately $21,400 to be used to purchase a new or used automobile and necessary adaptive equipment, such as specialized pedals and switches. This grant is often used in conjunction with the VA's special adaptive equipment grants, which help our veterans purchase additional adaptive equipment, such as powered lifts, for example, for an existing automobile to make it safe and feasible for a veteran with disabilities.

Although veterans can receive multiple special adaptive equipment grants over the course of their lives, for some reason they are limited to just a single automobile grant. The current limitation fails to take into account that a veteran is likely to need more than one vehicle in his or her lifetime. In fact, the Department of Transportation reports that, in 2019, the average age of a household vehicle was 11.8 years, and a vehicle that has been modified structurally tends to have a shorter useful life.

According to the VA independent budget prepared by Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the VFW, the substantial costs of modified vehicles, coupled with inflation, present a financial hardship for many disabled veterans who need to replace their primary mode of transportation once their car or van or truck reaches its lifespan. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that a new vehicle modified with adaptive equipment will cost anywhere from $20,000 to $80,000. These are significant costs for a veteran with disabilities to incur to replace his or her primary mode of transportation. That is why veterans should be eligible to receive a vehicle grant every 10 years and our legislation, the Collins-Manchin bill, would do just that.

A Maine veteran whom I know well, Neal Williams of Shirley, ME, used a VA automobile grant in 1999 to purchase an adaptive vehicle, a Ford Econoline van. He has also had to purchase several adaptive vehicles since 1999, with each one lasting over 250,000 miles until they simply were no longer roadworthy. His current vehicle now has over 100,000 miles, and soon he will need a new one. He told me that purchasing a new van will cost him well over $50,000, which is more than he paid for his home in rural Maine. This is an enormous burden on our disabled veterans who need to purchase expensive adaptive vehicles in order to drive safely or to drive at all.

Madam President, I feel like I am preaching to the choir here. Our Nation owes our veterans such an enormous debt. It is a debt that truly can never be fully repaid. Let's honor our commitment to our veterans by continuing to support their needs, including the needs of veterans who are disabled and need this adaptive technology for their vehicles long after they have been discharged or retire from Active Duty.

This is a simple bill, but it is a bill that would make such a difference for so many of our disabled veterans who need vehicles with adaptive equipment so that they can drive themselves and drive safely. The AUTO for Veterans Act is an important step that we can take to meet this need and help those who have made so many sacrifices to serve our Nation.

I urge all of my colleagues to join us in helping our Nation's veterans by supporting this bill.

Thank you.

Mr. President, the Senate was asked to decide whether this body has the constitutional jurisdiction to hold an impeachment trial of Donald Trump now that he is no longer President of the United States. While the Constitution does not explicitly address Congress' jurisdiction when the subject of impeachment is a former President--or any former officer--its text and purpose as applied to the facts in this matter support the conclusion that the trial should proceed.

The question of Senate jurisdiction should start with the text of the Constitution itself. The impeachment process is described in article I, which delineates the respective powers of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Section 2 plainly states that the House ``shall have the sole power of impeachment.'' In this matter, there is no dispute that impeachment occurred before former President Trump's term expired, and, therefore, there is no dispute that the House had jurisdiction to impeach him.

What is at issue is whether the impeachment trial can occur in the Senate now that former President Trump is no longer in office. Again, I look to the text of article I. Section 3 states that ``the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.'' As former Federal circuit court Judge Michael McConnell has observed, the key word here is ``all.'' Sections 2 and 3 read together lead to the inescapable conclusion that, if the House presents the Senate with a valid impeachment article, the Senate has jurisdiction to conduct the trial.

Some have argued that such an interpretation would put all former Presidents, Vice Presidents, and office holders dating back to the Washington administration at risk of being impeached and convicted, but the facts in this matter do not require such a sweeping conclusion. By asserting its jurisdiction over this trial, the Senate is simply ruling that a President who was impeached while still in office can be tried after he is no longer in office--nothing more.

The former President's attorneys argue that the Senate does not have jurisdiction to conduct a trial because the penalty prescribed for conviction

under article II, section 4, is removal from office. Because former President Trump cannot be removed, they argue that the Constitution requires he not be tried. But article I, section 4, authorizes the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification from holding office in the future if it chooses to do so. And, notably, a vote on whether or not to disqualify can only be taken after conviction, at which point any defendant would have been removed and no longer an office holder.

If the defense's argument were to be followed to its logical conclusion, it would lead to a constitutional absurdity--the Senate would have the sole power to apply the disqualification penalty, but it would never have jurisdiction to do so. If the Senate were unable to consider disqualification after a President is no longer in office, the second penalty would lose its meaning. A more sensible reading of article I, section 4, is that both punishments, removal and disqualification, are equally significant, and therefore, the Senate has jurisdiction in this matter.

For all the reasons I have set forth, I believe that the Senate must exercise jurisdiction, and I voted to begin its impeachment proceedings.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Peter Schunk, a defense fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

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

Seeing no one seeking recognition, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Broadband Buildout Act. This legislation would help ensure that rural Americans have access to broadband services at the speeds they need to participate fully in the benefits of our modern society and economy. I want to thank my colleague Senator Rosen for joining me in introducing this bill today.

Twenty-five years ago, Americans typically accessed the internet using their home phone lines via modems, capable of downloading data at just 56 kilobits per second, too slow even to support MP3-quality streaming music. Today, the Federal Communications Commission defines broadband service as having a threshold download speed nearly 500 times faster.

Many areas of our country, particularly our rural communities, simply do not have the infrastructure to achieve these speeds and fully tap into the opportunities that digital connectivity can deliver. According to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey, nearly 37 percent of rural Americans lack a broadband connection compared to 25 percent of urban Americans.

Similar disparities occur in terms of broadband adoption. That is the rate at which Americans subscribe to broadband service once they have access to it.

The survey also found that 15 percent of rural Americans don't use the internet at home compared to just 9 percent of urban Americans.

The current pandemic has brought these connectivity challenges into stark focus as many families have had to move their education, their workplaces, and their healthcare services online.

Andrea Powers, the town manager of Fort Fairfield in northern Maine, recently described a number of challenges in her community: students who have to sit on the town's library steps in order to finish research projects and submit their papers; a business owner who was forced to relocate his company to another community in order to have a chance to succeed; a senior citizen who requires the care of distant doctors but does not have the capacity to travel nor access the telehealth options.

Andrea told me the story of one family whose jobs rely heavily on access to high-speed broadband. They were told that it would cost them $15,000 to bring that connection to their doorstep. Andrea summed up the reality facing so many rural communities that lack access in this way. She said: ``We will continue to see a loss of business retention and expansion along with job creation. We simply cannot afford to allow this to happen. Online schooling, business growth and development, telehealth care, and economic agriculture success are all dependent on . . . affordable fiber optic broadband.''

Telehealth services are an essential piece of the national broadband conversation. Often, rural communities struggle to attract and retain healthcare providers that they need to ensure access to quality care. Broadband is vital to bridging that gap to enable innovative healthcare delivery.

Let me give you an example. Hospice workers at Northern Light Homecare were able to use the internet and video technology to help support a patient living on an island off the coast of Maine--not far as the seagull flies, but hours away in travel time. Although the connection was poor, the video enabled nurses to monitor the patient's condition and symptoms and, equally important, to provide emotional support to her and to her family. As one hospice worker put it, ``our hospice team could be doing so much more with video and telemonitoring technologies if only Maine had better connectivity.''

The American Broadband Buildout Act would help close this ``digital divide'' between urban and rural America by providing up to $15 billion in matching grants to assist States and State-

approved entities in building that ``last-mile'' infrastructure to bring high-speed broadband directly to homes and businesses in areas that lack it.

Projects would have to be located in unserved areas--that is, areas where broadband is unavailable at speeds that meet the FCC standards. Focusing on those areas will direct support where it is most needed and will protect against overbuilding where infrastructure is already in place.

The Federal funding authorized in our bill would be matched through public-private partnerships between the broadband service provider and the State where they provide service. This means that States and their private sector partners will have ``skin in the game'' so that the projects will be well thought out and sustainable. This model will also incentivize existing service providers to extend their networks to rural areas and swiftly connect new households.

Third, the bill would require that projects be designed to be ``future proof,'' meaning that the infrastructure installed must be capable of delivering higher speeds as broadband accelerates in the future. We want these investments to serve rural Americans now and in the future without having to rebuild every time technology advances.

Our bill would also prioritize projects in States that have traditionally lagged behind the national average in terms of broadband subscribers and those that are at risk of falling further behind as broadband speeds increase.

Finally, the bill would provide grants for digital literacy and public awareness campaigns to encourage wider broadband adoption once access is available. Increasing broadband adoption will help drive down the cost of the service and make it more affordable for everyone.

Rural Americans need access to high-speed internet just as urban Americans do. In fact, one could argue they need it even more, especially during these times that can require remote work, education, and healthcare. The bill that Senator Rosen and I are introducing today would help bridge this digital divide by funding ``future proof'' broadband where it is needed most and give a boost to job creation in rural America.

As the Presiding Officer well knows, businesses will not locate in areas that do not have this essential service, in many cases. I urge all of our colleagues to join in supporting this bill.

Thank you

Mr. President, the hallmark of our American democracy is the peaceful transfer of power after the voters choose their leaders. In America, we accept election results even if our candidate does not prevail. If a candidate believes that there is fraud, the courts can hear and decide those issues. Otherwise, the authority to govern is vested in the duly elected officials.

On January 6, this Congress gathered in the Capitol to count the votes of the electoral college, pursuant to the process set forth in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. At the same time, a mob stormed the Capitol, determined to stop Congress from carrying out our constitutional duty.

That attack was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence. Rather, it was the culmination of a steady stream of provocations by President Trump that were aimed at overturning the results of the Presidential election.

The President's unprecedented efforts to discredit the election results did not begin on January 6. Rather, he planted the seeds of doubt many weeks before votes were cast on November 3. He repeatedly told his supporters that only a rigged election could cause him to lose.

Thus began President Trump's crusade to undermine public confidence in the Presidential election unless he won.

Early in the morning of November 4, as the ballots continued to be counted, President Trump claimed victory and asserted that Democrats were trying to steal the election.

On November 8, the day after several media outlets had declared Joe Biden the apparent winner based on State-by-State results, President Trump tweeted:

This was a stolen election.

With that, his postelection campaign to change the outcome began.

Over the ensuing days and months, the President distorted the results of the election, continuing to claim that he had won, while court after court threw out his lawsuits and States continued to certify their results. President Trump's falsehoods convinced a large number of Americans that he had won and that they were being cheated.

The President also embarked on an incredible effort to pressure State election officials to change the results in their States. The most egregious example occurred on January 2. In an extraordinary phone call, President Trump could be heard alternating between lobbying, cajoling, intimidating, and threatening the election officials in Georgia. ``I just want to find 11,708 votes,'' he stated, seeking the exact number of votes needed to change the outcome in that State. Despite the President's pleas and threats, the Georgia officials refused to yield to the Presidential pressure, as did State officials in other States.

In December, President Trump's postelection campaign became focused on January 6, the day that Congress was scheduled to count the electoral college votes. Although this counting is a ceremonial and administrative act, it is nevertheless the constitutionally mandated final step in the electoral college and the electoral process, and it must occur before a new President can be inaugurated.

On December 19, President Trump tweeted to his supporters:

Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!

In response, some of his campaign supporters changed the date for protest rallies they originally had scheduled to occur after the inauguration to happen instead on January 6.

Having failed to persuade the courts and State election officials, President Trump next began to pressure Vice President Pence to use his role under the 12th Amendment to overturn the election. The President met with Vice President Pence on January 5 and then increased the pressure by tweeting hours later:

If [the Vice President] comes through for us, we will win

the Presidency.

That is what his tweet said.

Vice President Pence, however, refused to yield. He issued a public letter on January 6 making clear that his oath to support and defend the Constitution would prevent him from unilaterally deciding which electoral vote should be counted and which should not.

During his speech at the Ellipse on January 6, President Trump kept up that drumbeat of pressure on Vice President Pence. In front of a large, agitated crowd, he urged the Vice President to ``stand up for the good of our Constitution.'' ``I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do,'' President Trump concluded. Rather than facilitating the peaceful transfer of power, President Trump was telling Vice President Pence to ignore the Constitution and to refuse to count the certified votes. He was also further agitating the crowd, directing them to march to the Capitol.

In this situation, context was everything. Tossing a lit match into a pile of dry leaves is very different from tossing it into a pool of water. And on January 6, the atmosphere among the crowd outside the White House was highly combustible, largely the result of an ill wind blowing from Washington for the past 2 months.

President Trump had stoked discontent with a steady barrage of false claims that the election had been stolen from him. The allegedly responsible officials were denigrated, scorned, and ridiculed by the President, with the predictable result that his supporters viewed any official they perceived to be an obstacle to President Trump's reelection as an enemy of their cause. That set the stage for the storming of the Capitol for the first time in more than 200 years.

Nearly 30 minutes after the Capitol first came under attack, Members of Congress, law enforcement, and everyone else here in the Capitol waited in vein for the President to unequivocally condemn the violence and tell his misguided supporters to leave the Capitol. Rather than demand an end to the violence, President Trump expressed his frustration once again that the Vice President had not stopped the vote certification as he had urged

Shortly after the Vice President was whisked away from this very Chamber to avoid the menacing mob chanting ``Hang Mike Pence,'' President Trump tweeted:

Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have

been done.

Instead of preventing a dangerous situation, President Trump created one.

Rather than defend the constitutional transfer of power, he incited an insurrection with the purpose of preventing that transfer of power from occurring.

Whether by design or by virtue of a reckless disregard for the consequences of his action, President Trump, subordinating the interests of the country to his own selfish interest, bears significant responsibility for the invasion of the Capitol.

This impeachment trial is not about any single word uttered by President Trump on January 6, 2021; it is instead about President Trump's failure to obey the oath he swore on January 20, 2017. His actions to interfere with the peaceful transition of power, the hallmark of our Constitution and our American democracy, were an abuse of power and constitute grounds for conviction.

Two arguments have been made against conviction that deserve comment. The first is that this was a snap impeachment, that the House failed to hold hearings, conduct an investigation, and to interview witnesses, and that is true. Without a doubt, the House should have been more thorough. It should have compiled a more complete record. Nevertheless, the record is clear that the President, President Trump, abused his power, violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, and tried almost every

means in his power to prevent the peaceful transfer of authority to the newly elected President.

Second is the contention that the First Amendment protects the President's right to make any sort of outrageous and false claims, no matter the consequences.

(Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.)

But the First Amendment was not designed and must never be construed by any court to bar the impeachment and conviction of an official who violates his oath of office by summoning and inciting a mob to threaten other officials in the discharge of their constitutional obligations.

My vote in this trial stems from my own oath and duty to defend the Constitution of the United States. The abuse of power and betrayal of his oath by President Trump meet the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, and for those reasons, I voted to convict Donald J. Trump.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I send a question to the desk.

Madam President, when Jane Harman left Congress in 2011 to head the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, she described herself as dedicated to the belief that the political center is where most Americans are and where the best policy answers are found. As this great leader and my dear friend steps down from the Wilson Center, I take this opportunity to thank her for unswerving devotion to that principle.

Our friendship was forged in the challenging days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Reaching across the aisle, we worked closely together as leaders of the Homeland Security committees in the House and Senate. From the landmark intelligence reform legislation we crafted, to addressing protections for our Nation's cargo ports and other critical infrastructure, to improving emergency preparedness in communities throughout America, Jane was always an informed, effective, and committed partner.

I will never forget how, when Jane testified at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on maritime security in 2006, she called me her ``Security Sister.'' It is a title that fills my heart with pride and affection.

Jane's untiring work to protect our Nation defines her public service. Elected nine times by the people of California's 36th Congressional District, she served on all major security committees-- Homeland Security, Intelligence, and Armed Services. She served as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee's Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security and chaired the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment.

After Jane left Congress, she served as a member of the Director of National Intelligence's Senior Advisory Group. She currently serves on the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission and the Advisory Board of the Munich Security Conference. She also cochairs the Homeland Security Experts Group and is a member of the Presidential Debates Commission and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Jane has been recognized as a national expert at the nexus of security and public policy issues with the Defense Department Medal for Distinguished Service, the CIA Agency Seal Medal and Director's Award, and the Director of National Intelligence Distinguished Public Service Medal. The University of Southern California's Presidential Medallion, its highest award, is a fitting tribute to her outstanding service to her State and to our Nation.

Jane is the first woman to lead the Wilson Center. Chartered by Congress in 1968, the center is the Nation's key nonpartisan policy forum for tackling global issues through independent research and open dialogue. Under her leadership, the center advanced its mission to generate actionable ideas for policies that affect our security and our relations with the world.

No tribute to Jane would be complete without mention of her late husband, Sidney. Driven by a shared ideal of public service, they accomplished so much in politics, business, philanthropy, and the arts.

I thank Jane Harman--my colleague, my friend, my ``sister''--for all that she has done for our country. I wish her all the best in her future endeavors

Mr. President, the question before us is quite simple: Do we want stimulus checks to go to households with family incomes of $300,000 or do we want to target the assistance to struggling families who need the help and provide a boost for the economy?

I urge my colleagues to support the Manchin-Collins amendment.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Manchin, Senator Capito, Senator Moran, Senator Shaheen, Senator Portman, and Senator King, I call up amendment No. 546 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have 30 seconds remaining.

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to replenish and strengthen the Provider Relief Fund, which has been a lifeline for hospitals, nursing homes, and community health centers, as well as physician practices across the country, but especially so in rural America.

Mr. President, our rural hospitals have been particularly hard hit during this pandemic.

With that, I would yield to my friend from West Virginia.

Madam President, as we face an economic crisis brought on by COVID-19, we will need steady, proven leadership at the Treasury Department. A highly respected economist, Dr. Yellen served first as Vice Chair and then Chair of the Federal Reserve. She has served under Democratic and Republican presidents and during periods of economic crisis and economic growth.

Last year, I worked with my colleagues to deliver bipartisan relief for those who have been harmed by the pandemic. We addressed the crisis in five bills totaling approximately $3 trillion. Through subsequent negotiations in November and December on an additional $900 billion package, we secured a second round of Paycheck Protection Program forgivable loans for the hardest hit small businesses and extended unemployment programs, assistance for schools, vaccine delivery, and more. But additional work remains.

During this crisis, Secretary Mnuchin proved himself to be an able partner to all of us in delivering this relief. It is my hope that Treasury Secretary-designate Yellen will build on our work. In her testimony before the Senate Finance Committee and during the subsequent questions, Dr. Yellen made clear that she understands these needs.

Our nation's eight living former Secretaries of the Treasury have provided their support for the nomination. I urge the swift confirmation of Janet Yellen to ensure that President Biden has a qualified economic team in place.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Town of Canton, ME. Canton was built with a spirit of determination and resiliency that still guides the community today, and this is a time to celebrate the generations of hard-working and caring people who have made it such a wonderful place to live, work, and raise families.

The year of Canton's incorporation, 1821, was but one milestone in a long journey of progress. For thousands of years, the land of fields, rivers, lakes, and forests of what is now Oxford County was the home of the Abenaki Tribe, and Canton Point, or Rokomeko, was the headquarters of the Anasagunticook Band of the People of the Dawn. The reverence the Abenaki had for the natural beauty and resources of the region is upheld by the people of Canton today.

In the 1790s, following America's independence, an early settlement called Phipp's Canada was established. Maine achieved statehood in 1820, and on February 5 of the following year, the town of Canton was incorporated. With the mighty Androscoggin River providing power, Canton soon was home to lumber and grain mills, along with many other small industries. When the first paper mill opened in nearby Rumford in 1893, the people of Canton were part of the skilled and dedicated workforce that built a great Maine industry. The prosperity produced by hard work and determination was invested in schools and churches to create a true community.

Maine is known as ``Vacationland,'' and Canton has played a key role in the development of our State's tourism industry. A guidebook to the region published in 1888 described the easternmost town in Oxford County as ``one of the most beautiful and charming in all this attractive region.'' With guests arriving by train and, later, by bus and car, some of the first family vacation resorts were established on the shores of Lake Anasagunticook. Today, visitors and residents alike enjoy Canton's scenery, history, and outdoor recreation opportunities. The energy and planning that are going into Canton's yearlong bicentennial celebration demonstrate the pride townspeople have in their town.

The celebration of Canton's 200th anniversary is not merely about the passing of time. It is about human accomplishment. We celebrate the people who, from the dawn of our Nation to our time, have pulled together, cared for one another, and built a great community. Thanks to those who came before, Canton, ME, has a wonderful history. Thanks to those there today, it has a bright future.

Madam President, I rise today in opposition of the legislative waiver for the nominee to become the next Secretary of Defense.

Since the inception of our Republic, civilian control of our military by democratically-elected civilians has been fundamental to American Government. This principle was firmly established as General George Washington famously resigned his commission to the Continental Congress in 1783, when he might have easily positioned himself as the leader of the fledgling American Government instead. With this bedrock principle in mind, Congress in 1947 established a limitation on former military generals serving as Secretary of Defense without a sufficient number of yes in civilian life. Today, Active-duty military members must have been retired for at least 7 years before becoming eligible to serve as Defense Secretary.

Four years ago, despite great concern for what I saw as an erosion of the principle of civilian control of our military, I voted in support of granting a ``one-time exception'' to the statutory requirement for the confirmation of Gen. James Mattis. Until Congress

granted a waiver of this requirement in 2017 for General Mattis, Congress had approved a waiver only once before, in 1950 for General George Marshall. With the nomination of Gen. Lloyd Austin, what I had thought would be a once-in-a-generation waiver in 2017 now appears to be the start of an unwelcome trend.

To be clear, I do not believe that General Austin himself poses a specific risk to the civilian control of our military. By all accounts, he is a dedicated public servant and patriot with more than 40 years of successful military service. However, I do not believe that President Biden has offered a strong enough justification for granting another legislative waiver in so short a time.

Should a waiver for his service be approved over my objections, which appears likely to occur, I intend to support General Austin's nomination based on his merits and qualifications. Over the course of his long and distinguished career, including as commander of U.S. Central Command during one of the region's most challenging periods for the United States, he has served with professionalism and diligence and has earned the trust of President Biden.

General Austin has committed to uphold the principle of civilian control of the military and pledged to ensure civilian leadership and oversight over the Pentagon's strategic and operational planning. I commend General Austin for once again answering the call to serve, and I look forward to working with him to rebalance our civil-military relations toward civilian control.

In November 2018, the congressionally appointed National Defense Strategy Commission concluded that, ``There is an imbalance in civil- military relations on critical issues of strategy development and implementation. Civilian voices appear relatively muted on issues at the center of U.S. defense and national security policy.'' Losing this civilian perspective can have profound, long-term strategic impacts on the Pentagon and our national security policy.

There are many reasons for this trend toward unbalanced civil- military relations in recent years, including the failure of the prior administration to adequately fill Senate-confirmed positions at the Pentagon, instead relying on acting officials with limited ability to assert themselves within the department.

We have also seen a troubling increase in the politicization of our military. For example, hundreds of retired generals and admirals signed public letters of support for Presidential candidates in 2020, with both campaigns competing for the most military endorsements. That was coupled with a growing trend toward political expression among the ranks on social media and elsewhere; in at least one instance, servicemembers in uniform were featured at one of the national Presidential nominating conventions. It is imperative that military officers do not come to view their commands as auditions for future political appointments or opportunities to curry favor with civilian political leaders.

As Dr. Lindsay Cohn, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, stated during the recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing examining civilian control of the Armed Forces, civilian control of our military is not necessarily an on-off switch. It is a web of institutions, norms, practices, and understandings which can be weakened or strengthened. Recently, we have begun to see the principle of civilian control of the military weakened and degraded.

In my view, Congress must not simply acquiesce to that growing trend. I do not believe it would be wise to allow the exception to swallow the rule when it comes to such a foundational principle of our Republic as civilian control of the military.