Angus King

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise with immense pride to be from Maine this afternoon. I want to thank my colleague for not only the hard work that she and the members of the Appropriations Committee have put in over the past 4 months to bring this bill to the place where it is but also for her vocal and outstanding and moving leadership on this issue. I simply want to express, I am very proud to be from Maine this afternoon and thank you to my colleague.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I recently read a book by the great historian William L. Shirer--not ``The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,'' which we all read some years ago, but a book about the fall of the Third Republic. It was about France between the wars, between World War I and World War II. One of the most haunting parts of that book--more than a chapter--was about the failure of the European allies, particularly France and Great Britain, to confront Hitler in the late 1930s when stopping him would have been relatively easy. Whenever people write to my office, they say: Why are we supporting Ukraine? I answer: Google Sudetenland, 1938. We could have stopped a murderous dictator who was bent on geographic expansion at that time--I say ``we,'' the West--at a relatively low cost. The result of not doing so was 55 million deaths. That chapter has haunted me because it echoes so strongly in what is happening now in Ukraine. We are going to have one of the most important votes that any of us have ever taken--hopefully in the next few days--on support for the people of Ukraine, as they fight for our values. This vote will echo throughout the history of this country and the history of the world for generations, particularly if we fail to meet what I believe is a commitment to the people of Ukraine. If we back away, walk away, pull out, and leave the Ukrainians without the resources to defend themselves, it will compromise the interests of this country for 50 years. It will be viewed as one of the greatest geopolitical mistakes of the 21st century. Why? First, it will embolden Vladimir Putin. He told us in 2005 that he felt that the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He has said that, and he has pursued the remedy to that catastrophe--in his eyes--ever since. In 2005, he said that the greatest catastrophe was the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In 2008, he gobbled up part of what had been an independent country of Georgia; in 2014, we all know, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine; in 2022, he tried for the rest of Ukraine. And I have talked to people about this. I talked to a fellow on the street in Maine recently, and he said: Well, he will stop with Ukraine. I said: The Finns don't think so. The Swedes don't think so. The Baltic countries don't think so. And the Finns and the Swedes know Russia. Finland has a long border with Russia. They know Russia better than any of us. And they decided to join NATO. They haven't been in NATO for almost 75 years. Why did they decide to join this year? It wasn't just a coincidence: Oh, yeah. Oh, let's join NATO. No. They know what is coming. They see the danger of our failure to stop Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. Maya Angelou once said: If someone tells you who they are, you should believe them. Putin has told us who he is. He is an autocrat. He is an authoritarian. And he wants to rebuild the Soviet Union. And I believe we wouldn't stop there. I don't have much doubt about that, in 2022, when those Russian tanks were headed for Kyiv, if Zelenskyy had run and if they had succeeded in dismantling and amputating the head of the Ukrainian Government, the people of the Baltic states--Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia--would also be facing threats from Russia. We have to take him at his word. He doesn't like the West. He despises the West. He thinks NATO is an aggressive alliance, somehow designed to invade or otherwise threaten Russia. NATO doesn't want to invade Russia. NATO wants to keep the lines where they are. And that is one of the significances of the invasion of Ukraine. It was the first crossing of a border of this nature since World War II. The lines of Europe had been drawn. He crossed into a separate country. He doesn't like the concept of democracy. He doesn't like the rule of law. He has a nostalgic view of the Soviet Union. What we are looking at here is an important piece of a global struggle that is really the struggle of the 21st century, in my opinion. It is the struggle between the idea of democracy and the rule of law and the authoritarianism and totalitarianism. That is what is going on here. And Ukraine is the opening wedge in that debate. I hate to call it a ``debate.'' It is a conflict, where we have authoritarianism and totalitarianism. And they are saying--Xi Jinping and Putin and others--are saying our system can't work; it is too messy; it is too complicated; it takes too long to make decisions. And they are betting--they are betting--that we don't have the staying power, that our democracy is too feckless to stick to our guns--in this case, literally. We would be rewarding naked aggression. Sudetenland 1938--the lesson we learned from the `30s was that appeasing dictators--appeasing authoritarians--just doesn't work. But it wouldn't only embolden Putin; it would embolden Xi Jinping. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are gravely concerned about the future of Taiwan. It is inevitable that if we cut and run in Ukraine, that will change Xi Jinping's calculus about Taiwan. He is going to say: Well, the Americans aren't going to stick. We don't have to worry too much about them helping the Taiwanese defend themselves. That is going to make it easier for him to make that decision because he is going to look and take a lesson. We aren't as good as our word. We left. We walked away. He is watching this like a hawk--and not a friendly hawk. Do you know who else is watching us like a hawk? Kim Jong Un. Just in the last few days, he is making threatening noises about South Korea and about war on the peninsula. Do you think he doesn't pay attention to what we are doing or not doing in Ukraine? It will be a signal to him: You can't count on those Americans. You can't count on them sticking with the South Koreans against aggression from the north. It will embolden Iran. It will be the most--I hate to use the word ``catastrophe'' because that is what Putin used, but it would be a catastrophe for this country. It would also shatter the confidence of our allies and our commitments. Our asymmetric advantage in the world right now is allies. China has customers. We have allies. Russia has Iran and North Korea. We have allies across the world. But our allies are going to say, Well, wait a minute, you are with us now, but when the going gets tough and you have to, maybe, have a budget supplemental to stick with us, you are going to walk away. And it is going to undermine the confidence of our allies. And in places like Japan and South Korea, they may say: We can't count on the Americans to defend us. Therefore, maybe we better develop our own nuclear arms, for example. Maybe we can't count on the famous American nuclear umbrella: proliferation, heightened tension--a higher likelihood of these unthinkable weapons being used. The other reason we can't walk away is, we are undermining our ability to negotiate and make deals in the future. Who the heck is going to deal with us if they know we can't be trusted, that we can't keep our word? People who don't keep their word, nobody wants to deal with them. Nobody wants to make agreements. Nobody wants to make concessions. Nobody wants to work together. ``We will be your ally when times are good, but don't count on us when it gets tough. Don't count on us if it is not easy. Don't count on us when times are tough.'' What an awful thing, what an incredible wound--self-inflicted wound-- on this country, not only on our moral standing but on our practical, because the allies are going to go their own way because they say we can't be trusted. We would be abandoning the people of Ukraine who are literally dying for our values. And I was doing a little historic research the other day. The Battle of Yorktown, 1788--the battle that ended the Revolutionary War and really made America--it was the key battle. It was the French fleet that bottled up Cornwallis at Yorktown. It was a French Army, along with the Continental Army, that won the Battle of Yorktown. What if the French had said: It is going on too long, this war has gone too long; we are just going leave, we are to walk away? There is a reasonable chance we wouldn't be the United States of America today if our ally had walked away. ``Ally'' means somebody you can count on. The whole idea of an alliance is that you can count on somebody when the times are tough. And we are sending ammunition; they are sending lives. And, by the way, there is not much doubt if we cut and run, if we stop, if we cut off aid--it would be very difficult for the Ukrainians to continue to defend themselves. Russia is a bigger country. It has a bigger war machine, a bigger army, more wherewithal in terms of munitions. Let's not kid ourselves. If we walk away this week, it is highly likely that Russia will control Ukraine within a few months. We can't have this fantasy that somehow this isn't a big deal and, oh, it will all get fixed. We are sending ammunition. They are sending lives. They are not asking us to fight their battles. They are not asking us to send troops. All they are asking is for the means to defend themselves. And, by the way, most of the money that we are talking about here ends up going back into our economy for the arms and ammunition that we are sending them. It ends up back in our States, in our communities. What is another argument not to do it? Corruption--I hear this-- corruption. I have been there. I spent an entire day in Kyiv. And my principal mission was: What about corruption? How serious is it? And I met with everybody from Zelenskyy to officials who were running software to keep track of every bullet that goes into their war effort. I am satisfied that it is one of the best and strongest and most closely accounted for provisions of aid ever. Does that mean it is perfect or that there might be a scandal here or there? I don't think there will be. But nothing is ever perfect. But I looked President Zelenskyy in the eye. My question was, If you have a scandal, Mr. President, it is going to kill us; we can't support you. And I didn't know what he was going to say. But his answer was, I know. And they are working on that. And, by the way, another point that I think is important is, who is supporting--I hear this: We are giving all the money. What about the rest of Europe? Well, actually, here is the chart of support for Ukraine. Here is Poland, and here is the United States. We are No. 14 in percentage of GDP in support of Ukraine. The blue line is actual military and financial support. The gray line is refugees. In Poland, they have taken in millions of refugees. They are in their schools, in their communities. They have made an enormous commitment. It is up to 2.5 percent of their GDP. We are at .3 percent. So the idea that nobody else is contributing and Europe isn't doing its part is just bunk. I think that is very important to consider. Democracy matters. Values matter. Freedom of expression, the rule of law matter. And that is what is at stake. That is the point I am trying to make. This is a historic struggle between authoritarianism, arbitrariness, surveillance, and the radical idea that people can govern themselves. That is what this is all about. This is a battle for the soul of our democracy in the world. Democracy is an anomaly in world history. It is unusual that the norm is dictators, Pharaohs, Emperors, Kings. What we are doing in this country is an anomaly. But it is a glorious idea. It is a huge, radical idea. It was radical in 1776. It had to be fought for in 1865. And it had to be fought for in the plains of Europe and the Pacific in World War II. It is worth fighting for. And, in this case, we don't even have to do the fighting; we just have to supply the arms and ammunition. So I have a question for my colleagues: When the history of this day is written, as it surely will be, do you really want to be recorded as being on the side of Vladimir Putin? All those in favor of Putin, say aye. That is what is at stake here. Or on the side of China, as they contemplate the invasion of Taiwan, all those in favor of invading Taiwan, say aye. No, we don't want that. But history is going to record this vote as one of the most important votes that any of us has ever made. One final note--my wife says I say ``finally'' too much; it gets people's hopes up. Finally, people say: Well, secure our border before we worry about Ukraine's border. OK, a group of the best of our Senate have been working on that for months. Apparently, they have come to an agreement. I am told by those who know that it is the strongest border security legislation in something like 40 years. So we have that. Do you want to secure our border before we do Ukraine? Hey, we can do them both in this bill. We can do them both in this bill. And if we don't do the border now, who knows when this opportunity will come again. The dictators are betting we can't do it. They are betting against our system. They are betting that democracy can't work, that we can't make tough decisions and tough commitments and live up to them. I want to stand on the side of resisting authoritarianism, on the side of democracy, on the side of the values that the country has stood for and that people have been fighting for, for 250 years. There is a wonderful hymn that we sing in my church, and it starts out like this, and it just seemed to me to fit the situation so well: Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, in the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side. This is our moment: ``Once to every man and woman and nation comes the moment to decide.'' On December 1, 1862, in the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln came to the Congress, and he was trying to shake them out of the politics--and, by the way, the politics is what we are talking about here, politics--to focus on the crisis of the Civil War and what it really meant. And he wanted to bring that home to the Members of Congress, and here is how he ended that speech. On December 1, 1862, here is what Abraham Lincoln said: [My] fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. ``The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.'' Mr. President, I deeply hope we choose honor. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow, Michael Marfut, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 118th Congress.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to provide a brief statement on the nomination votes on December 18, 2023. I was unable to attend the votes due to inclement weather. Had I been here on Monday, December 18, 2023, I would have voted in ``yea'' on vote No. 347, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 415, Martin O'Malley, of Maryland, to be Commissioner of Social Security.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Maj. Nick Oltman, U.S. Marine Corps, for his outstanding work on behalf of the people of Maine and the Nation as a 2023 Department of Defense legislative fellow serving in my Washington, DC, office. Over the past year, Nick has been integral in shaping my foreign policy and defense priorities. He helped secure several provisions in the fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act--FY24 NDAA--that will make our country stronger and safer. Nick led my staff in orchestrating important appropriations for the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy. His contributions to office morale and our collective work product are emblematic of his good character, competence, and strong work ethic. Throughout his tenure in my Office, Nick demonstrated a level of professionalism and hard work I have come to expect--but not take for granted--from Department of Defense legislative fellows. Indeed, he follows a long line of accomplished military officers who have made impactful contributions to my office and U.S. national security policy. Over the year, Nick prepared and advised me on wide-ranging and complex matters under consideration before the Senate Armed Services Committee. His attention to detail served me well; Nick managed over 400 individual authorization and appropriation requests, 455 markup amendments, and over 900 floor amendments. He brought his cybersecurity and budget expertise to assist me in the Strategic Forces Subcommittee briefings and deliberations, which resulted in important funding authorizations and legislation. He authored and shepherded a provision in the final act that establishes an artificial intelligence watermark competition across the private sector and Federal Government. Nick's outstanding leadership showed in his work with constituents and while securing legislation to address changes to basic allowance for housing and oversight of the transition assistance program. Further, he authored sections of legislative text and report language, including one of my top concerns regarding hypersonic defense and securing important funding for advanced research impacting Maine from Aroostook to York County. In addition, he became my go-to lead for monitoring the horrific wars in Ukraine and Israel, providing clear- headed and thoughtful analysis, and liaised with representatives from the White House, State Department, and Department of Defense to convey my positions and concerns. His candor and honest assessments provided critical insights during this fraught time in U.S. history, and our Nation is better because of it. On behalf of my colleagues in the U.S. Congress, I extend my deepest gratitude to Major Oltman for his unwavering dedication to my staff, the State of Maine, the U.S. Marine Corps, and our Nation. The greatness of the U.S. military is built on the service and sacrifice of servicemembers like Major Oltman. His commitment is not a solitary endeavor, and I want to acknowledge the support of his family: his wife Meghan and his son Sean. I wish them all the best as they embark on what I am certain is a bright future.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to provide a brief statement on the rollcall votes on October 26, 2023. I was unable to attend the votes because I was in Maine to respond to a mass shooting in Lewiston, ME. Had I been here on Thursday, October 26, 2023, I would have voted in ``nay'' on vote No. 270, on the Motion to Discharge S. J. Res 44, a joint resolution directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Niger that have not been authorized by Congress. I rise to provide a brief statement on the rollcall votes on October 26, 2023. I was unable to attend the votes because I was in Maine to respond to a mass shooting in Lewiston, ME. Had I been here on Thursday, October 26, 2023, I would have voted in ``nay'' on vote No. 271, on the Braun Amdt. 1182 to S. Admt. 1092 to H.R. 4366, to prohibit earmarks. I rise to provide a brief statement on the rollcall votes on October 26, 2023. I was unable to attend the votes because I was in Maine to respond to a mass shooting in Lewiston, ME. Had I been here on Thursday, October 26, 2023, I would have voted in ``nay'' on vote No. 272, on the S. J. Res 42, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Food and Nutrition Service relating to ``Application of Bostock v. Clayton County to Program Discrimination Complaint Processing-Policy Update''.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, first, I would like to ask unanimous consent that my senior colleague and I from Maine may engage in a colloquy.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I have often asked, particularly around here, why Maine is so special, why I am so passionate about it, why Maine people are always so connected to our State, no matter where they may roam. And I always have the same answer: that Maine is a big small town, with very long streets. We know each other. We care about each other. There is a fabric of our community that is a beloved community, and we go through storms, and we go through all of the vicissitudes of life together, supporting one another and caring about one another. A week ago, there was a tear in the fabric of our community. A lone gunman visited two places, a bowling alley and a bar and grill, and killed 18 people--18 innocent, beautiful people--and injured another 13. We are going to have a lot of time around here to talk about policy and what to do about this problem and what our policies can and should be. But, tonight, my colleague and I simply want to remember the people who lost their lives last Wednesday night in Lewiston, ME. Lewiston is a microcosm of that Maine community. It is a community where people are close, where they know one another, where they grew up together. It is a diverse community. It was largely formed over 100 years ago by immigrants coming to this country by Canada. It is one of the most vital and vibrant communities in our State. I now want to ask my colleague for her thoughts. And she and I are going to remember those that we lost.

Mr. KING. Senator Collins mentioned that one of the most poignant parts of this tragedy was there were four members of the Maine deaf community who happened to be at this restaurant playing cornhole-- recreation, having fun. One of them was Joshua Seal. He was 36 years old, a member of the deaf community who regularly went to the bar and grill to play cornhole. During the pandemic, this gentleman served as the American Sign Language interpreter for the head of our CDC who had press conferences practically every day. He became one of the best-known people in Maine. He was a director of interpreting services. He coordinated summer camps for the deaf and hard of hearing, and he was the father to four children. Arthur Strout, 42, was playing pool--imagine, playing pool at a bar and grill with his father. The father, blessedly, left before the shooting occurred. Arthur was the husband and father of five children, described as a ``Christmas person'' who started decorating for Christmas around Halloween. Steve Vozzella, 45, was a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service and also an active member of the deaf community--a letter carrier, mailman. He was playing in the cornhole tournament for the deaf at the restaurant when the shooting happened. He was the father of two and was preparing to celebrate his 1-year anniversary with his wife next month. Lucille Violette, 73, was a valued member of the business office at the Lewiston public schools. She was well-known in the community. She worked in the community for over 52 years. She was fatally shot alongside of her husband, Bob Violette, at the bowling alley. Bob Violette was 76. He was a dedicated volunteer coach in a youth bowling league. He was shot and died along with his wife while out for a night of bowling. Joseph Lawrence Walker, 57, was the manager of the bar and grill. His father is a city counselor in Auburn. He recounted that his son's final moments were spent trying to save lives during the shooting. Jason Adam Walker. Jason Walker, 51, was a father and husband who was shot at the bowling alley. His close friend Michael Deslauriers was also killed when the two of them charged the gunman to try to make others safe. As my colleague mentioned, he made sure their wives and children were safe before they took their last risk. William Young--Bill Young--44. Auto mechanic, father to a 14-year-old son. He was described as the rock of the family. And perhaps most poignantly, that 14-year-old son, Aaron, was also killed. He was a high school honor student, proud of his grades, avid bowler. And he lost his life that night in this tragedy. Senator Collins and I, on Sunday night, were at a vigil at the magnificent Catholic basilica in Lewiston. There were well over a thousand people in that church. When we went outside afterwards, there were well over a thousand on a cold night in Maine, watching and listening to the service. One of the most poignant moments in the service for me was when a member of the deaf community gave his address in sign language, and it was the reverse of what we usually see where a person is speaking and there is an interpreter. In this case, the person was giving the signs, and the interpreter was giving us the words that we could hear. One of the signs was this. It means love. There is another sign in American Sign Language for love. It is this. This community will never recover from this tragedy, but it will heal. But it will only heal as long as we remember and understand that this was a tragedy. And we have to resolve ourselves to move forward to find a way to prevent tragedies like this and to always remember those people that gave their lives on a night of fun, on a night of recreation, on a night when there was no expectation of such an event occurring. We just have to remember all of these wonderful people, these beloved people that we lost that night. We love Lewiston. We love the State of Maine. And we will always remember, not only the events of that night, but these beloved people of Maine. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about my vote in support of the Hawley amendment No. 1058, relating to expansion of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. I voted in favor of this amendment, but I would like to highlight that an important group is left out of this expansion: payments to beneficiaries of deceased individuals who were responsible for cleaning up atomic testing sites. While this amendment includes payments to beneficiaries of deceased individuals who qualify under the new Manhattan Project Waste sections, cleanup veterans are notably left out of such payments to their beneficiaries upon their passing. I hope that during the conference process for the underlying bill, we are able to include this provision to ensure just compensation for these veterans and their families. If we are not able to include these veterans during the conference process, I hope to work with my colleagues to provide benefits to our cleanup veterans as standalone legislation or through another appropriate, legislative vehicle.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I want to take a moment to recognize a dear friend and devoted advocate for Maine, my legislative director, Morgan Cashwell. She proudly served my office and the people of Maine for more than 8 years. Years filled with sleepless nights of vote-a- ramas, preparation for committee hearings, and long negotiations. She has been an extraordinary leader, an effective policymaker, and a wonderful colleague and mentor to so many. There is never an ``easy'' time to work in Congress, but certainly, there have been few times more challenging or unpredictable than during the COVID-19 pandemic. Taking over as legislative director amid regularly shifting public health guidance, Morgan was able to maintain a successful and efficient legislative team, all while keeping morale high and putting Maine people first. This leadership--rooted in kindness--has made her beloved by everyone in the office and all those who are lucky enough to know her. You never want staff who will just tell you what you want to hear; that was never Morgan. In fact, Morgan embodies the Maine spirit of ``calling `em like you see `em'' and providing her honest advice in even the toughest situations. I valued her counsel and knew it was always guided by an unshakable moral compass and a true compassion for others. Not only is Morgan among the best staffers I have had the privilege of working with; you could not find a more effective legislative director in Congress. During her time working for Maine, it is not an exaggeration to say that Morgan's steady hand has helped shape some our most important recent bills. Her impact can be found across generational investments in the great outdoors, the country's most significant piece of climate legislation, and a historic expansion of broadband infrastructure. To cite just one example of many: When Maine's vital and iconic lobster industry came under threat last year, Morgan led the successful effort to defend the livelihood of thousands of men and women who responsibly work the water against an otherwise certain economic death sentence. Thanks to her fierce advocacy, the Maine delegation was able to include protection for our State's lobstering communities in the 2023 omnibus appropriations legislation, a last-minute addition that might not have happened without her dedication, selfless nature, and tireless determination to do what was right. While I am truly sad to see her go, I wish Morgan all the best as she enters this next chapter of her career and profoundly thank her and her supportive family: husband Keith and her children Rory and Reese. Morgan, I will be forever grateful for your service. Maine, my staff, and the entire country are all better for it.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, Chairman Reed has spoken eloquently in the last few minutes about the personal impact of this hold on general officer nominations, on what it means to families, what it means to careers, what it means to people who are coming up through the ranks because, make no doubt, this is not just affecting those people who have been nominated for general officer positions, but it ripples all the way down through the ranks. It is an unprecedented attack on the integrity of our military chain of command. As I say, Senator Reed talked about the impact on individuals. And tonight we are going to be talking about a lot of those individuals. But I would like to talk for a moment about the impact on the readiness of our force. The first thing to observe is that China and Russia have got to be loving this. They could not imagine that we would do something like this to ourselves to essentially decapitate the senior leadership of our military. If you step back and say: Wait a minute, look at what is going on here, nobody would believe that they could achieve something like this, that our adversaries could achieve something like this. But we are doing it to ourselves--or actually one person is doing it to all of us and to our country. This is a dangerous moment in the world. I serve on both the Armed Services and the Intelligence Committees, and the threats that we are facing right now are unprecedented in the history of this country. We have never before faced the kind of threats that we are facing from two heavily armed and aggressive potential adversaries. We need to have literally all hands on deck. And we are telling our ``all hands'' to stand down; that they are not going to be able to the achieve their commands, to take the case for the leadership of our military throughout the military enterprise. It really is amazing that we are doing something--I keep saying ``we''--that the Senator from Alabama is doing something that is so seriously compromising national security over a policy matter--over a policy matter. And I have been in numerous hearings over the last months and talked to the officers, asked them on the record: Is this action compromising national security? The answer every single time has been: Absolutely, yes. And these aren't necessarily officers who are being blocked; these are the general officers who are retiring. So they don't have a stake in this. They are not looking for a promotion. They are just telling us what has happened. It is the first time that we do not have a Commandant of the Marine Corps in 150 years. That is outrageous. It is unacceptable. And so not only is this impacting people's lives--people who have dedicated their lives to this country--we are treating them like pawns in a political battle over an issue that the Senator from Alabama disagrees with. If he disagrees with the issue, there is a way to resolve it: bring an amendment. I am pretty sure that the majority leader has said he would bring an amendment to the floor to rescind the policy that the Senator objects to. That is how we resolve policy differences around here, not by taking hostage the entire leadership core of our military. Now, let me talk a minute about the Senate. The Senate, as I have observed it over the past 10\1/2\, almost 11 years, is a rather peculiar institution. Because it has very lax rules, it allows one Senator to hold everything up, to stop things. It has very lax rules. But those rules, as I have studied the history of the Senate--by the way, I would recommend reading the first 100 pages of Robert Caro's book about Lyndon Johnson, ``Master of the Senate.'' It is a wonderful history and description of how this institution has developed. But those lax rules which allow extraordinary actions by individual Members have rested for over 200 years on a bedrock of comity and responsibility and restraint. Yes, you have the power to do something like this, but you shouldn't do it. You don't take advantage of the rules. And I will tell you one of the results of this--and this is what I am hearing from constituents and from people around the country and indeed from people in this Hall--this could lead to changing the rules, to not allow something like this. If you abuse a rule like this, which is being done in this case, it is outright abuse of a rule--then somebody is going to say: Wait a minute. We can't run our country this way. We can't allow this to happen to the readiness of our military in this time of peril. We just can't do that. So we are going to have to figure out another way. And all of a sudden one of the privileges--and I believe it is a privilege of an individual Senator--is going to have to start to be curtailed if you don't restrain yourself, if you don't act responsibly within the context of these rules. My question is, Where does this lead? Is this going to be par for the course around here in the future? Somebody is going to say: Well, I don't like something the Department of the Interior is doing. I think it is really bad, so I am going to hold up every nominee for the military or I am going to hold up every nominee for the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Interior or whatever the Department is. Hostage-taking is not how we make policy. And I am afraid what we are seeing here before our eyes is a precedent being established, where one individual Senator, who is trying to get his way on a policy issue, is using and abusing the rules of the Senate in order to get something that ought to be done through the legislative process. Bring up the amendment. If you don't like the policy, bring up the amendment. Eventually, I mean, the Senate is built on the premise of respect for minority rights, but ultimately majority rules. That is what we all learned in kindergarten. This isn't minority rights. This is one person. That is 1 person out of 100 who is taking this action that is so inimical to the interests of the interests of the country in a very difficult and dangerous time. I respect the rights of Senators to use their prerogative as they see fit, but I would urge the Senator from Alabama, with whom I have a good personal relationship--I would urge him to reconsider, to try to bring the issue forward to the American people and to the U.S. Senate, and let's have a vote on it. Let's see what the Senate believes about the resolution of this issue. And by the way, we are not talking about the government paying for abortions here. We are talking about leave and travel. And if a soldier has a medical condition and they are stationed in a State where they need some kind of specialized treatment and it is not available in their State--guess what--for as long as anybody can remember, they have gotten leave and traveled to go where they can have that procedure. So this isn't some kind of radical new program. But again, if the Senator thinks it is a wrong policy, bad policy, it is inimical to his beliefs, let's bring it to the floor and have a vote. Let's see what the will of the Senate is. But don't compromise the lives of many, many people--we are up into the hundreds now-- families who have dedicated their lives to this country. They are innocent pawns in this political game. It is not right. And then, finally, as I said, it is a compromise of national security. It is a straight-up compromise of national security, which our adversaries couldn't dream of achieving. And that is where I believe--I hope and believe--that the Senator from Alabama will relent, take his vote on the issue, and let these nominations move forward so the Senate can do its business and the military can get back to a place where it is predictable, where they understand what the process is, they understand where the steps are, and they can get about the business of defending this in country. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow, Nick Oltman, be granted privileges of the floor until the conclusion of the first session of the 118th Congress.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to provide a brief statement on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Xochitl Torres Small, of New Mexico, to be Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. I was unable to attend the vote because I joined a bipartisan congressional delegation to the 2023 NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. Had I been here on Monday, July 10, 2023, I would have voted yea on the cloture motion on vote No. 173. I rise to provide a brief statement on the nomination votes on July 11, 2023. I was unable to attend the votes because I joined a bipartisan congressional delegation to the 2023 NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. Had I been here on Tuesday, July 11, 2023, I would have voted in yea on vote No. 174, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 178 Xochitl Torres Small, of New Mexico, to be Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. I rise to provide a brief statement on the nomination votes on July 11, 2023. I was unable to attend the votes because I joined a bipartisan congressional delegation to the 2023 NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. Had I been here on Tuesday, July 11, 2023, I would have voted in yea on vote No. 175, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 56 Rosemarie Hidalgo, of the District of Columbia, to be Director of the Violence Against Women Office, Department of Justice. I rise to provide a brief statement on the nomination votes on July 11, 2023. I was unable to attend the votes because I joined a bipartisan congressional delegation to the 2023 NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. Had I been here on Tuesday, July 11, 2023, I would have voted in yea on vote No. 176, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 33 Kymberly Kathryn Evanson, of Washington, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington. I rise to provide a brief statement on the nomination votes on July 11, 2023. I was unable to attend the votes because I joined a bipartisan congressional delegation to the 2023 NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. Had I been here on Tuesday, July 11, 2023, I would have voted in yea on vote No. 177, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 56 Rosemarie Hidalgo, of the District of Columbia, to be Director of the Violence Against Women Office, Department of Justice. I rise to provide a brief statement on the nomination votes on July 11, 2023. I was unable to attend the votes because I joined a bipartisan congressional delegation to the 2023 NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. Had I been here on Tuesday, July 11, 2023, I would have voted in yea on vote No. 178, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 33 Kymberly Kathryn Evanson, of Washington, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington. I rise to provide a brief statement on the nomination votes on July 11, 2023. I was unable to attend the votes because I joined a bipartisan congressional delegation to the 2023 NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. Had I been here on Tuesday, July 11, 2023, I would have voted in yea on vote No. 179, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 8 Tiffany M. Cartwright, of Washington, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, it would be hard to put into words what Mabel Desmond meant to me, to her family, to her community, or to the State of Maine. To say that Mabel put service into every part of who she was is an understatement. I knew Mabel for her dedication to her constituents in Aroostook County and for relentlessly seeking what she felt would be in the greater good of the State. That same quality applied to her life as a mother, as a teacher, and as a friend. Her determination to make a difference echoed throughout her life in countless ways. She knew that one person striving to do the right things and being kind mattered. Mabel's distinguished political career from 1994-2002 was during the same time I served as Maine's Governor. It was clear right away that she was a serious lawmaker; not one that would just go along with a plan, not one who made any assumptions, and not one that could be intimidated. I grew to deeply admire her conviction over the years but never so much as when she was the lone voice on the education committee who would support the Maine Learning Technology Initiative ``laptop'' program, keeping the idea alive in the face of almost overwhelming opposition. This act of courage on an idea I was passionate about as Governor--and still so proud of today--has made an immense difference for now decades of Maine students. As a teacher, she ``got it,'' and the respect which her colleagues in the legislature had for her was a key factor in the passage of the program. So many success stories of kids who were able to pursue their dreams, all because of Mabel's unshakable belief in a better future. Mabel was my friend, someone I looked up to, someone who taught me the value of thoughtful decision making. I will be forever grateful to have known and worked with her and will miss her dearly.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to provide a brief statement on the vote on the confirmation of the nomination of Brendan Owens, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense. I was unable to attend the vote because inclement weather in Maine caused my flight to be canceled. Had I been here on Monday, January 23, 2023, I would have voted in support of the nomination.

Mr. KING

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

Mr. KING. Madam President, I come to the floor tonight as a U.S. Senator from Maine. Why am I here to discuss lobsters on the floor of the U.S. Senate? Because my State is facing its most serious crisis, in my view, in my 18 years of public service on behalf of Maine. There is a provision in the bill that we will be voting on tomorrow that is of vital, critical importance to Maine, and I believe the country. In November, a Federal court here in Washington issued a ruling under the Endangered Species Act and the Maine Marine Mammal Protection Act that effectively shuts down the entire Maine lobster fishery in 2 years. It issues requirements that simply can't be met in that timeframe. The only choice will be to shut down the fishery. What does that mean? What is the fishery? What is the lobster industry? We talk about the lobster industry. The lobster industry is this guy right here--thousands of small, independent businesses. These boats are not owned by Amazon or Walmart or Whole Foods. They are owned by individual Maine people, families, generations, in a town like this. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the livelihoods of thousands of Maine people that will be cut off by virtue of this decision within 2 years. Is it a real threat? People are already cancelling orders for boats. The business of the people that make lobster traps is down 25 or 30 percent. People are starting to put their boats on the market because they see this closure coming of an industry that has been a mainstay of the Maine economy for 150 years. Well over a billion and a half dollars a year is based upon this unique, iconic product that comes from the cold waters of Maine. Now, why am I here? Because this decision of the court that effectively closes our lobster industry down is based upon the idea of protecting the North Atlantic right whale, which needs protection. It is indeed an endangered species. The question is whether the remedy, in this case the closure of the Maine fishery, will actually help in the preservation of the right whale. I want to start with a couple of data points. Here is the first. This is the number of right whale deaths ever attributed to Maine lobster gear: zero. The number of right whale deaths attributed to Maine lobster gear: zero. Here is another data point. The number of right whales even being entangled in Maine lobster gear in almost the last 20 years: zero. So the question is, Is there sufficient evidence for this draconian remedy, the shutdown of the entire industry? The other data point is that, according to the maps of whale sightings based upon data from the Department of Commerce and NOAA, the whales are moving away from Maine. They are congregating now to the far north, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and also around Cape Cod, and I am going to talk about that in a minute. But the number of whales sighted and detected along the Maine coast is steadily declining. So why are we doing this? Why did the court make this ruling? The judge felt compelled by the law because there may be a risk. There may be a risk. Is the lobster industry--is this guy--doing anything about that speculative risk? Yes, a lot. Maine lobstermen all mark their gear. So if there is an entanglement and the rope is attached to the whale, you can tell where it came from. They mark their gear. No. 2, they have changed all the ropes with weaker ropes. So if there is an entanglement, they will break. No. 3, they put weak links in their ropes. So if there is an entanglement, the link will break, and there won't be a problem. By the way, if these entanglements were happening, the lobstermen would know it. Every lobstermen knows where his gear is. They would know if there is an entanglement. And I have talked to lobstermen who have been out there for 30 years and have never seen a right whale in the Gulf of Maine. There may be a few out there, but they have never seen one. In other words, it is a very, very low risk. And, finally, they have changed the way they fish. It used to be--and I remember this--that you would have buoys. You have all seen those picturesque--well, no, that is a mooring. That is not a lobster buoy. But you have a buoy and a rope that is down to the trap on the bottom. And so every trap had its own line and buoy. That is no longer true. Now they have a buoy, one line, and the trap is on the bottom, which are attached. So you can pull up a number of traps with only one piece of rope. In the last 10 years, Maine lobstermen have removed 30,000 miles of rope from the Gulf of Maine to mitigate a risk that we are not even sure is there. Now, I have been in environmental policy all my life. I know about the precautionary principle, which means, if you are not sure, be careful. And I understand that. I understand, if you are not sure, be careful. But this is the precautionary principle run amok where there is so little evidence and the punishment is so severe. So we are talking about an economic death sentence for an entire way of life. For the town of Stonington, for the thousands--and I mean between 5,000 and 10,000 people who work on the water and thousands more who work in processing and are involved in this industry--over $1.5 billion a year of economic impact in the State of Maine. But if you were in court and you said that we are going to impose an economic death sentence, well, here is the way the law looks at things like that. If it is a criminal case, to take away somebody's liberty, it is ``beyond a reasonable doubt.'' There is no ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' in this case. It is not even close to ``beyond a reasonable doubt.'' OK, in a civil case, you have to prove your case by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is more likely than not. Is there a preponderance of the evidence that the Maine lobster fishery is causing or contributing significantly to the loss of right whales? No, there is no preponderance of the evidence. How about any evidence? Zero, zero. Now, a solution to this crisis is in the bill that we will be voting on tomorrow. It is one that the Maine delegation, myself and Senator Collins, Congresswoman Pingree, and Congressman Golden have been working on since this decision. And it is a compromise that has been negotiated between the various people interested in this issue and this body that leaves in place all of those protective measures that I mentioned--the weak links, the weaker ropes, the ropes out of the water, the marking of the gear. All of those stay in place. Importantly, it provides funding for two purposes. One is the development of gear that will reduce the risk even further--lobster gear, that is. For example, there is a lot of discussion of something called ropeless fishing, which would be traps on the bottom and a buoy on the bottom that can be released by a radio signal, come to the surface, and then you can pull the traps up. So there is no rope in the water. Now, that is a great idea. The problem is, it is not ready for prime time. It is being tried. There are experiments going on with it. There are some serious problems with it. For example, currently, if you are a lobsterman, you go out and you see other buoys, and that tells you where other traps are, so you don't put yours down on top of theirs. In this ropeless fishing configuration, until we figure that out, we can't have multiple traps laying on top of each other and becoming entangled. The other problem is, it is very expensive. We are talking about tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for the guy that owns this boat. So what the bill provides is funding for research of how to develop this, whether it is ropeless fishing or some other technology that we don't know right now, to mitigate whatever risk there is even further. So that is one funding in the bill. The other funding is for data to know where the whales are, to know because the problem is what data we have indicates there are practically none along the Maine coast. But we don't know that for sure. But, again, what we are doing is sentencing this industry to death-- economic death--without the information upon which that decision should be made. And I am very comfortable--I am anxious to work on that data, whether we do it by satellite, by drones, by acoustics. Whatever we do, I want to know where those whales are. I don't think--based upon the data I have seen--that we are going to see that there are many in the area where the lobster fishing takes place, but I am willing to get the accurate answer to that. So the bill does those two things: funding for research and funding for data collection. The third thing it does is pause the economic death sentence. It pauses the ruling that says this has to be finished in 2 years because that means the lobster industry--the lobster fishing, the lobster families, the lobster towns--are finished within 2 years. We are talking about a 6-year pause as time to collect the data and develop the gear. Now, even the advocates, the people who are angry about what we are doing and making wild charges that this is going to immediately lead to the extinction of the whales, which there is just no basis for that, even those people concede that it is going to take 6 to 10 years to develop these alternatives. What do they expect the people of Maine to do between year 2 and year 10 when their whole livelihoods have gone away? So what we are doing--what we compromised was a 6-year period that will give us time to develop the technology and to develop the data, and we may find that there are different solutions or that the data may show that no additional restrictions beyond what is already being done are necessary. I have been involved as an advocate for environmental policy all my adult life. I was the first full-time lobbyist for the Maine environmental community in 1976. I helped to write the Maine billboard law, the Maine bottle bill, and subdivision laws. Interestingly, one of bills I advocated for was right turn on red. Why is that an environmental bill? Because if you are not idling at a gas station, multiply that by millions of people across the country--a big saving on fossil fuel and pollution going into the atmosphere. That was, believe it or not, an environmental issue in the 1970s. When I was Governor of Maine, one of my proudest achievements was the fact that we put more land into conservation in Maine during my 8 years as Governor than during the entire prior 175 years in Maine combined-- more land into conservation than in the prior 175 years combined. And it wasn't by accident; it was something that I felt deeply engaged in when I began as Governor. In 1987, long before I was Governor or in politics, I was the chair of a group who brought the land for Maine's future into being, which was the--I think it was the second in the country to have a public bond issue for land conservation. This was an initiative that I took on as a private citizen. So I have been involved in these issues. Here is one more data point. This was my rating by the League of Conservation Voters last year: 100 percent. So if somebody says, you know, that I don't care about the environment or the whales, that isn't true. I work every day at Edmund Muskie's desk. My office found Senator Muskie's desk, and it is in my office today. They found it in a storage room somewhere here. Edmund Muskie is literally the father of the modern environmental movement. The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act he brought to this body. The Clean Air Act, by the way, passed this body unanimously. Can you imagine that? We can't agree on what time it is around here unanimously. Edmund Muskie's heritage of the invention, the creation of the environmental movement in this country is one of Maine's proudest achievements, that Ed Muskie was the guy who began that process here in this body some 50 years ago. I sit at his desk. I think about his legacy. One of his legacies was, how do you talk about these issues? The big argument in Maine when Muskie was talking about protecting clean water and clean air was payrolls versus pickerel. You know, do we have to choose between payroll, between jobs, and fish? Muskie's answer was no. That is a false choice. We can protect the environment, but we can also understand economic impacts and find ways to navigate whatever potential conflicts there may be. That is Muskie's legacy. We don't have to choose between lobsters and whales. We don't have to choose between the men and women of Stonington or Cutler or Corea or Georgetown or Freeport or Cape Elizabeth and whales. We just have to be sensible about approaching this in a way that will protect the whales but also protect the way of life of these wonderful people. That is why I am here tonight. That is what we have done in this bill. It is in no way a diminution of the standards of the Endangered Species Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act; it merely pauses that economic death sentence until we have time to know how to navigate the solution and what the real definition of the problem is. To me, that is good policy. It is what we should do here on all the complicated issues we face. It is an unbelievable honor and humbling to represent the State of Maine in this body, and I am proud of the fact that we have been able to confront this issue in a way that will enable the lobsters and the lobster fishers and the whales to exist in an ecosystem that is protective of people as well as whales. This is the role that we have here, and I believe we have achieved it in this bill. I can't leave without thanking my colleague Senator Collins, who was instrumental in working the language that we will have before us tomorrow, and my colleagues Congresswoman Pingree and Congressman Golden in the House, and all the people in these two bodies whom we have worked with to achieve this important piece of legislation. This is the way we can make good policy--based upon data, science, facts, and common sense--and that is what we have achieved here today. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KING. Madam President, democracy, our system, is an anomaly in world history. The norm are pharaohs, kings, dictators, emperors, Presidents for life. That is the norm. The vast sweep of human history is all about authoritarians running their society. The idea that the people can actually participate in the building and operating and electing and creating their government is an unusual one. It is an anomaly in world history. That should tell us something, because that means it is fragile, and we have seen how fragile it can be. On January 6, our entire democracy came down to the integrity and courage of one man: Mike Pence. If Vice President Pence had succumbed to the pressure--enormous pressure that he was under to try to throw out certain electoral votes and choose and count others, we would have been in literally uncharted constitutional territory. There is no telling how that chaotic situation would have been resolved. Our system is unusual, and it is fragile. Likewise, the secretary of state of Georgia, a Republican, a strong Republican who voted for President Trump, what if he hadn't done the right thing? What if he had responded to President Trump on that infamous phone call by saying, I will see what I can do to jigger the numbers and find those 11,770 votes. Where would we be? The point is we should not put ourselves in situations that depend expressly upon the luck and good fortune of having the right people in the right place at the right time. Our institutions--our institutions should be solid and viable and work regardless of who is at the levers of power. The electoral college and the Electoral Count Act is a timebomb under the edifice of democracy. I rarely disagree with Alexander Hamilton, but if you read the 68th Federalist where he justifies the electoral college, he just gets it wrong. Actually, he doesn't so much get it wrong, history proved him wrong because the electoral college never worked in the way he described it. We have to realize that the Framers were a little bit suspicious of democracy. The only institution in our government in 1787 that was popularly elected was the House of Representatives. Senators were elected by State legislatures until the 20th century. Presidents were elected by the electoral college, and, of course, Supreme Court and court judges were appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The only popular elections were for the House of Representatives. Now, Hamilton's concept for the electoral college was that it would be a sort of council of elders. In fact, when you read the 68 Federalist, he doesn't even think about the electors being pledged to a particular candidate; he basically says the people of each State will elect wise people to come together to select the best qualified person for President. He used an amazing phrase in light of what happened on January 6. He said: The system we proposed is ``not perfect, it is at least excellent.'' But then he goes on to say: ``It was also particularly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.'' Well, that is the definition of what happened here on January 6, was tumult and disorder that was created by this edifice that has never worked. I, for one, think we should abolish the electoral college. The people of the United States should elect their President, and the votes of the citizens of each State should count equally instead of getting into this game situation where you go to particular States, you ignore other States, and some States, you know where the votes are going to go. I think the people of America should choose their President. That is what we all think we are doing on election day, and yet, as we learned on January 6, we have created this structure which never worked as Hamilton and as the Framers envisioned it that has turned into a kind of Russian roulette with our democracy. So, in the 1876 election, it almost broke down. It was so close, nobody could decide who won. They ended up with a Commission to decide the election, which turned out to be a dark chapter in American history because that Commission ended up resolving the Presidency between Hayes and Tilden on essentially a corrupt deal. The deal was, Hayes could become President if he agreed to end Reconstruction in the South. Of course, that led to 70, 80 years of Jim Crow--not a happy experience in our history. After that experience, the Electoral Count Act was passed--well- intentioned to try to solve some of the problems that were manifested in the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, but the problem is, it is a terribly drafted law. Scholars, politicians, lawyers all concede it was confusing, ambiguous, and, again, led to the problems of January 6. I should also mention that Presidents who won the popular vote almost universally in our system also won the electoral college. Recently, that hasn't been the case. Twice in this short century, we have had Presidents elected by the electoral college who lost the popular vote by millions of votes. So is that a reflection of what we all think our democracy is all about? I don't think so. The bill that we have before us now is, I believe, one of the most important pieces of legislation in this Congress because it deals with the structure of democracy itself. All of our policy issues, whether it is the Defense Department, Ukraine, all of the policy issues-- healthcare--all of those things are critically important, but the infrastructure that underlies the system is even more important. We can't do good policy if we don't have a solid underpinning of a structure of our democracy. That is why the bill that is now part of the budget bill, the omnibus bill, is so important. The bill is bipartisan. I think that is critically important. I sat in the Rules Committee. It passed 14 to 1, supported by Leader McConnell and supported by Leader Schumer--14 to 1. I rarely see votes like that in that committee. But because there was universal realization that we needed to do something about this, we had a hearing on it, and I remember Senator Blunt speaking at the end of that hearing and saying: This is something we need to take care of before the end of this Congress. That was a very important announcement and has led us to this moment. We had hearings. We brought in experts from across the country--election experts, legal experts. We made changes to the bill. The bill came to us as a result of bipartisan negotiation led by my colleague Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Manchin of West Virginia and a group of Senators who came together organically to create this bipartisan piece of legislation. What does it do? It is really pretty straightforward. It clarifies the role of the Vice President. The role of the Vice President is what we call ministerial; that is, just simple--count the votes, pick them out--not policy. We clarify now, forever, and always that the Vice President does not have a substantive role in deciding which votes should count. It raises the objection threshold from 1 to 20 percent. Right now, under the Electoral Count Act, one Senator and one Representative can object to the votes of any State, and then we have to go through a process in either House which can go on for a lengthy period of time. But it is only one person. What we do in this bill is, it has to be 20 percent of the House or 20 percent of the Senate. That way, you are sure that the objections have some substance, some merit, and aren't just the fantasy of one or two people. So that is one of the pieces of this bill. It raises the objection threshold. It ensures a single, accurate slate of electors, to be clear of what the rules are in each State. It expedites judicial review. That is important because, right now, it is unclear how disputes are resolved. What if a Governor, for example, refuses to certify an election in their State? This law gives a path to the judiciary--expedited consideration, expedited consideration to the Supreme Court--to decide these disputes so that we don't have a lengthy period of uncertainty in how our democracy is supposed to work. It also prevents mischief like moving and canceling an election for anything but the most extreme problems. I think this is the most important bill this Congress will consider. There is a lot more to be done. It doesn't solve every problem involving our election, as our other speakers have noted. There is a lot to be done about the casting and counting of votes. There is a lot to be done about campaign finance. But this is an important building block that we need to attend to. I want to end by thanking Senator Manchin and Senator Collins, who formed the group who brought the bill forward. I want to thank my colleagues Amy Klobuchar and Dick Durbin, whom I worked with early on to develop a first draft of this legislation. I want to thank Senator Klobuchar and Senator Blunt for their leadership on the Rules Committee and Senators Schumer and McConnell for working together to form a bipartisan consensus that this is an important piece of protecting the fundamental structure of our democracy. As I said, what we have in this country is unusual. It is an anomaly in world history. It is fragile, and we have to at all times be vigilant and diligent in protecting it and maintaining it and filling in those cracks in the Union to make it more perfect. Ronald Reagan made a wonderful observation about the every 4 years inauguration of a President. He said it is a ``commonplace occurrence'' and it is a profound occurrence. It is profound because it is commonplace. The peaceful transfer of power is what distinguishes our system from almost all others in the world. We have to be sure that continues to be the North Star of our democracy. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. I ask that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. KING. I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Mr. KING. I further ask that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 486, S. 2793.

Mr. KING. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.