Angus King

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. KING

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

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

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KING

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize MAJ Dustin Mondloch, U.S. Army, for his outstanding work on behalf the people of Maine and the Nation as a 2022 Department of Defense Legislative Fellow serving in my Washington, DC, office. Over the past year, Dustin has been integral in shaping my foreign policy and defense priorities. He helped secure a number of provisions in the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act--FY23 NDAA--that will make our country stronger and safer. Dustin 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--both to office morale and to our collective work product--are emblematic of his good character, competence, and strong work ethic. Throughout his tenure in my office, Dustin 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 U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officers who have made impactful contributions to my office and to U.S. national security policy. He distinguished himself as the first Army officer to serve in my office, setting a high bar and providing invaluable advice and insights personally to me. Over the course of the year, Dustin prepared and advised me on wide ranging and complex matters under consideration before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He brought his space expertise to assist me in the Strategic Forces Subcommittee briefings and deliberations, that resulted in important funding authorizations and legislation. Dustin's servant leadership showed in his work with constituents and while securing legislation to address Active Duty and veteran suicide. His attention to detail became apparent as he assisted me in dissecting, literally, thousands of pages of the Abbey Gate inspector general investigation. Further, he authored sections of report language, including one of my top concerns regarding the will to fight analysis of foreign militaries by our national security community. In addition, he became my go-to lead for monitoring the horrific war in Ukraine, 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 and the U.S. Congress, I thank Dustin for his dedicated service to my staff, the State of Maine, the U.S. Army, and the Nation. Part of what makes the U.S. military the greatest in the history of the world is that servicemembers like Dustin dedicate their lives to service and sacrifice for their country. Major Mondloch does not do it alone, so I also acknowledge the support of his family-- his wife Danielle, his son Cole, and his daughter Lennox. I wish them all the best on what I know is a bright future.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 442, S. 4052.

Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered and agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

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

Mr. KING. I 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. 443, H.R. 1193.

Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; that the McConnell substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that 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.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 857, submitted earlier today.

Mr. KING. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. KING

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

Mr. KING

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

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 786.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 1, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 1, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on energy and natural resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 1, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. committee on energy and natural resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 1, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 1, 2022, at 9 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. subcommittee on space and science The Subcommittee on Space and Science of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 1, 2022, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the message to accompany S. 3662.

Mr. KING. I move to concur in the House amendment and ask unanimous consent that the motion be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, December 5, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Behm nomination; further, that if any nominations are confirmed during Monday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act. I want to talk about essentially three big issues: the importance of the bill, what is in the bill, and the cost of the bill. The first question is--and when I used to appear before the Maine Legislature, the first question always was: Why are you here? What is the problem? Why is this bill so important? It is important because the essence of our defense policy since World War II has been deterrence, and deterrence means maintaining the capacity to inflict unacceptable costs on any potential adversary and the will to impose those costs if necessary. What we are really talking about in the Defense Authorization Act is the capacity; that is, what is it that we have at our disposal that can impose costs on our potential adversaries such that they will refrain from aggression and initiating a conflict--a conflict which, in this day and age, would be catastrophic. Why do we have a defense bill? Why do we have a defense establishment? Why do we have ships and airplanes and space capability? In order to deter possible aggression. Why is this important? I am just finishing a book by William L. Shirer called ``The Collapse of the Third Republic.'' Everyone knows Shirer's great book ``The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.'' This is a subsequent book that he wrote in the late sixties about the French Republic and the relationship between France and England to Germany in the early days leading up to World War II. The central message or rather one of the central messages of the book was that the failure of France and Germany to deter and meet the aggression of Hitler early in the period leading up to World War II, as early as 1936, led to the conflagration of World War II. I would urge anyone who questions this assumption to Google: Rhineland, 1936; Sudetenland, 1938. Those were places where Hitler could have been stopped, and not with an enormous expenditure or investment of troops or materiel, but by an almost token resistance from the Western European powers, which they utterly failed to do. Then we had the rearmament of the Rhineland; the takeover of the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia; and, of course, in September of 1939, the invasion of Poland, leading to World War II, where 55 million people were lost. Shirer makes the point and most historians make the point that this was avoidable. Had Hitler been confronted early, before he completely rebuilt the Nazi war machine, World War II could have been avoided, and all of those tremendous losses in this country and around the world would have never happened. Deterrence is also a key to nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons haven't been used in a confrontation or a conflict since 1945. Why? Because of the concept of deterrence. That those other countries--and there are other countries that have nuclear weapons--realize that if nuclear weapons are used, they will pay an enormous and unacceptable price. That has been the policy of this country for over 70 years, and it has worked. It has worked. But it only works as long as the adversary believes that we do, in fact, have the capacity to inflict that kind of punishment. Deterrence is a matter of credibility. You have to have a credible deterrent in terms of the actual capacity, and you also have to be credible in terms of your will to use it. Indeed, at this point in our history, we are talking about deterring the potential use of nuclear weapons in regard to the Ukraine conflict by Vladimir Putin. Deterrence means that capacity has to be credible. And the problem is, here in this country, we have allowed our nuclear deterrent to deteriorate and age to the point where we are having to, in effect, rebuild it, not from scratch but rebuild it substantially. And all at the same time, the triad: bombers, missiles, and submarines. We have to rebuild them, and it is happening at the same time, and it is expensive. It is because this work was deferred for the prior 25 or 30 years that we are now having to do all three legs of the triad at one time, which adds substantially to the defense budget, but it is necessary in order to maintain the deterrent that keeps the peace. I have many friends in Maine who come up to me and say: ``Why are we spending so much? Why are we building nuclear weapons? Let's get rid of them.'' The problem is, aggression and evil exist in the world--always have, as far as we can see; always will. The best war is the one that doesn't happen, and the most likely way to prevent war is for the potential adversary to know that the costs imposed upon them will be unacceptable. People also come up to me and say: Why are we providing this money to Ukraine? I don't get a lot of this, but occasionally people say: Why send money to Ukraine? We need that money here at home. That is when I always say: Google Rhineland, 1936; Sudetenland, 1938. Because Putin has told us who he is. He has told us that he feels the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He wants to rebuild the Soviet Union. Ukraine is the first piece. I don't think there is any doubt that, if he was allowed to just march in and take over Ukraine in a matter of weeks without any significant resistance, the next irritant for him would be the Baltics and then Hungary, Moldova, Slovakia, and Poland. Maya Angelou said if someone tells you who they are, you should believe them. Putin has told us who he is. He wants to rebuild the Soviet Union. That is why Ukraine is so important. That is why what we have done, what we have provided, and the leadership this administration and our country has provided to other countries in the world in order to resist that aggression is so important and critical-- critical to avoiding a much worse conflagration involving all of our countries down the road. That is why it is so important. When a dictator takes property, they are going to keep going, and that is why what we have done in Ukraine has been so critical and important. Well, Putin has told us what he wants to do, and we have joined with the rest of the world and the incredibly brave and resourceful people of Ukraine to stop it. That has to be continued. I am going to talk about cost in a few minutes, but one quick note on cost is that the only thing more expensive than maintaining a credible deterrent is war. Occasionally, you see a bumper sticker that says: You cannot prepare for war and avoid war at the same time. I believe that is actually wrong. The only way to avoid war is to be prepared. History is full of examples that that is the case, that aggressors look for weakness. They look for an opening. If they find none, they are going to pull back. That is the entire theory of our defense posture and the expenditures that we are making on behalf of the defense of this country and the free world. So what is in the bill? It is a long bill. There is a lot in it, but a couple of highlights. First, there is a raise for the troops. There is more money for the people who are defending our country, which they deserve. In a time of inflation, they deserve a significant raise, and that is in the bill. Another piece that is in the bill that I think is very important in terms of our veterans--and, of course, we are just coming out of the Veterans Day observance last weekend--is funding and attention in the Defense Department to the transition from Active-Duty service to veteran status. I believe that we should be spending as much or the Defense Department should be spending as much time, money, and effort on the transition out of the service as they spend on recruiting to bring people into the service. The data is that the tragedy of suicide among our veterans is most acute in the first 2 or 3 years after separation, and that tells me that is where we should focus some additional attention. In fact, that is in this bill. There is an enormous commitment to technology in this bill, to artificial intelligence, to quantum computing, to hypersonics, to cyber, which is the sort of frontline of the potential for aggression that is going on right now. There is a low-level cyber war going on right now. Just ask any business in America. I talked to a utility executive recently whose company is being attacked 3 million times a day, sometimes by State actors, sometimes by ordinary criminals or ransomware. But cyber is one of the most serious challenges we face, and, again, that is addressed in this bill. Another thing that is addressed, as I mentioned, is upgrading the nuclear triad, not because we like building submarines or missiles but because we must have a credible deterrent, so that, particularly so those dictators in North Korea or other countries that have nuclear weapons will not be tempted to use them. They have to know that the price to be paid is unacceptable. There is also counter drug policy in the bill. All of those things are an important part of what this bill does for the country. I want to digress for a moment on process. This bill is a prime example of the bipartisan process that ought to govern all of our proceedings here in this body and in the other body of government. And, indeed, over the last year, that has been the norm. Five of the six major bills passed in the last year in this body have been bipartisan, and that is the way it ought to be. And that is the way it is in the Armed Services Committee. This bill was reported out of the Armed Services Committee with a 23 to 3 bipartisan vote. I keep a little running tally in the Armed Services Committee when it comes to amendments. And this year we had 433 amendments proposed going into the markup of the Defense Authorization Act. They were negotiated. They were withdrawn. They were modified. But we ended up with 44 amendment votes. Six were on a party-line basis--6 out of 44 were on a party-line basis. All the rest were bipartisan, either voice votes or rollcall votes that were bipartisan. That is the way this process works, and that is the way this bill has come to this body. Now, let me talk a minute about cost. You often hear--and I hear it sometimes at home, sometimes down here--that we spend more on defense than the next 10 countries in the world combined. Yes, but no other country in the world has the global responsibility that we have. No other country in the world has the global role that we have; that has to look in all directions, not just one direction to one neighbor but in all directions. We have an enormous responsibility, whether we like it or not, as the most powerful country in the free world. And that means we have to support and defend freedom, democracy, the values that we have based this country on. We have to be the first line of defense. So the fact that we spend more than other countries, I don't think that is really the question. I think the real question should be: How much are we spending with regard to our overall economy and our Federal budget? I think that is a fair question. And the answer is pretty surprising to many people. This is the percentage of national defense of Federal spending, in relation to total Federal spending, going back to 1952, 70 years ago. In 1952, during the Korean war--and by the way, it was as even higher during World War II, but in 1952, about 70 percent of the Federal budget was for defense. As you can see, it trends down through the fifties and sixties and seventies. In 1987, it was 28 percent of the Federal budget. Today, it is 13 percent. It is at the lowest level it has been in 70 years as a percentage of the Federal budget. I think that surprises most people. They think all we are doing is spending money on defense. As a percentage of the Federal budget, it is actually the lowest it has been in 70 years. The other way to look at this, that I think is perhaps even more important, is the percentage of national defense spending of GDP, of our gross domestic product. That is really a fair measure. In other words, what part of our economy is devoted to defense spending? Again, going back to 1952, it was around 14 percent--14 percent of our gross national product was spent on defense; 1987, 6 percent; today, 3 percent. So people who argue that we are spending way too much on defense and why do you spend--they are looking at the raw dollars, but they really ought to be looking at how big a part of our economy are we devoting to defending this country and the freedom and values of the rest of the free world: 3 percent. Now, should other countries be paying a reasonable share? Absolutely. And many of them are stepping up. We are seeing significant increases in defense expenditures on behalf of many of our NATO allies and other countries around the world because they realize they have a responsibility too. But I think this is really an enlightening way to look at this in terms of what does this bill really mean? How expensive is it? The answer to that question is, it is half as expensive as it was 35 years ago. And it is about 20 percent of where it was 70 years ago. Is it a lot of money? Absolutely. The question is, What is it for? What it is for is, preventing war. As I think I said earlier, the only thing more expensive than maintaining an adequate deterrence is war itself. And that is what this bill is all about. We have passed the National Defense Authorization Act every year for the past 62 years. I deeply hope and believe in the interest of this country, of our citizens, and of the entire free world we are going to do so again in the next month. There is no more solemn responsibility we have. To go back to some of the first words of the Constitution, in order to ``provide for the common defense'' is one of the major functions--that is in the preamble, that is the overarching--``insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense.'' Those are part of the essential function of any government. It is our responsibility. I deeply hope in the next several weeks in this body we will meet that responsibility. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, today I wish to recognize the outstanding career of Jaci Holmes and congratulate her on a well- deserved retirement from the Maine Department of Education. For nearly 35 years, Jaci dedicated herself to advocating for Maine children and ensuring that their educational needs are not only met, but surpassed. Jaci started her career in education as a kindergarten and first grade teacher where she quickly saw the importance of providing strong educations from the beginning of childhood. This passion and understanding brought her to Westbrook College in Portland, ME, where she chaired the early childhood education department for 7 years and used her experience in the classroom to help others to become educators themselves. Her passion for education, particularly early childhood education, only grew as she joined the Maine Department of Education-- DOE--in 1989. At the DOE, Jaci has served under five Governors and 13 Maine DOE commissioners--a remarkable feat that is a testament to her dedication to education and Maine's children. Her time at the department included tenures in several senior roles, including 12 years as the director of the child development services system and most recently as the Federal and State legislative liaison since 2000. In these positions, Jaci played an instrumental role in shaping two decades of State and Federal education legislation. Her guiding hand can be seen throughout many of the most meaningful modernizations of the way students learn and are supported. This legacy of extraordinary impact was epitomized by the key testimony she provided Congress on the reauthorization of the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--IDEA. Thanks to her feedback, the IDEA was able to better meet the needs of Maine's children with disabilities. During the pandemic, Jaci did what she has done throughout her entire career and stepped up to serve Maine's children. In the height of the COVID-19 crisis, she served on the elementary and secondary school emergency relief team and helped to oversee the distribution of the CARES Act funding to Maine schools. Jaci's lifetime of public service is truly admirable, and I know that others will be inspired to carry on her work supporting Maine's next generation. Jaci, your dedication and presence at the Maine DOE will be dearly missed and not soon forgotten. Thank you for all that you have done, and I hope that you will enjoy your retirement and some more time out on Casco Bay.