Brian Schatz

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, this leasing requirement would be in addition to the leasing that is already required by this bill, with 75 percent of offshore leased acres not yet being used to produce oil and gas. Opening up more acres to leasing is unnecessary. The main thing is that the passage of this amendment would jeopardize the whole package. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. SCHATZ

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

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. SCHATZ. I object.

Mr. SCHATZ

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

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nominations of Dr. Lester Martinez-Lopez to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Dr. Agnes Schaefer to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and Mr. Franklin Parker to hold the same position within the Navy. The office Dr. Martinez-Lopez is nominated for is responsible for ensuring that we are medically ready to fight and win wars. This is a critical role for our national security at all times, but, of course, it is even more important during a pandemic. Leaving this office without leadership jeopardizes our ability to respond to this health crisis and prepare for the next one. Having spent more than two decades as an Army surgeon and commander of medical centers at major U.S. military bases both stateside and overseas, and more than a decade as a leader of private medical research organizations, Dr. Martinez-Lopez clearly has the experience to fill this position. The Assistant Secretaries for Manpower and Reserve Affairs across the branches ensure our military and civilian workforce have the education, the training, and the skills needed to meet current and future threats. Mr. Parker, who is nominated to head this office for the Navy, has demonstrated his ability to fill the role and will be able to hit the ground running, having held the position before. Dr. Schaefer, nominated to head this office for the Army, will bring firsthand knowledge from her 15 years at the RAND Corporation, where she specialized in military personnel policy, reserve component issues, national security strategy, and emerging threats. All three of these positions play important roles in our national security. All three nominees to fill them were voted out of committee-- a committee on which the Senator from Missouri serves--without objection--without objection--4 months ago. But all three remain vacant. The Senator from Missouri, as someone who serves on the Personnel Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, I know would know better than most the issues our military branches and the troops face. These include recruitment and retention challenges, ensuring safe workplaces, including implementing IRC reforms to prevent and respond to sexual assault and sexual harassment within the ranks, and addressing the high suicide rate among troops and veterans--all issues which impact military readiness. But there is a hold on all DOD nominees. I am unaware of any substantive objections to these nominees based on their qualifications or their ability to serve, reasons which we have a constitutional duty to review based on our advice and consent role. My understanding is that the Senator from Missouri is implementing a blanket hold based on general policy disagreements with the Biden administration. In addition to our advice and consent role, the Senate has oversight responsibilities, and that is a place where the Senator from Missouri, as a member of the Personnel Committee of the Armed Services Committee, has the responsibility of oversight of the three offices that we are discussing today. He has a way to ensure that once these three nominees are confirmed, he and his colleagues can evaluate their performance. With acting, nonconfirmed officials in these roles, that oversight authority is undermined. As a Senator, we are afforded extraordinary powers to advance policies or even just to make a point, but these powers should be used in accordance with our constitutional responsibilities. The President of the United States has the responsibility to nominate qualified individuals to fill these roles, and he has. These individuals are qualified, and now we have the responsibility to confirm them so that they can get to work for our servicemembers and for the American people. I will now yield to my friend and colleague Senator Kaine.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote occur immediately.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, last month, the U.S. Department of the Interior released an investigative report on our country's Indian boarding school system. From 1819 to 1969, more than 400 of these schools operated across what today are 37 States. The Indian boarding school era is one of the darkest periods in American history and one that we as a nation have not properly reckoned with. For nearly two centuries, the U.S. Government took Native American children as young as 6 from their families and sent them to boarding schools, but these schools were not solely for the purpose of teaching the children. They humiliated these children, and they harmed them. Indian children were forced to change their names, to cut their hair, to stop speaking their Native languages. They did military drills three times a week. Every day, they were assigned hours of grueling work that violated child labor laws: They had to raise livestock, sew clothes, work on the railroads. Those who resisted were punished with whippings and solitary confinement. Those who resisted were punished with whippings and solitary confinement. Often, older children were forced to punish the younger ones. The conditions of these schools were awful: three to a bed, dirty water, no working plumbing. Disease and malnourishment were common. Physical and sexual abuse was rampant. We don't know how many children died at these U.S. Government-funded and -run schools, but the Interior Department estimates that the number is in the tens of thousands. And all of this occurred for one reason--to steal Native land. As far back as the 1700s, U.S. Government policy was officially to dispossess and break Tribes so their territories could be taken for American expansion. Erasing Native culture through assimilation was key to this. As one official said, ``The love of home and the warm, reciprocal affection existing between parents and children are among the strongest characteristics of the Indian nature.'' So the Federal Government acted accordingly. The Departments of War and Interior oversaw this forced assimilation. Congress passed laws appropriating school funding to ``civilize'' Native children. When families refused to send their kids to these schools, Congress made the food rations that were negotiated in treaties contingent on their doing so. To fill the schools, the government enlisted religious organizations, paying them on a per-child basis. A majority of this money came from Federal Indian trusts--money that was supposed to help the Tribes--and the Supreme Court ruled that all of this was legal at the time. The result of these actions was a multi-generational trauma for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities and families that continue to this day. Adults who attended boarding schools are more likely to have everything from arthritis to depression. They are three times as likely to have cancer. Studies have found worse health outcomes for the ancestors of people who went to these schools, and there are 53 known child burial sites and an unknown number yet to be discovered. We can't undo this history, but we have to acknowledge it. That starts with examining the full scope of this atrocity unflinchingly, with clear minds and with fresh eyes. We need to keep investigating Indian boarding schools, and the findings should be taught in every school and be known by every future generation of Americans. As recommended in the report from the Department of the Interior, we must also support Native language revitalization. We cannot continue to neglect these programs and further erase Native culture. We have to understand and undertake a path toward healing, not in the abstract but in a concrete and meaningful way. We must work hand in hand with Native communities on a respectful and restorative process. We have to empower these communities through increased Federal investments in Native healthcare and housing and economic development. We must reject our centuries-long pattern of Native suppression and, instead, begin one of reconciliation. We owe the survivors of the Indian boarding school era, their families, and their communities nothing less. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SCHATZ. I am asking, will the Senator yield.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I am here today to speak in support of the nomination and confirmation of Christopher Lowman to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment. We are in a fight for the free world and that requires maintaining a robust military presence of our allies, including and especially NATO countries. Any U.S. mission also needs a strong logistics chain. That means being able to move troops, medical supplies, fuel, tents, anything else throughout the world at any given time. And this is no longer an abstraction. We have seen what happens when it isn't in place. We are seeing it in real time with Russia's equipment and training problems in Ukraine. And that is why we have an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment to lead on logistics. As we are watching the Ukrainians bravely push back this unprovoked Russian war, part of the reason that they are having success is that the Russian logistics chain is absolutely broken. We, in the United States, and our Armed Forces take logistics extraordinarily seriously. But we don't have the person in charge of that confirmed to lead the Department on logistics. This position is left unfilled because Josh Hawley is blocking Mr. Lowman's nomination. Senator Hawley apparently disagrees with the Biden administration policy on Afghanistan, and so he is punishing our servicemembers and our NATO allies while a war in Europe is raging. It is worth repeating. Senator Hawley is mad about what happened 6 months ago in a different part of the world, and in response, he is harming the Department of Defense and our national security.

Mr. SCHATZ. Is there an objection? Does he object or not?

Mr. SCHATZ. I will not yield. Mr. Lowman is well-qualified for this job, and no one is disputing that. He is a Marine Corps veteran who spent nearly four decades working for the Army. He has the exact expertise necessary to help support our logistics chain and help to make sure that our military remains the best fighting force on the planet. It is time for Senator Hawley to release this hold and move the nomination forward. This is preposterous. You can do a hold. Members do a hold. The Presiding Officer has done a hold. I have done a hold. I voted no on nominees. I retaliated against Democratic and Republican administrations when I disagreed with policy. But a blanket hold on the Department of Defense and holding the person in charge of our logistics chain is absolutely inexcusable. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination, Calendar No. 777, Christopher Joseph Lowman, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense, and that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ. Will the Senator yield to a question?

Mr. SCHATZ. What Senator Hawley wants is an excuse to go through his litany of criticisms of the Biden administration. And the truth is that every Senator has that right without blocking the logistics guy from the Department of Defense. He could have brought his floor charts out here and given a withering speech about all of the things that he thought went wrong. But he is doing a very specific thing: He is damaging the Department of Defense. We have senior DOD leaders, we have the Armed Services Committee coming to us and saying: I don't know what to tell him. I don't know how to satisfy him, but he is blocking the staffing of the senior leadership at the Department of Defense. This comes from a guy who raised his fist in solidarity with the insurrectionists. This comes from a guy who, before the Russian invasion, suggested that maybe it would be wise for Zelenskyy to make a few concessions about Ukraine and their willingness to join NATO. This comes from a guy who, just about a month ago, voted against Ukraine aid. He is saying it is going too slow. He voted no. He voted no on Ukraine aid, and now, he has the gall to say it is going too slow. And this final insult is that until--what--Secretary Austin resigns? That is not a serious request. People used to come to me during the Trump administration all the time: Do you think Trump should resign? Do you think Tillerson should resign? That is stupid. Of course, I think all the people I disagree with should quit their jobs and be replaced with people I love; of course, I think they should all resign. That is not how this world works. That is not a reasonable request from a U.S. Senator: Until the Secretary of Defense quits his job, I am going to block all his nominees. That is preposterous--and coming from a person who exonerated Donald Trump for extorting Zelenskyy for withholding lethal aid. They withheld lethal aid until--unless--Zelenskyy would release false smears against Joe Biden's son, and then he voted to exonerate President Trump for this. So spare me the new solidarity with the Ukrainians and with the free world, because this man's record is exactly the opposite. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

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

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object. This is not the right way to get at the fentanyl problem. This gives the Secretary permission to shut down all asylum seekers from a country on the basis of any type of drug, no matter how much is in possession, how frequently that drug is possessed, what country they are coming from. We are calling for essentially a complete shutdown of the asylum program because there might be fentanyl somewhere. But it also gives the Secretary authority to stop asylum seekers coming from any country for any drug at any scale. Now, title 42 authority is a serious thing. It is a blanket authority to block anyone presenting themselves for asylum. We have seen the horrific images in Ukraine. We know between 4 and 5 million people are already refugees, and we know that the United States, as the indispensable Nation, wants to take a leadership role in accommodating these refugees in Europe and, if necessary, in the United States. People presenting themselves for asylum, escaping their dangerous home country--that is actually part of the American dream. That is, in a lot of ways, how many of us arrived, right? There may not have been this statutory framework, but the principle involved was not just that you came from some other place far away to make a better life for yourself--sometimes it was that, but sometimes it was to escape the pogrom, as was the case with my grandparents, from Kyiv to Odesa, actually to Canada, and then to Hawaii. And so this authority is no small thing. And to give the Secretary of HHS this blanket authority to essentially shut down all asylum seekers because we are afraid--appropriately afraid--of a specific drug is just a little ham-fisted. And I appreciate the Senator's remarks. I think there are better ways to work on this, and therefore I object.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, today we lost a towering figure in American and world history. Madeleine Albright was one of the smartest, strongest diplomats that we have ever had. She came to America as a refugee and helped move the country closer to the promise that it was founded upon. She made the world a better place. Madeleine Albright was born in the former Czechoslovakia in 1937. When the Nazis took power, her family was forced into exile, ending up in London, where they survived the Blitz. After World War II, they returned to Czechoslovakia but were again forced to seek refuge, this time from communism. As an 11-year-old, she arrived with her family at Ellis Island. She became a U.S. citizen, graduated college on a full scholarship, and went on to earn a Ph.D. while raising her three daughters, Alice, Katie, and Anne. She worked here in the U.S. Senate on the Foreign Relations Committee under Edmund Muskie, then at the White House National Security Council, before becoming a renowned professor at Georgetown University. In 1993, President Clinton nominated her as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. She was the second woman to hold that position. In 1997, she became the first woman in our Nation's history to serve as a Secretary of State. As Secretary, she was a strong supporter of NATO, encouraging the alliance to add new members and to protect vulnerable populations. She urged military intervention to save lives in Kosovo. She worked to prevent rogue States from getting nuclear material and supported the Kyoto Protocol. And she strengthened American alliances across the planet. But Madeleine Albright is not the sum of her accomplishments. Madeleine Albright is something more. She embodied the ideals of our country. She was a constant light in the struggle between freedom and oppression, relentlessly advocating for people to have rights that she knew didn't exist under authoritarian regimes. She broke the highest glass ceiling in her field and then spent the rest of her career fighting for opportunities for other women. We will remember her as a diplomat and a trailblazer. But I will also remember her as something else: family. My oldest brother Jake is married to her daughter, Katie. When I first became a U.S. Senator, she was thrilled to have a politician in the family and wanted to be helpful without casting a long shadow, so she discreetly called Barbara Mikulski and told her to look out for me. We were fast friends--not acquaintances, not friends in the political sense, but actual friends. She was a tireless and sharp political strategist. She was the kind of person who would watch C-SPAN for fun and was endlessly fascinated with politics at all levels, from municipal elections, State elections, Hawaiian politics, the United Nations--she loved this stuff. She was also a trusted confidante. We had long talks about everything but mostly about our two shared loves: family and politics. And it was always over a meal, which she would occasionally let me pay for. But most of all, I will remember her as Grandma Maddie, someone who was kind and curious with my kids. She was one of the most decent human beings whom I have ever known. May her memory be a blessing. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I respect my colleagues' desires to take care of the people and the needs of their State, and I agree there is a need--not just in this State but for a number of States that have been impacted by disasters in recent years. We must pass a disaster supplemental to provide funding for States fairly and based on need. We wish that the supplemental were in this bill, but it was not agreed to by Republicans in the House and the Senate. Looking ahead, we ought to pass a bill to provide $2 billion and permanently authorize the CDBG-DR program. As for pay-fors--this is an important point--the spectrum sale funds that my colleagues suggested as a pay-for are already spoken for. That has already been used as a pay-for in previous bills, so we can't double count; and so, unfortunately, I urge my colleagues to vote no. Thank you.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I have seven 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 armed services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2022, at 8 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, March 10, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on homeland security and governmental affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2022, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. committee on the judiciary The Committee on The Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2022, at 9 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2022, at 12 p.m., to conduct an open hearing. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2022, to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, a year ago, there was an attempted overthrow of American democracy right here in this building. You know, we spend so much time here arguing about things that are unknowable-- about the future, about our ideology, about opinions--that we have become accustomed to treating floor speeches in the Senate as not primarily about facts. But I was here. And by ``I was here,'' I don't mean I was here in the Capitol. I mean, I was right here at this desk. And so no one needs to characterize it for me or pontificate about it or tell me what I think happened. I was right here. It wasn't theoretical. It wasn't a debate. It was a physical siege on the U.S. Capitol. I was already angry that day. The idea that American--American-- democratically elected politicians would participate in a process so foul as to be worthy of our most autocratic adversaries had me in a sour mood. The electoral college certification is supposed to be the functional equivalent of a swearing-in. It is where the thing gets made official, but it is not like any decisions are supposed to be made that day. But Senators Hawley and Cruz and others, with their unlimited ambition, their big brains, and their supposed expertise in the Constitution, were dancing on the edge of overturning democracy itself. But I actually had no idea how bad it was, that there was an ongoing organized conspiracy to steal the election for real, not in a ``Russian hacking'' kind of a way or not in a ``too many of the people I don't agree with voted'' kind of way--actually overturning the whole thing. So no one needs to tell me how to interpret this. I was there when they yelled: ``Lock down, lock down.'' I was here when Mike Pence was ushered off the floor. I was here when Chuck Grassley and anyone else with a personal protection detail was rushed to safety, and the rest of us were just locked in here and told to stay in our seats. I was here when Senator Todd Young made himself ready to physically confront the violent traitors. I was here when we were finally moved to an undisclosed location and Lindsey Graham yelled at the Capitol Police leadership for not having a plan to handle such a moment. And I was here when Reverend Black pulled us together in unity. And I was here when all but a few of us decided enough is enough, and we were collectively determined to finish our work and finish the count that evening. We were perilously close to losing everything that night. And some did. Police officers were maimed and killed. Custodial workers and Senate staffers were hiding, with zero protection. The insurrectionists were explicit. They wanted to kill the Speaker of the House. One year later should be a simple, solemn commemoration of what happened and a collective, unified determination to never let anything like that ever happen again. But I am even more worried now because that moment of unity is gone, and, most importantly, that moment of moral clarity of collective, patriotic outrage is fading. It went from Republicans being apologetic about their President to voting to exonerate him. It went from Republicans being angry at him and denouncing him to voting against putting a bipartisan commission together to get all of the facts out. It went from 99 percent of the public being crystal clear about the moral threat to the right rewriting history and, in some cases, the left going along with it by telling us that some issues poll better. To be clear, the litmus test for both political parties is, to greater or lesser degrees, the extent to which one is loyal to the President--fair enough. That is how the modern two-party system works, for better or worse. But Donald Trump is now defining fealty to him by one thing and one thing only: Are you willing to install him into power regardless of the vote count? And so now every Republican politician and elected official-- secretaries of state, county election commissioners, U.S. Senate candidates--have to promise to put Trump above democracy itself. And many are doing it. They are now organizing the next coup in plain sight. Now, I don't know the economics or the psychology behind it. Maybe, it is ratings. Maybe, it is just the natural tendency among the chattering class to not want to sound too wild-eyed--that being unworried is what passes for savvy in this town. But everyone, including those who consider themselves patriots, seem so chill about what is going on that I am genuinely alarmed. They are installing loyalists across the country in order to cheat, and they are not being subtle about it. Meanwhile, the cocktail set in Washington is busy policing our tone and talking about Democratic overreach, and so the defining question this week and this year is this: Are we willing to face the challenge in front of us? Yes, there is COVID. Yes, there is climate. But democracy itself is at risk in a way that we haven't seen in centuries, and we are standing around as a country arguing about mostly nonsense. And I think here is the problem for all of us, and here is why this is so hard emotionally: If we take a moment to realize what is at stake, we might realize what is required. It will require Republicans to stand up to an autocrat. It will require Democrats to stop arguing amongst themselves. It will require reporters to write stories that get fewer clicks than whatever BS is driving the news of the day. It will require citizens to understand that democracy in this country is not what we have. It is what we do, and it is never guaranteed. So, this week, we commemorate the fallen. We thank everyone who came to democracy's defense across the country and in our great Capital City. But we know that this was round 1. We know that authoritarians rarely give up, and we know that they aren't doing their preparation for the next coup in hiding. They are doing it all in plain sight, and they must be stopped. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the Peters amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and 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. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged and the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1760.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2514.