Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with Senator Wyden for clarification regarding a tax provision included in the bill currently before the Senate. With regard to the advanced manufacturing tax credit, it is the intention that section 45X, as established by section 13502 of the Inflation Reduction Act, is intended to apply to components for which production was completed after December 31, 2022, and are sold to an unrelated party after December 31, 2022? In other words, the credit should be available to the entirety of eligible components currently underway if those components are concluded after 2022. For example, an offshore wind vessel that began construction in 2019 and was completed at a date after December 31, 2022, would be eligible for the credit applied to the full cost of production of the vessel and not just for the portion completed after December 31, 2022.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I look forward to passing this important piece of legislation that will help fight inflation, invest in domestic energy production and manufacturing, reduce carbon emissions, and lower healthcare costs for millions of Americans.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 5488, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the end is near--I hope. For those of us on this side of the aisle who have worked long and hard, this is the last substantive action we have to take before final passage of a historic piece of legislation. Recognizing--and I want to thank the Senators on both sides of the aisle for the productive discussions in the last vote on a difficult issue that my amendment would address. My amendment would simply strike the offset in the previous amendment known as the State and local tax deduction and replace it with a 2-year extension of a so-called loss limitation policy that has bipartisan support over many years. This was first employed under President Trump, then employed by the Democrats. Everyone on this side of the aisle has voted for this pay- for, $52 billion, which more than offsets the $35 billion that were taken from the previous amendment. This amendment will allow us to move forward on this historic legislation, on drug prices, climate change, reform the tax code, and bring down inflation and make sure we have got a true comprehensive energy policy. I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Do I have any time remaining?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. 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:

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today we took another giant step on something that has been a lot harder than it should have been and could have been because it actually started last June when I rose before this body--June of 2021--to speak about the critical need to pass the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, as it was known back then, USICA, in order to shore up U.S. investment in research and development and manufacturing of critical technologies. On this bill--a few name changes later, and, unfortunately, more than a year later--I rise again before this body to express my strong support for this revised CHIPS+ legislation--that we just cleared an important hurdle for over the last hour--and urge my colleagues to pass this bill as quickly as possible so we can get it out of the Senate, get it over to the House, and get it to the President's desk. We cannot afford to waste any more time because this funding sends a message that the United States is putting a strong down payment on maintaining our edge in the global technology race and preventing global supply chains from being weaponized against the United States or, for that matter, against our allies. Over the past few years, China has continued to increase investments in its domestic industries and, particularly, in areas that confer long-term strategic influence. This includes the semiconductor industry, which I have been particularly focused on over the past few years. Now, let me be clear. When I talk about China--let me be clear--my beef is with the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping, and their approach. It is not with the Chinese people; it is not with the Chinese diaspora. As a matter of fact, when people don't make that distinction, you may play exactly into the CCP's agenda that somehow these are all simply anti-Chinese activists. These are not. These are activities against the Government of China and, particularly, the Communist Party of China. Coming back to semiconductors: Semiconductors, often called chips, are the backbone of our modern lives. They can be found in literally everything with an on-and-off switch: from cars and trucks to washers and dryers to smartphones and laptops. Chips are an essential component in so many of the devices we use today. The growth in chips is going to be exponential. Many have fought and talked about the whole notion of the internet of things. The internet of things require devices that are connected to the internet. Obviously, autonomous driving would be one example. For every connection, there needs to be a center, most of those requiring a semiconductor chip. Unfortunately, looking backwards, for many years, American semiconductor companies led the world in both design and manufacturing of this critical technology. But the truth is, our leadership has languished. In recent years, we continue to lose ground, particularly not just to China but to East Asian markets in total. As a country, we have gone--from 1990, when we produced literally 37 percent of all the chips in the world, to today--in the whole field of microelectronics, we are down to about 12 percent. On the other hand, China has ramped up its investment in chips, providing an estimated $200 billion in financial support between just 2015 and going forward projection up to 2025. Chinese orders for semiconductor manufacturing equipment rose 58 percent in 2021 in the midst of the COVID crisis. China has a goal to produce at least 70 percent of its use of semiconductors in the country by 2030. The truth is, it is not just China. This is global competition. Japan recently passed a $6.8 billion investment package that will fund innovative chip manufacturing, as well as research and development. South Korea, which has also been one of the great leaders in this movement for it, has similar-type investments. Unfortunately, one of the challenges we face is the country or the entity that has evolved some of the fastest has been Taiwan, where, unfortunately, we now rely on many of the most cutting-edge, leading- edge chips coming out of the Taiwan. As we have seen with President Xi's aggressive--at least indications, about trying to subjugate Taiwan--when we think of it in the context of the Russian-Ukraine battle, the notion that could take place beyond what it would do to the democracy that exists in Taiwan, what it would do in terms of that critical semiconductor production--it would cause not only a recession but depression around the world. It is not just South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. India has recently passed legislation investing $30 billion in their domestic electronics manufacturing industry, with $10 billion of that dedicated to chips manufacturing and display manufacturing. The truth is--and this is one of the things I think was the great irony--is that when I spoke about this bill 13 months ago, then, obviously, the Senate, with the leadership of the Presiding Officer and others, we actually passed this bill back in July of last year. Our passage of that bill and raising the expectation that America was going to really get in the game, set off alarm bells, not only in terms of what is coming out of Asia but from some of our allies in Europe. The truth is, European bureaucrats, particularly coming out of Brussels, are not normally viewed as moving with a great deal of speed. But because we have taken now 12 months to actually get our act together and get this bill to this stage of passage, we have seen European countries--Germany, for example, has already selected 32 semiconductor projects and put $12 billion in draft investments. And even our friends in France recently announced a major U.S. global foundry investment in France. This has proven out--the lack of investment by the U.S. has had a huge impact. From 2010 to 2020, only 17 major semiconductor plants-- they call them fabs, manufacturing fabs--were built in the United States. Over that same time, we have seen 122 built elsewhere around the world. And the handful of major projects announced in the last year as a direct result of our efforts a year ago to say we are going to put our money where our mouth is in terms of these kind of investments-- major facilities in Ohio, Arizona, and elsewhere, candidly, are very much at risk at this point, unless we can get this legislation to the President's desk. Right now, the truth is: The cost of new fabs is 25 percent to 50 percent higher in the United States; and that is partially due to the enormous financial incentives offered by our competitive ventures. The truth is, in a perfect world, we wouldn't want governments subsidizing some of these investments. We don't live in a perfect world. We live in a real world where competitors like China and even our allies around the world are making investments, candidly, that on a per capita basis even make this investment by the United States seem relatively small. Many ask, so why is it so important for the United States to maintain investment in semiconductor production when on a lot of accounts, the PRC--China--is several generations behind? Because the truth is, U.S. semiconductor firms--and firms in the adjacent areas of lithography, packaging, and metrology--still lead the world. I can tell you, as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I can tell you unequivocally that the Communist Party of China and the PRC is acutely aware of that gap and aggressively are working, not just to close it, but to eventually leapfrog the United States and our allies to lead in chip production. As a matter of fact, just over this past week, there was an extraordinary story coming out of Bloomberg that indicated that the Chinese may have already moved dramatically forward in terms of 7- nanometer production. For those aware, if that is true, that could have a huge, huge effect. We should expect that because last year, President Xi announced a $1.4 trillion commitment through 2025 to develop advanced technologies, not only in chips, but in next-generation wireless networks and artificial intelligence--technologies that will candidly determine who is not only the economic but the security winner of the 21st century. I firmly believe that this is the time of technology competition across the series of domains, and China has a plan they articulated in their China 2025 document. We, in this country, are still trying to determine what are those domains. The truth is, semiconductors--which enable advancements in artificial intelligence or high-performance computing, hypersonics, and everything else, again, with an on-off switch--is arguably the centerpiece of President Xi's effort to ultimately control innovation system development. Meanwhile, many of the key ingredients to U.S. historical success, including Federal support for R&D, investment in basic research and support for advanced manufacturing, have declined over the last 20 years. Why? I am focusing on chips and the 5G and beyond. Here, there is a whole series of components in this legislation we have advanced today that includes beefing up R&D, advanced manufacturing, and other critical areas. It brings me down to my closing comments before I turn it over to the Senator from Nevada. That is why the $52 billion in funding for CHIPS for America Act--a bipartisan effort my friend, Senator Cornyn and I, along with Senator Schumer and Senator Cotton--we have been working on this, literally, for years, way beyond the 13 months, when I rose on this topic 13 months ago--is so important and why a parallel effort also in this bill to catalyze U.S. and allied innovation in a more diverse and resilient telecommunications ecosystem is so virtually important. I would also note this simply isn't an economic competitiveness or security issue. We know, as we see it play out right now in terms of supply chains--vis-a-vis Russia and Ukraine, the notion of cutting off advanced semiconductors to Russia will have a huge effect on Russia's military capacity. We also know, as well, this will be a jobs bill in terms of these fabrication facilities and research all across America. And, candidly, as we know, there are literally thousands of cars that already have been produced by American auto manufacturers that are sitting, not getting into the market because they don't have the chips to make the cars actually operate. Over the long haul, bringing that supply chain back here will ultimately deal with inflation issues, as well. We cannot be held hostage on this critical issue. Most of the focus has been on chips, as appropriate. But this bill also makes important investments in the future of wireless telecommunications. In many ways, this issue first came to the forefront, not on chips, but a few years back--I say this as a former wireless telecom guy--when a Chinese company, Huawei, suddenly started to dominate the market. We raised concerns about Huawei. Many of our allies and others said: That is fine; what is your alternative? What is the Western alternative? I think we were a little bit slow on making the case; although, now, virtually every nation that invested in Huawei equipment has realized national security concerns that are literally in the process of ripping and replacing that equipment. We have still got more to do. Huawei penetrated some of our markets in the United States. So this bill that has been called CHIPS also includes funding for the bipartisan Utilizing Strategic Allied Telecommunications Act, or the USA Act, which fosters U.S. innovation in the race for 5G by providing $1.5 billion to invest in Western- backed alternatives to, again, Chinese equipment providers, like Huawei but also ZTE. This is a bill that, again, I was proud to work on with many of my Intel colleagues, Senator Burr and Senator Rubio. It will also stand up a new Public Wireless Supply Chain Innovation Fund to spur movements toward open-architecture software. That would allow us to fund innovative, ``leap ahead'' technologies in the domestic mobile broadband market. That approach plays to U.S. strengths, like software and network virtualization, and it means that we will have a wider set of firms, including American, with healthier balance sheets competing against these state-sponsored Chinese vendors, because one thing that has been clear over the past two administrations, our anti-Huawei message, or the things that finally moved, would have moved a lot quicker if we had had other U.S. and Western alternatives. Again, I will close now. As the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I see examples every day of how China is doubling down on its pursuit of advanced technologies that I think will define the 21st century, and in many ways, the United States has started to fall behind. Fortunately, it is not too late to change that narrative or to change that result. With the right investments, like the ones that have been provided in this legislation, we can unleash the ingenuity of the American people. We can reinvigorate American innovation and improve our national security while setting the country up to lead the way on technologies that will define our future. We need to get this passed as quickly as possible, and then I strongly, strongly urge our colleagues in the House to pass it as well and get it to the President's desk. With that, I yield the floor. I do want to thank my colleague from Nevada, who has been a leader on this legislation, as well, and knows the importance of getting this done.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I am able to speak and followed by Senator Cortez Masto to be able to speak before the Senate adjourns for the weekly caucus lunches.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend the Senator from Iowa for giving me a moment of personal privilege. I also want to acknowledge our colleague who has been the Presiding Officer. I want to acknowledge our colleague who was presiding prior to you coming to the chair and acknowledge that it is her birthday today, a great day of celebration across Arizona and elsewhere. Mr. President, I will only rise for a moment, and I appreciate my friend the senior Senator from Illinois being here for this. I want to acknowledge my youngest daughter, Eliza, and her fellow classmates from the London Business School--not LSE; the London Business School--where, last Wednesday, I attended their graduation. My hope is that every one of these young men and women who are going to be from across the world--the United States, the UK, Nigeria, Lebanon, Israel, India, Singapore, and a host of other countries--one, I wish them all well. I know they are going to contribute to economies and growth around the world. I also believe that almost all of them now are going to go off their family's payroll at this moment in time after they have received this great, distinguished MBA they received from the London Business School. I do appreciate, again, my friend the Senator from Iowa giving me the courtesy of this quick acknowledgement and recognition. With that, I yield the floor and yield to my friend the senior Senator from Iowa.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I just want to say I know many of us recognized your enormous service yesterday, and we really appreciate it and so much today, the day after your 50th birthday, appreciate the fact that you are presiding over this august body. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Vice Chairman Rubio, Senator Blunt, and all members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to recognize the service and accomplishments of VADM Robert D. Sharp and congratulate him on his upcoming retirement. His leadership and vision drove the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency--NGA--to deliver support to a wide array of customers while simultaneously transforming its operating procedures and business practices. As Director of NGA, Vice Admiral Sharp ensured that timely, relevant, and accurate geospatial intelligence was provided to policymakers, warfighters, first responders, the intelligence community, and the congressional intelligence oversight committees. A veteran of the war in Afghanistan and the Gulf War, Vice Admiral Sharp served our country during a highly decorated 34-year career with the U.S. Navy, receiving two Bronze Stars, the Legion of Merit, two Defense Superior Service Medals, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. Vice Admiral Sharp's service included operational deployments with USS Ranger (CV61), Carrier Air Wing 2 embarked on USS Constellation (CV 64), and Carrier Group 2 embarked on USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). Additionally, in 2016, Vice Admiral Sharp was tasked with serving as commander, Office of Naval Intelligence, and director, National Maritime Intelligence-Integration Office. Vice Admiral Sharp culminated his distinguished career as the seventh director of the NGA. In this capacity he also served as the intelligence community's functional manager for GEOINT, head of the National System for Geospatial Intelligence, and chair of the Allied System for Geospatial Intelligence. As NGA director, Vice Admiral Sharp led 14,500 military, civilian, and contractor women and men with care, compassion, and resourcefulness during the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the government shifted to maximize telework, NGA found new and innovative ways to meet mission demands while ensuring the safety of the workforce and, simultaneously, significantly improving the morale of the workforce. Vice Admiral Sharp managed the multibillion-dollar annual operating budget of the Agency, including the construction of a new, state-of- the-art $1.7 billion NGA-West campus in downtown St. Louis, which includes the Senator Roy Blunt Geospatial Learning Center. This innovative facility will be a model for the IC in the future. Under Admiral Sharp's leadership, the agency has maintained a constructive and productive relationship with the city, the local community, academia, and the private sector, marking St. Louis--now alongside Springfield, VA--as a leader in the GEOINT community. Vice Admiral Sharp also directed the use of new technology and commercial capabilities to meet steadily increasing demands of the customer base for trusted GEOINT with speed, accuracy, and precision-- while working to keep ahead of the speed of change occurring in GEOINT inside and outside government and around the globe. The importance to the Nation--and the world--of the ability to utilize new commercial GEOINT capabilities has recently been made clear during Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Vice Admiral Sharp also refocused investment in great power competition and emphasized the importance of assured positioning, navigation, timing, and targeting. Throughout his tenure at NGA, Vice Admiral Sharp focused attention on a whole-of-enterprise approach by expanding and deepening relations with partners across the enterprise. In particular, he has fostered increased engagement with colleges and universities and promoted geographic literacy and STEM education in K-12 institutions. NGA has an active CRADA with the University of Virginia and open source intelligence partnerships with William and Mary University and Virginia Tech. NGA has also signed educational partnership agreements with Harris Stowe State University, a historically Black university in St. Louis; University of Missouri St Louis, the most diverse public research institution in the St Louis area; and Gallaudet University, in Washington, DC, the Nation's premier university for deaf and hard of hearing students. These initiatives are representative of Vice Admiral Sharp's career-long commitment to diversity and inclusion. Vice Admiral Sharp's tenure at NGA was marked by strong leadership and dedication to mission. He inspired a workforce to remain committed to the mission while rapidly transforming with changes in technology and tradecraft during an unprecedented time in the history of the nation. His leadership of NGA and his decades of service to our country displayed honor, courage, and commitment. We congratulate Vice Admiral Sharp on his retirement and thank him for his service to our country.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to call for the rapid confirmation of Kenneth Wainstein to be Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. The Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, or I&A, sits at a critical juncture--between the analytic work of the intelligence community and the information-sharing role of the Department of Homeland Security. The Under Secretary receives and analyzes intelligence and law enforcement information related to Homeland Security and ensures its prompt dissemination throughout the Department as well as to Federal, State, local, and Tribal departments that need this information to protect our Nation. The nominee, who has been before our committee and passed out, comes with an incredible background for this position. Ken Wainstein served the United States throughout his career as a Federal prosecutor, at the highest levels of the FBI as general counsel and Chief of Staff to FBI Director Robert Mueller, as U.S. attorney for DC, and as the first-ever Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department's National Security Division, and as Homeland Security Advisor to President George W. Bush. The truth is, after a remarkable career, he went into the private sector, and the fact that he is willing to come back and serve this administration, although he was a career official on the other side, speaks to his character. The role of heading DHS intelligence is not without challenges, which is why we need this confirmed Under Secretary. The I&A mission continues to evolve and mature since its creation in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and there is a clear tension between its dual missions: national intelligence and departmental priorities. Some Members, including myself, were very unhappy with the I&A's operations in Portland in 2020, and then disappointed that the I&A provided next to no warning about what was to come on January 6, 2021. These episodes clearly reveal work needs to be done to improve DHS and I&A in particular. At the same time, we all know the First Amendment protects Americans' right to free speech and nonviolent, peaceful protest, and a fundamental role of our government is to defend the Constitution, including these First Amendment rights. As the confirmed head of DHS's intelligence operation, Mr. Wainstein will be charged with ensuring that DHS I&A keeps upholding those standards and protects civil rights, while also ensuring that I&A's work is completely apolitical. To summarize, the role of the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis is critical for the Department of Homeland Security and the country. Consequently, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 792, Kenneth L. Wainstein, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security; 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 that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we have an incredible nominee in Mr. Wainstein. He has served our government in the Justice Department at the FBI at virtually every level. I think if my colleague, the Senator from Kentucky, is concerned about this, we ought to have somebody who is confirmed in this role. And I would acknowledge that there are Members who share his concerns about First Amendment rights, including one of the members of our committee who has worked through Mr. Wainstein and was part of the group that unanimously voted to move him forward. I am disappointed by the objection, and, unfortunately, both the security of our country and, candidly, the protection of those First Amendment rights is undermined by not having this nominee in place. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022, which is included as division Y in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2471, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022. Cyber attacks and ransomware attacks are a serious national security threat that have affected everything from our energy sector to the Federal Government and Americans' own sensitive information. The SolarWinds breach demonstrated how broad the ripple effects of these attacks can be, affecting hundreds or even thousands of entities connected to the initial target. As cyber and ransomware attacks continue to increase, the Federal Government must be able to quickly coordinate a response and hold bad actors accountable. Especially now, as the threat of Russian cyber attacks looms in light of Putin's horrific invasion of Ukraine, we shouldn't be relying on voluntary reporting to protect our crucial infrastructure. The Federal Government needs to know when vital sectors of our economy are affected by a breach so that the full resources of the Federal Government can be mobilized to respond and mitigate their impacts. This bipartisan bill will take significant steps to strengthen cybersecurity protections, ensure that CISA is at the forefront of our Nation's response to serious breaches, and most importantly, require timely reporting of these attacks to the Federal Government so that we can better prevent future incidents and hold attackers accountable. The plain text of the statute makes Congress' intent clear: although the reports themselves--and any ``communication[s], document[s], material[s], or other record[s] created for the sole purpose of preparing, drafting or submitting'' those reports--may not be received in evidence, the FBI and other law enforcement entities nevertheless may, as appropriate, make use of reported information in their investigations of a cyber incident. In other words, the FBI cannot attach the report filed with CISA in a warrant application or submit it in evidence in a trial but, if provided information from reports under the process outlined in the statute, may as appropriate use information contained in the reports and derived from them for a range of purposes, including getting a warrant and prosecuting bad actors. Further, this statute also is not intended to prohibit or discourage entities from reporting to CISA and law enforcement concurrently. The language of this bill makes clear that the information may be used for cybersecurity or investigative purposes. Section 2245 clearly states that reports submitted to CISA under this provision can be used for ``the purpose of preventing, investigating, disrupting, or prosecuting an offense arising out of a cyber incident reported pursuant to [the bill's requirements or voluntary provisions].'' Nor are facts developed during an FBI investigation of the relevant cyber incident using other authorities, including similar facts that may also have been disclosed to the Federal Government in the report to CISA, ``communication[s], document[s], material[s], or other record[s]'' subject to the evidentiary restrictions in 2245(c)(3). Such actions by the FBI to hold accountable, disrupt, or deter perpetrators of cyber attacks are consistent with our goal of encouraging entities to disclose cyber incidents to CISA, which will share the information appropriately with other Federal agencies. As stakeholders work through the rulemaking process, we look forward to working with them to ensure that congressional intent is not misinterpreted and that this legislation is implemented as intended. This balance ensures both that entities are encouraged to and feel protected in disclosing cyber incidents and that law enforcement agencies may make full use of evidence, gathered through a variety of means, needed to detect, disrupt, and deter perpetrators of attacks.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in response to Russia's alarming and impending threat toward its neighbor, the independent nation of Ukraine. As we speak, Vladimir Putin continues to ready more than 100,000 soldiers, tanks, artillery, aircraft, and missiles along Ukraine's border. To Ukraine's north, in Belarus, Russia has positioned tens of thousands more troops, nominally, as part of a military exercise. To Ukraine's south, Russian ships are amassing in the Black Sea. Propaganda and disinformation are on the internet and on Russian TV channels as part of the Russian playbook we now know very well. The Kremlin's intent is to manufacture a pretext for its aggression and sow divisions in the West. Russian troops already occupy vast tracts of Ukraine in Crimea and continue a ``low-grade'' war in eastern Ukraine, a war initiated by Mr. Putin that has cost already over 14,000 lives. Ukrainian soldiers have been bravely fighting and dying to protect their country from what has been naked aggression from Russia. We hear--even from Ukrainian leadership--that their forces would face an unequal fight in a full-scale Russian invasion and, unfortunately, probably couldn't help but be outnumbered and overwhelmed. And while Moscow has amassed the largest concentration of military forces seen in Europe since the end of the Cold War, it continues to make shrill accusations that it is not Ukraine but somehow Russia that is under threat, all the while making demands that Ukraine never join NATO or control its own destiny. Even as he threatens war with Ukraine, Mr. Putin demands to be treated as head of a normal government. He thrills at being given one- on-one meetings with other world leaders or being invited to diplomatic fora. He rails that Russia has been unfairly singled out for sanctions. He demands respect, even as he lays out a thesis denying that Ukraine is--or ever was--a country with its own traditions, language, aspirations, or sovereignty. What Mr. Putin really fears is that if Ukraine succeeds in building a nation where Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers have genuine freedoms, can vote in free elections and control their own destiny--if that happens, then maybe Russians may start to wonder why they have to live in a country where Putin has practically made himself President for life, eligible to stay in office until 2036, where questioning the endemic corruption of the Russian state, trying to run a business without paying off officials, or even expressing an opinion can lead to detention, trumped-up charges, or, as we have too often seen, even death from a military-grade nerve agent. Mr. Putin fears that Ukraine could prove to be a model of what Russia could become without his kleptocratic regime. Mr. Putin says he feels threatened by NATO. He wants to go back to the good old days, when the USSR held Eastern Europe--including Ukraine--in its iron grip. So he has decided to seize chunks of Ukrainian territory and unilaterally change Europe's borders. Now, this isn't a new position for Putin. It reflects a long-held view. In 2005, he called the fall of the Soviet Union ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.'' In 2008, he invaded Georgia. When Russian troops seized control of Crimea, he sent in his ``little green men'' and adopted his doctrine of hybrid warfare. He felt unconstrained to send agents of the Russian state to assassinate those he sees as his enemies, whether in Kyiv or London or Berlin or Sofia or Vienna. And he has built up his arsenal and threatened his neighbors. Putin, as we know and have read about, has crushed even the slightest hint of political opposition at home in Russia--all of this while wanting to be seen as a victim and as the leader of a normal participant in the community of nations. These actions are not and cannot ever be accepted or acceptable by the civilized world. So what can the United States and the West do? President Biden and other Western leaders have undertaken the right approach offering Putin multiple diplomatic off-ramps--as recently, again, as the visit by the German Chancellor this week--and a dialogue about Russia's exaggerated fears regarding European security. Nobody wants a military conflict between two nuclear powers so the President has clearly stated that U.S. troops are not being sent to Ukraine to fight Russia. At the same time, President Biden has made it extremely clear that if Russia rejects this diplomatic path and conducts further aggression against Ukraine, there will be a heavy price to pay. Russia will face the immediate imposition of strong, robust, and effective sanctions-- including sectoral sanctions against its banking and financial system as well as stringent export controls that will damage Russia's economy. At the same time, while we do not want to ensure that there are any miscalculations or an unintended escalation, the United States and European nations have increased their supply of defensive weapons to Ukraine to ensure that Putin knows that any invasion will impose costs on the Russian military. Mr. Putin may find that if he invades, he may not find the going so easy. Ukrainians do not want to be part of Russia, especially at the point of a gun. As someone who has argued that Russia and Ukraine are one fraternal people, it will be difficult for Putin to explain why Russian soldiers are dying while trying to kill their Ukrainian brothers. As a major part of his policy, President Biden has endeavored to keep NATO together and unified since one of Putin's major goals is to undermine that unity. The administration's approach is, frankly, significantly different from the previous President in this country, who undermined the transatlantic alliance, questioned the very need for its existence, and took every opportunity to weaken the shared bonds that have kept peace in Europe since World War II. President Biden, though, has put thousands of U.S. forces on standby and has deployed U.S. forces to NATO's eastern flank. I saw some additional troops from the 82nd heading over to Poland even as we speak. Now, again, these movements are not to inflame the situation but to ensure that there is no mistake about our commitment to NATO's collective defense, our willingness to defer aggression, and to make sure that we continue to bolster this critical alliance. The truth is, it is not just Americans. Other NATO members have agreed and are sending military forces to its eastern border to ensure that Putin knows that the alliance stands united. Let us be very clear on who the aggressor is in these provocations. The eyes of the world have been on Vladimir Putin and Russia, as he has initiated a steady and deliberate buildup of Russian forces and military assets, as I mentioned earlier, to the north, east, and south of Ukraine, and he has rebuffed multiple diplomatic overtures to deescalate the situation. Through media reporting, satellite imagery, and intelligence shared by our government and by the British Government, much of Putin's incitement has been out in the open for all to see. It is as clear today as it will be through the lens of history that this march of aggression has been led by one man, and that is Vladimir Putin. But it is important for Putin to know it is not too late to back down from this foolish and destructive course of action. Even at the eleventh hour, diplomatic avenues remain very much open. Putin can still choose against leading further aggression and invasion that would have the opposite effect from what he imagines. While there have been some reports in the media that he may be moving, we have seen no clear efforts. This is clearly a case that we will believe what the Russians do, not what some of their leaders say, because if Putin does invade, he will have unleashed a tragedy not just for Ukraine but for the Russian people. Putin will rightly have earned the enmity of all free nations and people everywhere, and Russia's economy and citizens will suffer. I want to be clear. In the event of an unwarranted, unjustified, and illegitimate attack on Ukraine, the United States will stand with the people of Ukraine. Russia will become a pariah nation, a rogue state. The legitimacy of Putin's regime will be significantly undermined. And the NATO alliance that Putin worries so much about? It will be reinvigorated to fulfill the mission it was created for: as a defensive alliance against Soviet or, now in the 21st century, Russian aggression. I urge President Putin to choose the right path. Deescalate tensions. Don't just talk about deescalation but actually deescalate. Engage in a real and honest diplomatic process, and end any plans leading towards a violent confrontation in Ukraine. By doing this, he would ultimately spare Russia the crippling economic consequences that would be necessitated by his aggression. I also say, I was very proud yesterday, when the administration briefed the bipartisan leadership of all the committees that are dealing with this potential invasion, to see the broad and bipartisan support behind standing with the people of Ukraine and the message that should Putin take these actions, the level of sanctions that we will impose upon him and his economy will be unprecedented. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I apologize to my good friend the Senator from North Carolina for being a bit late. I have never seen him be this timely and this brief in his comments. But I wanted to take a moment to echo what I know he said about Chris Joyner, who has served with enormous distinction for Senator Burr in both his personal office and on the Intelligence Committee. I want to particularly recognize Chris and my staff director, Mike Casey, who managed to work together and, frankly, negotiate a peace treaty between Senator Burr and me. When we started the Russia investigation, we had a few bumps. But, as I am sure Senator Burr has pointed out, Chris served with enormous distinction in a very, very challenging time, putting together an investigation that came with integrity, truthfulness, and bipartisanship in a period--particularly under the previous administration--where those milestones were not often highly regarded. Chris has decided to move forward in his career, and I simply want to join and echo Senator Burr's comments about his commitment and service and wish him all the best in his future endeavors. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I appreciate the courtesy of an extra couple of minutes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, thank you for that recognition, and it is great to see you safe and secure, out of your vehicle, presiding over the Senate. It is a great honor for me to follow my friend the Senator from Michigan on this important day, and I want to start by thanking my friend and chairperson of the Rules Committee, the Senator from Minnesota, for organizing us to come together today to commemorate or acknowledge what was a dark, dark day in American history, what happened a year ago. I want to thank--and I will do this in a more formal way in a moment--all the folks who helped protect us on January 6, a year ago. And I want to commend an organization that I know the Presiding Officer is aware of, as is the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Colorado--the World Central Kitchen, led by Jose Andres, who is right now downstairs--Jose is not, but the organization is--serving Capitol Police and other Capitol personnel free meals today. It is a wonderful organization that supports those in need all across the world and all across the country, and the fact that they are here today saying ``thank you'' to our Capitol Police and others is appropriate. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the anniversary of the January 6 insurrection in which a mob broke into this Capitol, broke onto the floor of the Senate, in an effort to overturn the 2020 Presidential election. This was an effort to undermine democracy, plain and simple. In the last year, I think most of us have reflected a lot on the effort by our U.S. Capitol Police, the DC Metropolitan Police, the Virginia State Police, and the Maryland State Police that day. They quite literally held the line to protect our democracy. I am personally indebted to those individuals who saved so many lives and some of whom lost their own. And while others, I know, have already come before me and talked about the incredible role of the Capitol Police and other allies--the Metropolitan Police--as the Presiding Officer knows, the first State police to arrive on the scene were Maryland and Virginia. They actually got here quicker than the National Guard. But I would like to highlight in my comments today another group of people who helped quell the insurrection, and that was the Virginia National Guard, a group of men and women that I and the Presiding Officer have great pride in. We both have served as Governors of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and one of the most important roles in being Governor--beyond the fact of the incredibly important title you carry when you are Governor--is the fact that we served during those each of our 4 years, the Presiding Officer and I, as the commander in chief of the Guard. One of the most meaningful parts I recall was seeing off those Guard members, young and old--these are folks who have day jobs and lives and studies and work--seeing them off, deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and to respond in the aftermath of hurricanes and floods and welcoming back these citizen soldiers in a way that oftentimes doesn't get the recognition that they deserve. But I, again, think back to January 6. As the crowds grew here on Capitol grounds and steadily advanced their positions, eventually into this building itself--and, again, so many of us were here. And I think the Senator from Oklahoma was speaking as we heard the glass break and people shouting, ``Quick, let's secure the doors.'' I think all of us who work here, our pages, the great members of the floor staff, with particular recognition of the Parliamentarian staff-- we come racing in, and we think about those doors upstairs, which are, frankly, pretty flimsy. We all remember that day and those moments. It was obvious pretty quickly that we were going to need additional force to augment the Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police. Now, a year ago, it took much too long than was needed to get the National Guard to provide that assistance. We had, at that point, a convoluted system in place that resulted in delays in getting the Guard to the Capitol. I am proud to say that since then Congress--again, under the leadership of our chair of the Rules Committee, Senator Klobuchar--has passed on a bipartisan basis and the President has signed into law the Capitol Police Emergency Assistance Act, which empowers the Capitol Police chief to request the assistance of the DC Guard or other Federal law enforcement agencies in emergencies without the prior approval process that was used in the past: the Capitol Police Board and the kind of bureaucratic hurdles that, frankly, didn't allow the Guard to get called in a year ago. When the decision was finally made to utilize National Guard personnel, men and women from the DC National Guard, the Maryland National Guard, and the Virginia Guard were literally the first ones to be called up. Within hours of the riot and the Capitol being stormed, while personnel here on the ground were still working to secure and fully regain control of the Capitol Complex, men and women in the Virginia National Guard were ready for deployment (Mr. KING assumed the Chair.) As I mentioned earlier, those of us--and I see now the Presiding Officer is the former Governor of Maine. He had that same responsibility that I had and the previous Presiding Officer had as Governors to be commander in chief of our Guards. We know firsthand that the National Guard in each of our respective States is a civilian force. These men and women who were called up on January 6 and 7 were called from their jobs, their studies, and most importantly, their families. They were called from cities and towns and big cities and small farming communities all across the Commonwealth. Within hours, they mobilized for a domestic deployment to our National Capitol. I remember one Guard member I met, who lived in Arlington--he was working, got the deployment call, rushed back home to pick up some clothes, take a shower, and had, frankly, to drive all the way down--I think they were mustering in Newport News at that point and then were redeployed up here at the Capitol the next morning. On January 7, the morning following the riot, the first National Guard personnel arrived on the scene to support the ongoing security effort and to protect against the possibility of future threats. Folks in this room remember how uncertain the immediate aftermath was. The men and women of the Guard arrived in DC fully armed and had been told to prepare for the possibility of confronting heavily armed rioters and protesters--not tourists; heavily armed rioters and protesters--and even the possibility that some of those rioters and protesters might bring bombs or IEDs that could have been placed in the vicinity of the Capitol. We still haven't found the source of those bombs that were placed at the Democratic and Republican National Committees. The weeks leading up to the inauguration, after the 7th and before the 21st, even more National Guard personnel poured into DC from across the country. The Virginia National Guard continued to perform a critical and outsized role in this response, with nearly 2,500 men and women--close to 10 percent of the total Guard presence in DC--securing the Capitol grounds and Library of Congress, providing quick-reaction capabilities to Capitol, Metropolitan, and Park Police, and adding critical communications, medical, logistical, and chaplain support. I want to specifically highlight the Virginia National Guard's 116th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, which played a leading role in protecting our Capitol in the weeks following January 6. The IBCT, under the command of COL Chris Samulski, led a task force of more than 7,400 airmen and soldiers from 12 different States and was responsible for maintaining the physical security of the Capitol grounds leading up to the inauguration. Twice during their mission here at the Capitol, I had the privilege of meeting with the Virginia Guard. What I heard time and again was the great mix of emotion that came with this deployment. These women and men had volunteered for duty to serve the United States and protect our Constitution, but what they normally expect that duty to ensue was protecting us against our foreign enemies. I see my friend, my colleague from Virginia. I know he visited with the Guard as well. Many of these men and women had been deployed--in some cases, multiple times--to Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these soldiers and airmen had been deployed in the aftermath of hurricanes and storms and natural disasters. None of them, not only from Virginia but from any other State that was mustered here, had ever been deployed when the frontline against people who wanted to overthrow our government was not abroad but right here in our Nation's Capital. They were as shocked as all of us that this very building where we work every day needed National Guard protection. The truth was, they would spend weeks on duty, camped out in our Capitol and around the congressional office buildings. Again, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee. When sometimes they didn't get a fair shake or tried to get pushed aside, many of us, under her leadership, said: No, these folks should not be pushed out in the cold because somebody wants their parking space back. I remember their kind of uncertainty. They were kind of saying: Senator, we didn't think we would ever be here. But I also remember their pride in serving as part of this historic mission and their direct role in safeguarding our democracy. Their presence during that time, all the way through the inauguration when there were still concerns that the mobs might be back, I think helped calm the Capitol, not just Members but those who were pages at that point and the many, many staff. They helped calm the Capitol and our country. While we faced and still face unprecedented challenges as a nation, the work and dedication of the men and women of the Guard demonstrated that our democracy is stronger than the destructive behavior of any mob. This is important because the events of January 6 were not an isolated event. What happened that day was the product of the Big Lie, perpetrated by a former President and cultivated by those who wished to chip away at the sacred values upon which our Nation was founded. Those same individuals--those same individuals--in many instances continue to stoke that lie that our elections are not secure and that they are better off in the hands of partisan officials with the authority to overturn the results if somehow those partisan officials don't like the results of the people. Fueled by the Big Lie, a number of States across the country are changing laws to undermine the right to vote in free and fair elections. The rights of all Americans but especially minority Americans--people of color, young Americans--are being attacked, and the basic tenets of our democracy are under siege. These changes to voting laws are un-American; for example, what happened on Wednesday, where, as we heard yesterday--oftentimes in precincts of color, particularly precincts with a heavy concentration of African Americans, you wait not an hour or 10 minutes in line; you wait 2, 5, 8, 10 hours in line. So the idea that we can't give you any water or food while you are waiting that 10 hours in line, who is going to vote? In States like Texas, where they are saying a local government can overturn the results of a local election--that is not democracy. It is despicable that some people want to make it harder for eligible Americans to participate in our democracy. One of the things that we saw and that I am very proud of in the Commonwealth of Virginia is that we dramatically expanded our voting rights this year. We had an unprecedented turnout. It resulted in favor of one party. Our candidate of choice didn't win. The Republican candidate won because he helped turn out the early vote. The notion--I don't understand those who are trying to restrict. What are people afraid of when more people participate? Consequently, that is why we need to act now to protect our democracy by passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. Since the Senate has shown it cannot do this basic duty and find 60 Senators to support basic voting rights, it is time to change the Senate rules so the filibuster can't be abused to continue blocking vital voting rights legislation. I can think of no better way to honor the sacrifices that were made in defense of our democracy last year than by passing these bills to prevent further subversion of our electoral system and safeguard our democracy for future generations. I note my former colleague passed today. I wish many of my Republican colleagues were here so they, too, could stand up and express their views and thoughts on what happened a year ago. I hope, even if they are not here today or tomorrow, that next week, they will come to the floor as well. Let their voices be heard. What do they think a year after on January 6? Is that acceptable behavior? What do they think about the efforts to try to restrict voting all across many places of the South? But that is going to change as more and more State legislatures come in this year. What are their views on these critical issues? Where do they stand on protecting Americans' right to vote and preserving our democracy, which was under assault a year ago? With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to seek unanimous consent to confirm Amanda Howe, President Biden's nominee to be the next Assistant Administrator for Mission Support at the Environmental Protection Agency. I believe that my friend Senator Lee is going to object to this consent request. I hope when he does that he will explain his objection to this extremely qualified nominee. I have known the nominee for more than 20 years and can speak directly to her talents and abilities. Amanda held a number of roles in the Commonwealth of Virginia, including serving as my assistant secretary of commerce and trade during my 10 years as Governor. Amanda also served then-Governor Kaine's administration and Governor McAuliffe's administration and has held other leadership positions, including serving as deputy and then acting chief of staff to Mayor Bill de Blasio in New York. Amanda led the planning and organization of the Queen's visit to Virginia in 2007, when we celebrated 400 years of connection to the UK. She helped plan the first-ever ticker tape parade for the U.S. women's soccer team to celebrate the first World Cup victory. She organized Pope Francis's visit to New York. Beyond being a talented operator, Amanda also possesses a wealth of knowledge on issues under the EPA's purview, having worked on roles focused on renewable energy. Amanda has been nominated to lead the EPA's Office of Mission Support, which directs the Agency's efforts to improve efficiency, coordination, and customer experiences for internal and external stakeholders and the public, including the protection of EPA's facilities and other assets nationwide that are terribly important to our government; IT management, for example, inside the EPA. It is my strong belief that Amanda has the requisite knowledge, expertise, and experience to carry out these critical functions at EPA. I am also very proud of the fact--and I thank the chair and ranking member of the EPW committee--that she got passed out on a voice vote. Now is the time to confirm Amanda so she can begin to oversee these critical management activities at the EPA. So I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 560, Amanda Howe, of Virginia, to be Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?